WHEN will the Muslims of Britain stand up to be counted?
When will they declare, loud and clear, with no qualifications or quibbles about Britain's foreign policy, that Islamic terrorism is WRONG?
Most of all, when will the Muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable, total truth: that Islamic terrorism is THEIR problem? THEY own it. And it is THEIR duty to face it and eradicate it.
To stop the denial, endless fudging and constant wailing that somehow it is everyone else's problem and, if Islamic terrorism exists at all, they are somehow the main victims.
Because until that happens the problem will never be resolved. And there will be more 7/7s and, sometime in the future, another airplane plot will succeed with horrific loss of innocent life.
Equally important, those British politicians who have seemed obsessed with pandering to, and even encouraging, this state of denial, must throw off their politically-correct blinkers and recognise the same truththat Muslim terrorism in Britain is the direct responsibility of British Muslims.
If only they would follow the lead of Home Secretary John Reid, whose tough, pragmatic, clear-sighted approach has been a breath of fresh air. Only then can they properly work out how to tackle it.
For instance, every airport in Britain is in chaos over the plane bomb-plot alert as every passenger is subjected to rigorous security checks. Why? They take lots of time, lots of staff, and are extremely expensive.
I'm a white 62-year-old 6ft 4ins suit-wearing ex-copI fly often, but do I really fit the profile of suicide bomber? Does the young mum with three tots? The gay couple, the rugby team, the middle-aged businessman?
No. But they are all getting exactly the same amount and devouring huge resources for no logical reason whatsoever. Yet the truth is Islamic terrorism in the West has been universally carried out by young Muslim men, usually of ethnic appearance, almost always travelling alone or in very small groups. A tiny percentage, I bet, of those delayed today have such characteristics.
This targeting of airport resources is called passenger profilingthe Israelis invented it and they've got probably the safest airports and airlines in the world.
In all my years at the front line of fighting terrorism, one truth was always clear communities beat terrorists, not governments or security forces. But communities can't beat terrorism unless they have the will to do so. My heart sank this week as I saw and read the knee-jerk reaction of friends and neighbours of those arrested in this latest incident, insisting it was all a mistake and the anti-terrorist squad had the wrong people.
I have no idea whether those arrested are guilty or not. But neither have those friends and neighbours. They spoke as if it was inconceivable such a thing could happen in their community; that those arrested were all good Muslims; that Islam is a religion of peace so no Muslim could dream of planning such an act.
But we heard the same from the family and friends of the 7/7 bombers, didn't we?
And the two young British Muslims who died as suicide bombers in Israel. Then there are the British Muslims known to have become suicide bombers in Iraq.
There is currently a huge, long-running and complex alleged Islamist bomb plot being tried at the Old Bailey. And a fistful of other cases of alleged Muslim terrorism plots such as the 21/7 London Underground case are also awaiting trial.
All this would suggest the blindingly obviousthat terrorism is a major problem for the Muslim community of Britain. Of course, there will be instant squealings that this is racism. It's not. It's exactly the same as recognising that, during the Northern Ireland troubles that left thousands dead, the IRA were totally based in the Catholic community and the UVF in the Protestant.
And that, most importantly, IRA terrorism only began to draw to a close when that Catholic community it was based in decided as a whole that it was no longer prepared to back violence as the only way forward. Interestingly, it was Catholic revulsion over republican terrorist atrocities such as Enniskillen and Omagh that fuelled that change.
Well, Muslim terrorism in Britain is based in, has its roots in, and grows in, our Muslim community. The madmen of 7/7 and other suicide bombings didn't hide among the Hindu communities, worship in the Sikh temples, recruit at Catholic churches, did they? It may be true that events in Iraq have angered sections of the Muslim community. I have no doubts, whatever Tony Blair says, that it was a catalyst. I also think it's entirely fair for Muslims, if they wish, to vocally oppose Britain's continuing involvement there.
I can recognise, too, that recent events in Lebanon inflame some people, and they want their voices of protest heard. The absolutely unacceptable problem is that this opposition is used by too many to turn a blind eye to, or excuse, terrorists in their midst.
Blasting a passenger airliner out of the sky, killing hundreds of innocent men, women and children, is NEVER acceptable. Under any circumstances. There is NEVER an excuse.
A terrible tragedy costing Muslim lives in Lebanon or Iraq or Afghanistan is never ever an excuse for terrorism here.
It is totally unacceptable, totally wrong. What one party perceives as a wrong, no matter how strongly they feel, does not, in turn, justify another wrong being done to avenge it.
And until every single member of the Muslim community believes that and preaches thatfrom an ordinary parent to imam or madrassa teacherterrorism can't be beaten.
Politicians must accept this truth, and do something about it. One example would be to tackle this chaos at our airports and the passenger profiling I described earlier. Another must is to reconsider ID cards. The importance of knowing whether someone really is who they say they are has never been higher.
This must be combined with improved border controls, logging exactly who goes OUT of the country as well as who comes in should also be reconsidered, whatever the politically correct among us may say. The time terrorism suspects are kept in custody before charge has also caused dissent. Currently the maximum is 28 daysit may well be this should be reconsidered and, if necessary, raised again to, say, 42 days.
Plainly, Muslim terrorism isn't going away. We need to consider everything in our battle to defeat it. But that's the responsibility of all.
Not least the community where, sadly for them, it is festering.
Lord Stevens is former commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 11:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We need more high profile figures like him speaking up
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"[Terrorism] is totally unacceptable, totally wrong. What one party perceives as a wrong, no matter how strongly they feel, does not, in turn, justify another wrong being done to avenge it. And until every single member of the Muslim community believes that and preaches thatfrom an ordinary parent to imam or madrassa teacherterrorism can't be beaten."
Or until Britain starts forcibly expelling those who preach otherwise. Same goes for us here in the States.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2006 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I think (British) Muslims have stood up and been counted.
#4
Exactly, SR. Lord Stevens appears to be operating under some false assumptions. Not the least of which is that the majority of British muslims are against terror. Recent polls indicate that is definitely NOT the case.
... It is now self-evident that there is an enemy within Britain who wants to destroy our way of life. Most of this relatively small group of fanatics are British-born Muslims who have been educated here and brought up within our tolerant democracy. Those looking for the outward signs that identify them as full of hatred would be hard-pressed to find them. Many seem all too ordinary, perhaps enthusiastic about football and cricket and living normal westernised existences in neat terraced houses. They work, study or run small businesses. Most show little indication that they have signed up to the distorted ideology of radical Islam, with its millennial ideology of bringing destruction to the corrupt West. As sleepers, they are perfect...
Posted by: ed ||
08/13/2006 08:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The great challenge for Britain is how to stop this and minimise the future risks. Nobody should underestimate the scale of the problem or the time needed. We already have a generation of disaffected Muslims who see any excuse, whether it is war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon, as a reason for killing their fellow citizens.
[...]
This low-level war is going to take a huge effort of will and courage. It is going to mean applying what may seem illiberal measures in order to save lives. In return, the state must exercise massive restraint and not abuse that responsibility."
We have gone to enormous lengths these last five years to deal with the Muslim threat with "non-illiberal" measures.
It's time to stop this bullshit-- both here and in Britain-- and start saying "GET OUT!!!"
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2006 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Most of this relatively small group of fanatics
#4
Agreed. But just saying "Get Out" puts the onus on the silicon simians (Yeah, like that could happen).
We will harshly tell them why, mark them and escort them to the piers, making ourselves rid of them; with no humanitarian aid ever again.
Asymmetrical Triangulation (at)
Posted by: at ||
08/13/2006 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Iff there are anti-American Americans, then there must be anti-Brit British, anti-Euro Euros,etc whom want to see their part of the world under OWG and Asian Communism-Totalitarianism at any cost. Radical Muslims may be the catalyst, but they are not the only ones.
The sense of frustration at the injustice faced by Muslims across the world as a consequence of the foreign policies of the West (principally the US) is palpable. Mr Blair's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire in response to the current war in Lebanon only reinforces the view held by more than half of British Muslims that the war on terror is a war on Islam.
In an increasingly globalised world, a bungled police raid in Forest Gate causes reverberations on the "Arab Street" just as the bombing of Qana leads to resentment in Bradford. The sense of the plight of the "ummah" (the global body of Muslims) simply grows stronger.
There is no doubt that all British Muslims, not just their self-proclaimed leaders, must to do more to combat intolerance in their midst. That task is made more difficult when, despite all the mass protests against the war in Iraq, the Govern-ment is seen not to have listened.
Mr Blair may justifiably argue that Muslims will always see the glass as half-empty. He did, after all, call for the intervention in Kosovo to save Muslim lives. However, the Govern-ment must recognise the anger that its foreign policies arouse.
There is much talk of strengthening the moderates and rooting out extremists, but policy makers should be aware of how rapidly the moderates are becoming frustrated. The disturbing reality is that as their frustration grows, so will the fringe prepared to resort to violence.
Ali Miraj is a Board Member of the Conservative Party Policy Review on International and National Security
#1
In other words.. give us what we want or we moderates will bomb you.
Give us the land of Israel, Give us Jammu and Kashmir. Give us Chechenya.
Give us our Sharia law.
Kill the cartoonists.
I for one am quite fed up with them all. The idea of travelling without hand luggage, without liquids, hell, I may have to fly nekkid next year.
I want planes reserved for muslims .. think of the movie CON-AIR. If you're muslim, fly on that airline. The other 5 billion people in the world can fly in their normal manner.
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The statistics certainly paint a bleak picture. One in three has no qualifications, the highest for any minority group; only 30 per cent gained GCSE grades A-C compared with 50 per cent across the population,
Yet the Hindus and Sikhs, who come from the same communities back in the subcontinent, are at the top of the education stats.
So why do Indian girls go to University while their muslim sisters remain semi-literate?
They had exactly the same opportunities when their parents and grandparents immigrated to the UK.
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
Tony Blair has been warned by leading British Muslims that the Iraq war and the UK's failure to use its influence to end Israeli attacks on civilians are fuelling extremism at home. Their views are set out in a letter as a full-page advertisement in newspapers.
The letter warns: "The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all."
It was signed by three of the four Muslim MPs - Sadiq Khan, Shahid Malik and Mohammed Sarwar - as well as three of the four Muslim members of the House of Lords - Lord Patel of Blackburn, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham and Baroness Uddin. It was also backed by 38 Muslim groups, including the Muslim Council of Britain, the Muslim Association of Britain, the British Muslim Forum and the British Muslim Forum.
Mr Khan said the Government's Middle East policy was seen as "unfair and unjust" by many people. "Whether we like it or not, such a sense of injustice plays into the hands of extremists," he said.
#4
"The sense of frustration at the injustice faced by Muslims across the world as a consequence of the foreign policies of the West (principally the US) is palpable."
Then GET OUT. Go back to the loathesome shitholes you came from. AND STAY THERE.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2006 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
The vast majority of the TV news pictures you see are produced by two TV news companies. Presented here is a case for how a large amount of money has been used to inject a clear bias into the heart of the global TV news gathering system. That this happens is not at question, whether it is by accident or design is harder to tell.
You may not realize it, but if you watch any TV news broadcast on any station anywhere in the world, there is a better than even chance you will view pictures from APTN. BBC, Fox, Sky, CNN and every major broadcaster subscribes to and uses APTN pictures. While the method by which they operate is interesting, it is the extra service this US owned and UK based company offers to Arab states that is really interesting. Check your blood pressure and then go to the article and read the explaination of how TV news gets an Anti-USA Anti-Israel Pro-Muslim bias.
Just in case you need reminding whose side they are on, just read the protest signs.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/13/2006 09:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shameful l.
Posted by: j. D. Lux ||
08/13/2006 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Misguided fools. Others are the enemy in our midst. It is difficult to believe that these people in SF don't realize who there enemy is. The islamo crazies would kill them and all their relatives in a minute. Oh, I forgot they are special.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has a problem. It is a four-letter word called Iraq. And she is doing her best to exorcise it from her political resume.
But her 12-minute political rant against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld won't cleanse her palate. Nor did it help her cause that Rumsfeld skewered her rant with the simple "My goodness."
If the New York senator is to be the Democrat presidential nominee, she will have to ultimately say that her vote for the war was wrong -- or she loses the nomination.
She is trying to do everything that she can do -- sans that admission. But without her confessing that "I was wrong and I am sorry," it won't work. Not when John Kerry and John Edwards are saying they voted for the war, they were wrong and they regret it.
Nor when Al Gore and Sen. Russ Feingold rise to the top of the heap as the 2008 anti-war presidential candidates. They have no votes for the war, so the war can't come back to haunt them.
MoveOn.org has moved in and only a come-to-the-left moment will win the hearts and souls of the Democratic Party's re-born McGovern wing. Without an admission from Clinton that she was wrong, the door opens for the likes of Gore to claim the nomination from her and be the big winner after Joe Lieberman's fall. In the eyes of many Democrats, Gore no longer is a sore loser, but a principled leader.
Our country is politically restless. Change is on everybody's mind. The war in Iraq has become the symbol of that change.
But using something as serious as the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Rumsfeld as her presidential steppingstone went too far. The questions that preceded hers touched on serious, substantive concerns: readiness, Lebanon and the prospect of a civil war in Iraq. The only line that even came close to being political was hers.
Part of the problem with this war is that the best public relations effort has been spun not by our own administration but by rogue political groups such as al-Qaida.
And Rumsfeld realizes that communication is not always his strongest suit. During a Tribune-Review editorial board last week at the Pentagon, he was open about his failure to communicate at times the challenge and complexities of this war. That failure has contributed to the country's restlessness.
"Even to this day I do not spend as much time thinking about how to communicate as I do doing the things I have to do here. I mean, we just evacuated 15,000 people out of Lebanon -- moved a major city. ... We've got so many things going on in this department," he said. "And I wasn't recruited and asked to take this job because I'd spent my life in communications," said Rumsfeld. "I just haven't."
Rumsfeld does not suffer fools lightly. Clinton may have thought her wrecking-ball questions would be devastatingly effective. They weren't. "Wars are terrible things," Rumsfeld told me. "(But) we have to live in this world. ... We can't stick our heads in the sand and pretend it's not there."
"The American people need to appreciate the danger. ... People first of all have to understand that ... put a value unit, a weight, to it."
Clinton attacked Rumsfeld to bolster her anti-war credentials.
Yet Rummy's "My goodness" may still be ringing in her ears.
#2
"If the New York senator is to be the Democrat presidential nominee, she will have to ultimately say that her vote for the war was wrong -- or she loses the nomination."
Yep. It's sure starting to look that way.
Face it, Hillary: the inmates have taken over that lunatic asylum you call the Democratic Party. Not only that, but most former Staff have stripped off their whites and joined the droolers, head-bangers, screamers and Catheter Chronics in throwing furniture out the Day Room windows, smearing feces on the walls of the Warden's Office, and urinating triumphantly on the astonished crowds below.
Not too many of you left, Hillary-- poor Joe Lieberman is holed up in the Men's Room, cowering against an onslaught of gibbering Kossacks, while you sit huddled in what's left of the Nurse's Station, besieged by drooling mucoids.
Poor Nurse Ratched. Life's a bitch. And if you get elected President, it only gets worse. Much, MUCH worse...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2006 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
What sets Lieberman apart from fellow Democrats is his belief in America.
By Michael Barone
Sen. Joseph Lieberman's narrow defeat in Connecticut's Democratic primary on Tuesday tells us something important about his party. Mr. Lieberman, who is running in November as an independent, can argue plausibly that his loss represented the judgment of only a sliver of the electorate: Connecticut, where most major-party nominations are decided by party conventions, has a tradition of low participation in primaries, and less than one-sixth of the registered voters took the trouble to cast their ballots in this contest. The winner, Ned Lamont, thus got the votes of less than one-tenth of Connecticut voters.
Still, this was a well-publicized contest, and one in which Sen. Lieberman's opponents had reason, from their point of view, to target him. And not just for his staunch support of the American military action in Iraq. On a number of issues, Mr. Lieberman has been at odds with large constituencies in the Democratic Party.
As an observant Orthodox Jew, he has consistently portrayed himself as a man of religious faith, while one-quarter of John Kerry voters in 2004 described their religion as "other" or "none." He has been a critic of vulgarity and obscenity in television programs and movies, while the Democrats enjoy massive financial and psychic support from Hollywood. He has supported school-choice measures, while one of his party's major organized constituencies is the teachers' unions. And he has been an American exceptionalist--a believer in the idea that this is a special and specially good country--while his party's base is increasingly made up of people with attitudes that are, in professor Samuel Huntington's term, transnational. In their view, our country is no better than any other, and in many ways it's a whole lot worse.
Continued on Page 49
#3
It still looks like the far left is flexing its control of the party and forcing the moderates out. Now the party is free for the rich grandkids who never worked an honest day in their lives to run something. The dems will fail.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/13/2006 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The moderates are already mostly gone. Now the far left is purging the liberals. Then, I guess the Boslsheviks purge the Menshaviks, then the Stalinists the Trotskyites, then the Bhukarin clique...
As long as it happens quickly enough, the Democrats will lose all theit seats and some new party can pick up the pieces, like in 1854.
#6
I think the far left knows quite well they are killing the Democratic party. They intend to. They also intend to put an openly socialist, or even farther left, party in its place.
#7
The wackos do not necessarily want to win. That would mean having to compromise on their pet agendas with some of the icky moderates and libs, and occasionally the eeeeevvvvilll Republicans.
That is not their goal, as this frustrated Dem sees it. They want to be morally pure. Defeats are ok as long as their virtue is intact. (Considering how many of them are atheistic, it's the one place where they can safely express any kind of pent-up religious feeling without looking like, you know, those backward types who stupidly fill up the pews in churches and synagogues and believe in a supernatural presence. JMHO.)
#8
I agree with you, Blondie, if we're talking the rank and file.
Kos, Soros and their ilk are another matter. I think they do want power and they want to destroy the central/liberal party to force a more radical one. JMO, though.
The real strategic winner of the latest Israeli invasion of Lebanon is unquestionably Iran. For the first time since the Shah lost his Peacock Throne a generation ago, revolutionary Iran is the Middle Easts regional power broker of war and peace. The geopolitical omens are perfect for Iran. Hezbollah has again destroyed the myth of Israeli military invincibility forever, with its Katyusha rockets raining down on Hadera.
Hezbollah, purely a Lebanese sectarian militia and local political machine only three weeks ago,
I call bulls**t. Hezb has been a Iranian proxy army from the start.
is now the iconic symbol of Arab pride and Muslim honour, a status once enjoyed by the Palestinian fedayeen for three years between the end of the Six Day War and their destruction at Black September in Jordan. I wonder if the cheerleaders of Israel in Washington understand the catastrophic, even genocidal implications of Ehud Olmerts Lebanon assault on American foreign policy in the Middle East.
One, Iran is now the dominant force in Lebanese politics, the new patron of Syrias besieged Baathist regime and Hamas, the voice of visceral anti-Zionist and anti-American rage. There are no winners in a war where the world weeps over the graves of Arab babies. This is a monumental, even existential disaster for Israel.
Two, Irans influence in Arab geopolitics has been amplified by Israeli atrocities and Hezbollahs resilience to the IDFs firestorm has overwhelmed Arab historys pathological Shia-Sunni schism. Iran now dominates the politics of the Iraqi Shia heartland. With $70 crude oil, an ideological vassal and strategic deterrent in Hezbollah, the Syrian connection and a proxy war on its own terms against Israel, Iran is the new rising star in the Middle East.
Three, Hezbollahs alliance with Hamas, success against Israel on the battlefield and open contempt for pro-American Arab regimes is a political earthquake in the making. A public opinion backlash forced the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt to reverse their initial condemnation of Hezbollah. The Saudi cabinet even spoke of the war option against Israel, something last uttered as Saudi financed Egypt prepared to attack Israel on the Suez Canal and King Faisal ordered the oil embargo in the autumn of 1973.
As with the PLO in the 1970s, the Arab states will have to factor in Hezbollahs power to destabilise pro-West regimes. The cataclysm of the 1948 Arab defeat led to successive coups d etat in Cairo, Damascus, Baghdad and Tripoli as pro-Western kings and Presidents lost their last shred of legitimacy. Could history repeat itself with the new Arab generation?
Four, Americas withdrawal from Iraq is inevitable if the Democrats win the Senate in November and the WhiteHouse in 2008. This scenario exponentially raises the risk of a regional Arab-Israeli war instigated by Iran. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Iraq could well attack Israel once Uncle Sam cuts and runs in Baghdad. So the Middle East reverts to its geopolitical balance of terror of before October 1973 when coalitions of entire Arab states, not mere guerillas or militia warlords, attacked Israel on the battlefield despite suicidal odds.
This is the Armageddon scenario for both Jews and Arabs, the requiem for those of us peaceniks who staked our lives on a reconciliation among the warring children of Abraham. Israel is to America now what Serbia proved to the imperial Germany in August 1914. A brutal vassal state whose arrogance and delusions of power wrote the obituary for world peace.
Like Serbia in 1914 and Japan and Germany in 1939, Israel is a threat to world peace. This is a seminal moment in Arab history, the summer when the Middle Easts Pax Americana balance of power met its doom and Zionism its nemesis. We now live in a world where Dimona and Bushire join the nuclear axis of evil and must now face the bitter reality that the endgame of the Lebanon war could well be a radioactive mushroom cloud over the Holy Land.
#2
Israel is to America now what Serbia proved to the imperial Germany in August 1914. A brutal vassal state whose arrogance and delusions of power wrote the obituary for world peace.
Rubbish! Serbia was allied with Russia against Austria-Hungary, which was allied with Germany.
#3
"enhanced by Israeli atrocities" = everything else is a lie
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/13/2006 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You know the [GOD/Faith-based] Left - the Islamist-based terror groups innumerable rocket and other attacks on Israel is wholly offset + "justified" by Israel's one invasion in summer 2006, both before during and after. IFF LEBANON'S ANTI-ISRAELI RANTS IS ANY EXAMPLE, THE FUTURE OF THE ME IS A DEMOCRATIC ISRAEL SURROUNDED BY IRANIAN PROVINCES = IRANIAN-CONTROLLED PROXY STATES. Like MadMoud, Nasrey has already "accepted" = pre-rejected the new ceasefire.
SOON after the British police announced last week that they had broken up a plot to blow up aircraft across the Atlantic, President Bush declared the affair a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.
British officials, on the other hand, referred to the men in custody as main players, and declined to discuss either their motives or ideology so that they would not jeopardize criminal proceedings.
The difference in these initial public characterizations was revealing: The American president summoned up language reaffirming that the United States is locked in a global war in which its enemies are bound together by a common ideology, and a common hatred of democracy. For the moment, the British carefully stuck to the toned-down language of law enforcement.
Continued on Page 49
#1
"A critical debate in America today among political candidates and among national security experts is whether five years of war declarations and war-making have helped to make the United States more secure."
Oh, bullshit.
To whatever extent our actions have failed to secure their objectives, it is because the liberal establishment of this country-- the Democratic Party, their paid propagandists masquerading as "the media" and their lefty indoctrination cadres in our universities-- has singlemindedly devoted itself to convincing the enemy we are weak, irresolute, and on the verge of giving up and going home any minute now.
Had they not done so, the results so far would have been drastically different.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2006 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
For budding suicide bombers all roads seem to lead to Pakistan and last weeks global alert over a suspect massive terrorist attack did nothing to dispel that view.
The moment I heard the first news about the airline plot, I knew it was just a matter of time until we heard the word Pakistan, said a US intelligence agent. Whether its 9/11, the Bali bombs, 7/7 and now this, Pakistan is always the connection. Thats gotta raise some questions." The roots of Pakistans reputation as a haven for jihadists run deep. It was, after all, in the city of Peshawar that Al-Qaeda was born after ISI, Pakistans military intelligence, started to recruit Arabs to fight in the Afghan jihad.
It was ISI that turned the Taliban from a bunch of religious students into a movement that took over Afghanistan. According to Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan, ISI continues to provide a safe haven, training them to fight British soldiers in Helmand.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 08:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He points out that many senior figures in Pakistans military establishment had probably run camps: The attitude of condoning extremist behaviour is so pervasive that it may be difficult for people to adjust to a new attitude of cracking down on them.
"New attitude"?
If you ran a terrorist training camp, you're a terrorist yourself. You can't "crack down" on anything.
In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (its official name, seldom mentioned in the media), these camps are funded by the army.
Let me repeat the offical motto of the Pakistani Army
"Iman-Taqwa-Jihad fi sabilillah "(Faith, Fear of Allah, Jihad in the way of Allah)
If your motto is Jihad in the way of Allah, will you fight jihadists?
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
KSM was picked up in the military cantonment of Rawalpindi.
Probably a neighbor of Perv. Makes you wonder where in 'pindi Osama is living
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 8:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Simple. They are on their own side, trying to play the West against their homegrown monsters for cash. If it is lucrative for them in some way to turn some of the monsters over, they will do it. If it is more convenient for them to let them run amok, they will do that. Convince them there is something in it for them and they will be your "friend".
#5
That is exactly how VS Naipaul described Pakistan
Few writers have offended their readers as regularly as V.S. Naipaul has. From his first travel book, which disparaged the West Indies as a "dot on the map" where "nothing was created," to his most recent, in which he dismissed Pakistan as a "criminal enterprise," the Trinidad-born author of Indian ancestry has shown a staggering capacity for insensitivity and prejudice. Africa is filled with "bow-and-arrow people." India is "an area of darkness." "V.S. Nightfall," Derek Walcott has called him; like a man who turns his back to the sun, Naipaul sees the world through his own shadow.
Posted by: john ||
08/13/2006 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Just whose side is Pakistan really on?"
Their own.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/13/2006 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
By Niall Ferguson It is funny that the acronym for the United Nations is UN. It always makes me think of negatives. Unhelpful. Unrealistic. Unproductive. Unhappy. This has been an especially unhappy summer for the United Nations. I am not only talking about its month-long paralysis while war between Israel and Hezbollah has devastated Lebanese and Israeli cities, or the manifest impotence of its peacekeeping force in Lebanon, four members of which were killed on July 25 by Israeli forces.
And which over the couse of 30 years or so have studiously avoided actually keeping any peace...
Despite all this, most people still tend to assume that the UN is the best place to look for a solution to this latest crisis in the Middle East. Indeed, on Friday, members of the UN Security Council finally approved a resolution calling for a ceasefire. But who seriously expects the United Nations to prevent al-Qaeda (or its latest imitator) from trying to blow up passenger planes in midair? Those who dreamt up the "Lockerbie-meets-9/11" bomb plot clearly did intend "mass murder on an unimaginable scale". All the UN has to offer in response is (as they say in New York) yada yada yada on an unimaginable scale.
I had a look at the UN website on Friday to see how the "international community" was reacting to the transatlantic horror that might have been. It didn't take me long to locate a promising page entitled "UN Action against Terrorism". Clicking on "Latest Developments" took me to Kofi Annan's "Recommendations for Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy".
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
This is a soul-searching moment for the Jewish left. Actually, for many Jewish liberals, navigating the gloomy politics of the Middle East is like walking with two left feet.
I would know. For six years I was the literary editor of Tikkun magazine, a leading voice for progressive Jewish politics that never avoided subjecting Israel to moral scrutiny. I also teach human rights at a Jesuit university, imparting the lessons of reciprocal grievances and the moral necessity to regard all people with dignity and mutual respect. And I am deeply sensitive to Palestinian pain, and mortified when innocent civilians are used as human shields and then cynically martyred as casualties of war.
Yet, since 9/11 and the second intifada, in which suicide bombings and beheadings have become the calling cards of Arab diplomacy, and with Hamas and Hezbollah emerging as elected entities that, paradoxically, reject the first principles of liberal democracy, I feel a great deal of moral anguish. Perhaps I have been naive all along.
And I am not alone. Many Jews are in my position--the children and grandchildren of labor leaders, socialists, pacifists, humanitarians, antiwar protesters--instinctively leaning left, rejecting war, unwilling to demonize, and insisting that violence only breeds more violence. Most of all we share the profound belief that killing, humiliation and the infliction of unnecessary pain are not Jewish attributes.
However, the world as we know it today--post-Holocaust, post-9/11, post-sanity--is not cooperating. Given the realities of the new Middle East, perhaps it is time for a reality check. For this reason, many Jewish liberals are surrendering to the mindset that there are no solutions other than to allow Israel to defend itself--with whatever means necessary. Unfortunately, the inevitability of Israel coincides with the inevitability of anti-Semitism.
This is what more politically conservative Jews and hardcore Zionists maintained from the outset. And it was this nightmare that the Jewish left always refused to imagine. . . .
Scene: a man riding a horse on the road to Damascus. As he reaches center stage, a lightening bolt knocks him from the saddle . . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
08/13/2006 08:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All this time I thought they were communists who happened to be Jewish. Perhaps they really did care and were acting in good faith.
#2
He certainly praises his incredible wonderfulness enough, doesn't he?
He is promoting himself and his like as if they were the nicest people in the world.
Great. Since they're so nice, they can apologize for decades of calling conservatives nasty names and imputing vile motives.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
08/13/2006 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Oh they are nice people. And it is the nice people who wonder what the hell went wrong, when they are dragged from their cars and are beaten to death by the same groups they patronised.
#5
Most of all we share the profound belief that killing, humiliation and the infliction of unnecessary pain are not Jewish attributes.
So we are taught. But that does not mean that necessary killing and the infliction of necessary pain are also not Jewish attributes. Being Jewish is not intended to be a suicide pact. I'm glad Mr. Rosenbaum has noticed that reality is giving him a bad mugging, but it would helpful if he would complete his epiphany a bit more quickly, and start acting on the logical and necessary conclusions.
#3
Hizbollah knew that effective use of atrocity propaganda, used to blur their use of human shields, would blunt any possible Eurabian concern about use of missiles against civilians. They knew they could stall IDF advances by means of a defense-in-depth system, that would place IDF troops under constant pressure from mobile sources. From the kidnappings in Gaza and north Israel, this war was planned in Teheran. And, given a phony ceasefire and relatively unimpeded land travel of Iranians to Syria, final war preparations will begin the moment the ceasefire begins.
A U.S.-backed diplomatic pact to end more than a month of war between Israel and Islamic militants in Lebanon may stop the worst of the killing and retire the daily television images of burning buildings and suffocated children.
It will not do much to improve the image of America in the Arab world.
This war is widely viewed as a joint U.S.-Israeli venture that slaughtered innocents and wrecked homes, roads and businesses in a fragile democracy the Bush administration has said it supports.
President Bush on Saturday urged world leaders to turn the words of a U.N. cease-fire deal into action, even as Israel staged wide-ranging airstrikes across Lebanon and sent commandos into the Hezbollah heartland.
Airstrikes killed at least 19 people in Lebanon, including 15 in one village, while Hezbollah rockets wounded at least five people in Israel in the hours after the unanimous U.N. vote. Israel says it may fight another week despite the cease-fire deal.
A hit piece from a pro.
Amid the political and diplomatic fallout from Israel's faltering invasion of Lebanon, some Israeli officials are privately blaming President George W. Bush for egging Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into the ill-conceived military adventure against the Hezbollah militia in south Lebanon.
Bush conveyed his strong personal support for the military offensive during a White House meeting with Olmert on May 23, according to sources familiar with the thinking of senior Israeli leaders.
Olmert, who like Bush lacks direct wartime experience, agreed that a dose of military force against Hezbollah might damage the guerrilla group's influence in Lebanon and intimidate its allies, Iran and Syria, countries that Bush has identified as the chief obstacles to U.S. interests in the Middle East.
As part of Bush's determination to create a "new Middle East" one that is more amenable to U.S. policies and desires Bush even urged Israel to attack Syria, but the Olmert government refused to go that far, according to Israeli sources.
#1
The fallacy for Bush is that he talks tough which is good, but makes the military fight weak which is a disaster. Unfortunately, Bush has the correct instincts, but he has no miltary history like Powell, who learned that striking rapidly and applying maximum damage is absolutely necessary. And Bush needs to realize that having reporters in battle zones is disasterous. This needs to be stopped. A few unfortunate casualties of reporters would end it. There is nothing pretty about combat. Do it and get it over with. Until Bush grasps this, he will continue to make messes.
#7
An alternate reality heard from. If ever there were a man for his times, it is George W. Bush. If it weren't for the 22nd amendment, he would be the best man for 2008.
#8
I dsagree. We need a new Reagan. Bush hasn't fixed the borders, hasnt take any backbone actions against congress over taxes and spending, has taken a soft edge with our enemies in foreign policy as of late.
Bush is better than the alternatives we have, but not nearly as good as a Reagan, or even a Truman woudl be.
Unfortunately, we are likely to have a battle between a mediocre Republican and a lefty looney
Democrat in '08
#10
Sorry, Reagan was no good in a real fight. It pained him when the boys got hurt, and he went wobbly.
This piece takes all the tired memes used against the Bush administration and repackages them for Israel. They had better lay in a supply of ear plugs. Disgusting.
By YOSSI KUPERWASSER
Jerusalem Post
Aug. 13, 2006 1:53 | Updated Aug. 13, 2006 9:10
I don't agree with this analysis, but it's worth reading it
Many pundits in Washington, among them supporters of Israel, anticipated better results from the month-long war against Hizbullah.
They were hoping for Israel to put Iran and Syria on the defensive by using IDF military might to eradicate Hizbullah much faster. Some have already concluded that this was an opportunity squandered.
The truth is that the last month has not been "a walk in the park" for Israel. We have been fighting a ruthless, well-armed and well-trained, albeit small, army that has spent the last six years preparing for this war while we have been busy on many other fronts.
Nevertheless, those in Washington who are disappointed with the results should consider a list of dividends that America has received from our campaign: First and foremost, Israel has sent a loud and clear message that any terrorist entity that carries out an act of aggression will pay a heavy price.
Moreover, we have proven that a "spoiled" Western society, as Hizbullah perceived Israel, can withstand barrages of rocket-fire on its civilians and still maintain an unfaltering resolution to stand up and fight.
Second, by exerting heavy military pressure on Hizbullah and the Lebanese government, we forced the collapse of Nasrallah's strategy that was based on unaccountability and terror-deterrence.
In so doing, we created the necessary conditions to compel the international community to take long-overdue measures to implement earlier UN resolutions that the free world hopes will ultimately turn Lebanon into an accountable, sovereign nation.
If this happens, Syria and Iran would be the main losers of this war. Security Council Resolution 1701 approved Friday is the direct result of that pressure, and now it is up to the international community to ensure that it is implemented.
Third, we helped people across the globe world understand the extent of the threat that Iranian radicalism poses to the entire free world, and why it is so important to prevent it from becoming a nuclear power.
Fourth, we exposed Syria's role in supporting terror - both by facilitating the transport of Iranian weapons to Hizbullah, and by supplying its own heavy, long-range rockets and other weaponry to this terror organization. You might be surprised to know that until this war, the international community had refused to acknowledge that Syria supplied these rockets to Hizbullah.
Fifth, we have shown how irresponsible the Russians were in supplying Syria with state-of-the-art weapons that have ended up in the hands of Hizbullah.
And finally, we helped the world to better understand the dangers posed by Hizbullah's fundamentalist brainwashing machine. In terms of the systematic and deliberate killing of civilians, the difference between Iranian-sponsored Hizbullah and Nazi Germany is that while the SS sought to conceal its deeds - including from German society - Hizbullah proudly proclaims its successes in killing Jewish civilians. This stream of distorted Islamist extremism is cut from the same cloth of twisted ideology to which the planners of the thwarted terror attacks on airliners flying out of London subscribe.
This is a short list of what Israel has achieved in the last month. These significant, concrete advances should go a long way to satisfying those wondering what Israel has done lately for those who live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
The writer is a brigadier-general and former head of IDF Military Intelligence's research department.
#1
These significant, concrete advances should go a long way to satisfying those wondering what Israel has done lately for those who live in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
Those capable of acepting the argument, wouldn't need to be convinced in the first place.
Bush has formally notified Congress he's sending jet fuel etc. to Israel. Congress can veto it within 60 days (or do they have to approve? I forget ...) At any rate, in practical terms this is a big expense out of the Defense budget, which is already strained with Iraq etc.
The writer is reminding Congress of what they are getting for their investment.
#3
lotp: Bush has formally notified Congress he's sending jet fuel etc. to Israel. Congress can veto it within 60 days (or do they have to approve? I forget ...) At any rate, in practical terms this is a big expense out of the Defense budget, which is already strained with Iraq etc.
The Pentagon notified Congress on Friday that it planned to sell Israel JP-8 aviation fuel valued at up to $210 million to help its aircraft "keep peace and security in the region."
Israel sought the fuel about six months ago as part of a continuing purchase program, a knowledgeable Pentagon official said.
The last time an Israeli jet fuel request triggered a congressional notification was in September 2004. The threshold for such notice in Israel's case is $50 million. Israel's previous, congressionally notified, request sought fuel worth up to $102 million if all options were exercised.
#4
I think the most important thing this war has done is make the Tranzis at the UN (France, Italy, Spain?) faced up to the fact that resolutions are all well and good, but it's a whole different matter when you have to enforce them.
The interesting part comes when those 15,000 troops are on the ground.
The US government was closely involved in the planning of Israel's military operations against Islamic militant group Hezbollah even before the July 12 kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers, The New Yorker magazine reported in its latest issue.
The kidnapping triggered a month-long Israeli operation in South Lebanon that is expected to come to an end on Monday.
But Pulitzer Prize-winning US journalist Seymour Hersh writes that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were convinced that a successful Israeli bombing campaign against Hezbollah could ease Israel's security concerns and also serve as a prelude to a potential US preemptive attack to destroy Iran's nuclear installations.
Citing an unnamed Middle East expert with knowledge of the current thinking of the Israeli and US governments, Israel had devised a plan for attacking Hezbollah -- and shared it with Bush administration officials -- well before the July 12 kidnappings.
The expert added that the White House had several reasons for supporting a bombing campaign, the report said.
If there was to be a military option against Iran, it had to get rid of the weapons Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation against Israel, Hersh writes.
Citing a US government consultant with close ties to Israel, Hersh also reports that earlier this summer, before the Hezbollah kidnappings, several Israeli officials visited Washington "to get a green light" for a bombing operation following a Hezbollah provocation, and "to find out how much the United States would bear."
"The Israelis told us it would be a cheap war with many benefits," the magazine quotes the consultant as saying. "Why oppose it? We'll be able to hunt down and bomb missiles, tunnels, and bunkers from the air. It would be a demo for Iran."
US government officials have denied the charges.
Nonetheless, Hersh writes, a former senior intelligence official says some officers serving with the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain deeply concerned that the administration will have a far more positive assessment of the air campaign than they should.
"There is no way that (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and Cheney will draw the right conclusion about this," the report quotes the former official as saying. "When the smoke clears, they'll say it was a success, and they'll draw reinforcement for their plan to attack Iran." Actually, if this is the case, then Cheney and Rumsfeld will be very correct in that Hezbollah has been "reduced"; and with the willing UN fools there to slow the Hezbollah re-occupation, all Israel will have to be concerned about in the short term are their longest range missiles. Which, of course, would give the US a lot of time to reduce Iran.
#5
It feels weird hoping that Sy is at least right about the US hitting Iran part...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
08/13/2006 14:33 Comments ||
Top||
#6
#5 - I sure hope we're going to hit Iran. Soon.
Even a stopped idiot is right once in a while.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/13/2006 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A dirty regime like Iran's, that somewhat allows foreign travel, would be riddled with CIA walk-in "assets." Accurate Iran intelligence would get to the White House; it would not get to Seymour Hersch.
Iran has millions of Kurds, Azeris, Khurasanis, Balochis and Arabs who want out. The bulk of Iranian oil is in areas where Kurds and Arabs are original peoples. We could make deals with them and boot the Persians back to Persia. They don't recognize Israel's sovereignty; why should we respect theirs? Last I heard, Iran only exists because the US chased the Red Army out of its north. Mike Wallace should be making that point in tonight's interview.
#9
I must confess to feeling somewhat conflicted. Where I work, the access of (now) T5 nation citizens is severely restricted - yet I have met several Iranians who spoke virtually perfect English, understood the situation when I told them I had to deny them access - and seemed to hold no grudge as they left.
These were nice, normal people - not at all like the idiots we see on TV or hear about in the news protesting against the US - yet they are paying the penalty for their cuntry's misdeeds. Yet, I can't help thinking that as they left they were thinking about what assholes we are here in the US (and what an asshole I was for denying them access to the Hill).
I'm doing my job, but at times it just doesn't seem right to deny these people the same access that we give to citizens of the PRC and a dozen other questionable countries. I'd deny access to any MM or anyone who even looked like a mad mullah, but...
And at the same time...these are college students by and large...and what do we know about Islamic college students from recent news?
This job gets more difficult by the day sometimes...
#10
FNC's HEARTLAND wid JOHN GIBSON has a lady expert on whom claimed that, according to her sources within Iran, Iran is likely planning to "hit Israel", "attack Israel, or "nuke Israel" come August 22nd [or shortly after], and that despite the new ceasefire between Israel-Hezbollah Iran is in the process of constructing bomb shelters + various types of mil exercises. Gibson's panel were in rough agreement that Iran should not be underestimated to launch Nuke/WMD attacks regardless of how few or the quantity they actually have, and that Iran is using the Lebanon fighting, etal. as a cover/diversion for its nuclear programs.. i.e. to delay any Western or International effort to stop its progs.
Prior to September 11, the general consensus was that conventional Middle East armies were paper tigers and that their terrorist alternatives were best dealt with by bombing them from a distance as in Lebanon, Afghanistan, Iraq, east Africa, etc. and then letting them sort out their own rubble.
Then following 9/11, the West adopted a necessary change in strategy that involved regime change and the need to win hearts and minds to ensure something better was established in place of the deposed dictator or theocrat. That necessitated close engagements with terrorists in their favored urban landscape. After the last four years, we have learned just how difficult that struggle can be, especially in light of the type of weapons $500 billion in Middle East windfall petroleum profits can buy, when oil went from $20 a barrel to almost $80 over the last few years. To best deal with certain difficulties weve encountered in these battles thus far, perhaps the United States should adopt the following set of surreal rules of war.
1. Any death enemy or friendly, accidental or deliberate, civilian or soldier favors the terrorists. The Islamists have no claim on morality; Westerners do and show it hourly. So, in a strange way, images of the dead and dying are attributed only to our failing. If ours are killed, it is because those in power were not careful (inadequate body armor, unarmored humvees, etc), most likely due to some supposed conspiracy (Halliburton profiteering, blood for oil, wars for Israel , etc.). When Muslim enemies are killed, whether by intent or accidentally, the whole arsenal of Western postmodern thought comes into play. For the United States to have such power over life and death, the enemy appears to the world as weak, sympathetic, and victimized; we as strong and oppressive. Terrorists are still constructed as the other and thus are seen as suffering doctored photos or not through the grim prism of Western colonialism, racism, and imperialism.
In short, it is not just that Western public opinion wont tolerate many losses; it wont tolerate for very long killing the enemy either unless the belligerents are something akin to the white, Christian Europeans of Milosevics Serbia, who, fortunately for NATO war planners in the Balkans, could not seek refuge behind any politically correct paradigm and so were bombed with impunity. Remember, multiculturalism always trumps fascism: the worst homophobe, the intolerant theocrat, and the woman-hating bigot is always sympathetic if he wears some third-world garb, mouths anti-Americanism, and looks most un-European. To win these wars, our soldiers must not die or kill.
2. All media coverage of fighting in the Middle East is ultimately hostile and for a variety of reasons. Since the 1960s too many reporters have seen their mission as more than disinterested news gathering, but rather as near missionary: they seek to counter the advantages of the Western capitalist power structure by preparing the news in such a way as to show us the victims of profit-making and an affluent elite. Second, most fighting is far from home and dangerous. Trash the U.S. military and you might suffer a bad look at a well-stocked PX as the downside for winning the Pulitzer; trash Hezbollah or Hamas, and you might end up headless on the side of the road. Third, while in a southern Lebanon or the Green Zone, it is always safer to outsource a story and photos to local stringers, whose sympathies are usually with the enemy. A doctored photo that exaggerates Israeli war crimes causes a mini-controversy for a day or two back in the States; a doctored photo that exaggerates Hezbollah atrocities wins an RPG in your hotel window. To win these wars, there must be no news of them.
3. The opposition whether an establishment figure like Howard Dean or an activist such as Cindy Sheehan ultimately prefers the enemy to win. In their way of thinking, there is such a reservoir of American strength that no enemy can ever really defeat us at home and so take away our Starbucks lattes, iPods, Reeboks, or 401Ks. But being checked in optional wars in Iraq , or seeing Israel falter in Lebanon , has its advantages: a George Bush and his conservatives are humiliated; the military-industrial complex learns to be a little bit more humble; and guilt over living in a prosperous Western suburb is assuaged. When a Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton unlike a Nixon, Reagan, or Bush sends helicopters or bombs into the Middle East desert, it is always as a last resort and with reluctance, and so can be grudgingly supported. To win these wars, a liberal Democrat must wage them.
4. Europeans have shown little morality, but plenty of influence, abroad and here at home during Middle East wars. Europeans, who helped to bomb Belgrade , now easily condemn Israel in the skies over Beirut . They sold Saddam his bunkers and reactor, and won in exchange sweetheart oil concessions. Iran could not build a bomb without Russian and European machine tools. Iran is not on any serious European embargo list; much of the off-the-shelf weaponry so critical to Hezbollah was purchased through European arms merchants. And if they are consistent in their willingness to do business with any tyrant, the Europeans also know how to spread enough aid or money around to the Middle East , to ensure some protection and a prominent role in any postwar conference. Had we allowed eager Europeans to get in on the postbellum contracts in Iraq , they would have muted their criticism considerably. To win these wars, we must win over the Europeans by ensuring they can always earn a profit.
5. To fight in the Middle East, the United States and Israel must enlist China , Russia , Europe , or any nation in the Arab world to fight its wars. China has killed tens of thousands in Tibet in a ruthless war leading to occupation and annexation. Russia leveled Grozny and obliterated Chechnyans. Europeans helped to bomb Belgrade , where hundreds of civilians were lost to collateral damage. Egyptians gassed Yemenis; Iraqis gassed Kurds; Iraqis gassed Iranians; Syrians murdered thousands of men, women, and children in Hama ; Jordanians slaughtered thousands of Palestinians. None received much lasting, if any, global condemnation. In the sick moral calculus of the worlds attention span, a terrorist who commits suicide in Guantanamo Bay always merits at least 500 dead Kurds, 1,000 Chechnyans, or 10,000 Tibetans. To win these wars, we need to outsource the job to those who can fight them with impunity.
6. Time is always an enemy. Most Westerners are oblivious to criticism if they wake up in the morning and learn their military has bombed a Saddam or sent a missile into Afghanistan and the war was begun and then ended all while they were sleeping. In contrast, 6-8 weeks about the length of the Balkan or Afghanistan war is the limit of our patience. After that, Americans become so sensitive to global criticism that they begin to hate themselves as much as others do. To win these wars, they should be over in 24 hours but at all cost no more than 8 weeks.
Silly, you say, are such fanciful rules? Of course but not as absurd as the wars now going on in the Middle East .
#2
"6-8 weeks about the length of the Balkan or Afghanistan war is the limit of our patience. After that, Americans become so sensitive to global criticism that they begin to hate themselves as much as others do. To win these wars, they should be over in 24 hours but at all cost no more than 8 weeks."
Unfortunately this, more than anything else, is going to be the single biggest lesson any future U.S. President will absorb from our response to 9/11 so far: in the event of another catastrophic terrorist attack, any response must be completed in a matter of a few weeks-- not months, and certainly not years-- lest it become a severe political liability. The notion of a "generational conflict" is absurd so long as the American public has an attention span of mere days, and so long as one of our political parties works actively to undermine any sustained military effort.
I say "unfortunately" because the end result will be that when the next 9/11 is perpetrated, we will either do nothing about it at all (except maybe whine to the United Nations), or we will lash out with a savagery that will be truly sickening.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2006 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
By Richard Perle Omar Sheikh was a promising LSE student from a comfortably middle-class Anglo-Pakistani family. On a humanitarian mission to Bosnia in 1992, he was recruited into a life of terror. In July 2002, he was sentenced to death in Pakistan for his role in the beheading of an American journalist, Daniel Pearl.
In his book Who Killed Daniel Pearl?, Bernard-Henri Levy recounts young Omar's reaction to the suggestion that he go to Afghanistan for training. He imagines him thinking " he has to finish his studies and his father is still the one who decides everything."
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All over the US, Christian pastors are under attack from the government and special interest groups for even suggesting political ideas or endorsing political candidates. My pastor was investigated by the IRS because he encouraged his congregation to go out and vote. Not for a particular candidate mind you; just to exercise our constitutional duty to go out and vote.
Yet many Mosques and their followers are free to spew hatred and threats of violence toward anyone who disagrees with them, and in particular, the US government. What's wrong with this picture? Time for America to wake up.
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/13/2006 1:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Muslims are waging a global war against us, while Western leaders still think they can integrate them both domestically, and in some universal global system. The New Thinking that was supposed to follow 9-11, did not arise.
However, now that the President says we are fighting "Islamofascism," he might come to realize that the tideology of Islam, is a terror drug.
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.
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.
The sense of frustration at the injustice faced by Muslims across the world as a consequence of the foreign policies of the West (principally the US) is palpable. Mr Blair's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire in response to the current war in Lebanon only reinforces the view held by more than half of British Muslims that the war on terror is a war on Islam.
How Much Does It Cost to Buy Global TV News?
It is funny that the acronym for the United Nations is UN. It always makes me think of negatives. Unhelpful. Unrealistic. Unproductive. Unhappy. This has been an especially unhappy summer for the United Nations. I am not only talking about its month-long paralysis while war between Israel and Hezbollah has devastated Lebanese and Israeli cities, or the manifest impotence of its peacekeeping force in Lebanon, four members of which were killed on July 25 by Israeli forces. 
A U.S.-backed diplomatic pact to end more than a month of war between Israel and Islamic militants in Lebanon may stop the worst of the killing and retire the daily television images of burning buildings and suffocated children.
