LONDON, July 8 (UPI) -- The London terrorists may have paid an unexpectedly high price for their brief 24 hours of headlines and disruption and underground slaughter in the British capital.
They have obliterated the most inviting political strategy that was available to them, by making it politically almost impossible now for any British government to back away from the commitments they have made to President George W. Bush, to the Iraqi government and the wider hope of modernization and democracy in the Middle East.
To back away now would seem like caving in to terror, and that is not how the British see themselves.
One of the intriguing political phenomena of the last three years has been the way that Prime Minister Tony Blair instinctively supported the American ally, after 9/11, and in the Afghan war against the Taliban (in which the British were the only other ally that took part from the beginning), and in the Iraq War. But Blair did so while very large numbers of the British people reacted like the other Europeans, questioning the Iraq war and accusing their leaders of taking them into the war under false pretences.
From the summer of 2002 until the very eve of war in 2003, the British opinion polls were against the Iraq war, and only moved to support it when the French make it clear they would veto any second United Nations Resolution authorizing the war. The British then supported the war while it lasted and well into the summer and fall of 2003, when the insurgency made it clear that the war's aftermath would be long and cruel and expensive.
Blair won re-election in May of this year, but with a parliamentary majority slashed from 160 to just over 60, despite delivering the best economic performance in British history. And those lost votes largely represented Labour supporters who refused to vote for Blair and his war.
In short, there was a serious political play to be made by al-Qaida or whatever branch of Islamic extremists launched this week's bombs. President George Bush's coalition for the Iraq war, and now for the Iraq peace and the anti-insurgency campaign for Arab democracy, has a soft underbelly in British public opinion. A smart al-Qaida would have worked on that, comprehending that the most important political gain they could hope to make would be to force Britain out of Bush's coalition.
They might also have hoped to drive a wedge even deeper between the countries of the West, recalling that Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein have so far done a better job of splitting the West and dividing NATO than the Soviets ever managed to do during the Cold War. But by bombing London during the G8 summit, they forced all the leaders of the West, and of all the world's major countries, to condemn with one voice the terrorism and to declare as France did "We are all Londoners now."
And the terrorists have blown it, blown it with those three explosions on the London Underground and the bus bomb that ripped open one of London's totemic red double-deckers like a can of cheap sardines.
To have watched the British people and the Londoners undergo the ordeal by terror of the past 36 hours is to see a city and a nation that takes its history, its sense of nationhood and the sustaining myths of its culture very seriously. People in the streets, on talk shows and when interviewed by the media seemed to reach as if by instinct for that most familiar of historic precedents.
"It was just like the blitz," they said. Or as Dorothy Watson, 81, said after walking three miles back to her daughter's house after being evacuated from a bus heading into the stricken Tavistock Street, "It was nothing like as bad as the blitz."
It was not just the ordinary Londoners who reached back into their collective memory to remember the Luftwaffe bombing of the winter of 1940-41, when the Underground stations were a refuge from the death from the skies, rather than the scene of slaughter. It was the Royal family as well that recalled their own historic role, of King George and his wife refusing to leave London, despite the urgings of the politicians.
"I could never look the East End in the face if we fled," said Queen Elizabeth. And she stayed, and visited the bombed-out east-Enders, where she swapped stories of the nights of horror and of the bombs that hit Buckingham Palace.
So her grandson Prince Charles Friday did the royal duty of visiting the injured, but harked back to resilience of his people then and now, in the face of the World War Two bombings, and this week as victims of a newer, Islamist fascism. And his wife, Camilla, long unpopular for daring to replace the believed Princess Diana, finally found a way into public favor by declaring, as countless others had on TV and radio and at family firesides, that the reaction of the peoples "Makes me proud to be British."
This is not the kind of reaction that make it remotely inviting to suggest that the British may be getting what they deserve for their latest military venture into the Middle East.
The only people who have tried so far are one sacked Labour Party politician who used to be an honored guest in Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, and who commented Thursday that "London paid the price," and a warmed-over left-wing student radical of 1968, Tariq Ali, who called the bombing "The Price of Occupation." Scion of a wealthy Pakistani family, Oxford graduate and now a prosperous TV producer, Ali should know all about price.
Neither of these men is taken very seriously, even though Galloway likes to don the mantle of martyr as he sues publications that dare suggest he was on Saddam's payroll, or makes a flying visit to testify before a U.S. Senate committee that accused him of benefiting from Saddam's 'oil for food' scam that has tarnished the reputation of the United Nations. He won re-election to parliament as an independent in the East End of London, in a majority Muslim district (mainly of Bangladeshi immigrants) with a well-funded campaign that was backed by the mosques, in the name of a [party called 'respect' that traded on Islamic resentments. If the election were held again today, after bombs on the doorstep of the Bangladeshi district, and with all the mosques and British Islamic groups denouncing the terrorists, Galloway would have a problem.
In times like these, as New Yorkers found after 9/11, cities reach into themselves for a sense of their own pride and identity. New Yorkers believed they could recover from anything. The British know they can take anything and still come up fighting.
This carries the powerful political implication that reveals the seriousness of al-Qaida's strategic defeat; the British will not back down now, will not change their ways, and will not even do Tariq Ali and Galloway the ultimate honor of banning them. The British will continue to believe in free speech, even when they despise the speakers, because the British still believe in themselves. And that is something al-Qaida will never understand.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/08/2005 16:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So if the London subway & bus bombings make it politically impossible for Britain to pull out of Iraq/GWOT, then that must mean the true force behind the bombings is ........ Karl Rove (soon to be announced on DU.)
Of course I mean this as sarcasm, but I bet there's a whole bunch of people who actually believe it.
#3
Thanks again guys,we are going to defeat you, and the funny part is that you are going to do all the work. Now, when you set off a dirty bomb in a major american city we'll finally have the public support to snuff your shitty stink from the face of the planet.
#1
The British, in fact, have announced a plan to hand over a large part of their southern sector of Iraq in a year's time to Iraqi forces. So in fact, they were rewarded by announcing a troop withdrawal from Iraq by having the whole of central London blown up.
I hadn't heard the Brits had a "timetable" but it seems obvious to me that the jihadis don't care anyway... Whadda you say, Turban Dick? Turban Ted? Jihadi John?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/08/2005 9:32 Comments ||
Top||
07/07/05 "The Jerusalem Post" - - The multiple, simultaneous explosions that took place today on the London transportation system were the work of perpetrators who had an operational capacity of considerable scope. They have come a long way since the two attacks of the year 1998 against the American embassies in Nairobi and Dar-Es-Salaam, and the aircraft actions of September 11, 2001.
There was careful planning, intelligence gathering, and a sophisticated choice of timing as well as near-perfect execution. We are faced with a deadly and determined adversary who will stop at nothing and will persevere as long as he exists as a fighting terrorist force.
One historical irony: I doubt whether the planners knew that one of the target areas, that in Russell Square, was within a stone's throw of a building that served as the first headquarters of the World Zionist Organization that preceded the State of Israel.
It was at 77 Great Russell Street that Dr. Chaim Weizmann, a renowned chemist, presided over the effort that culminated in the issuing of the Balfour Declaration, the first international recognition of the right of the Jewish people to a national home in what was then still a part of the Ottoman Empire.
We are in the throes of a world war, raging over the entire globe and characterized by the absence of lines of conflict and an easily identifiable enemy. There are sometimes long pauses between one attack and another, consequently creating the wrong impression that the battle is all over, or at least in the process of being won.
Generally speaking, the populations at large are not involved in the conflict, and by and large play the role of bystanders. But once in a while, these innocents are caught up in the maelstrom and suffer the most cruel and wicked of punishments meted out by those who are not bound by any rules of conduct or any norms of structured society. For a while, too short a while, we are engrossed with the sheer horror of what we see and hear, but, with the passage of time, our memories fade and we return to our daily lives, forgetting that the war is still raging out there and more strikes are sure to follow.
It cannot be said that seven years after this war broke out in east Africa, we can see its conclusion. We are in for the long haul and we must brace ourselves for more that will follow. The 'Great Wars' of the 20th century lasted less than this war has already lasted, and the end is nowhere in sight.
There will be supreme tests of leadership in this unique situation and people will have to trust the wisdom and good judgment of those chosen to govern them. The executives must be empowered to act resolutely and to take every measure necessary to protect the citizens of their country and to carry the combat into whatever territory the perpetrators and their temporal and spiritual leaders are inhabiting.
The rules of combat must be rapidly adjusted to cater to the necessities of this new and unprecedented situation, and international law must be rewritten in such a way as to permit civilization to defend itself. Anything short of this invites disaster and must not be allowed to happen.
The aim of the enemy is not to defeat western civilization but to destroy its sources of power and existence, and to render it a relic of the past. It does not seek a territorial victory or a regime change; it wants to turn western civilization into history and will stop at nothing less than that.
It will show no mercy or compassion and no appreciation for these noble values when practiced by us. This does not mean that we can or should assume the norms of our adversaries, nor that we should act indiscriminately. It does mean that the only way to ensure our safety and security will be to obtain the destruction, the complete destruction, of the enemy.
Much has been said in recent years about the vital need for international cooperation. There is no doubt that this is essential. Yet no measure of this will suffice and it cannot replace the requirement that each and every country effectively declare itself at war with international Islamist terror and recruit the public to involve itself actively in the battle, under the direction of the legal powers that be.
In the past, governments have been expected to provide security to their citizens. The responsibility is still there, in principle. But in practice, no government today can provide an effective 'suit of protection' for the ordinary citizen. There can be no protection for every bus, every train, every street, every square. In these times the ordinary citizen must be vigilant and must make his personal contribution to the war effort. Private enterprise will have to supplement the national effort in many walks of life.
The measures that I have outlined above will not be easily adopted overnight. When the US entered World War Two, Congress approved the momentous decision by a majority of one vote. Profound cultural changes will have to come about and the democratic way of life will be hard-pressed to produce solutions that will enable the executive branch to perform its duties and, at the same time, to preserve the basic tenets of our democratic way of life. It will not be easy, but it will be essential not to lose sight of every one of these necessities.
This war is already one of the longest in modern times; as things appear now, it is destined to be part of our daily lives for many years to come, until the enemy is eliminated, as it surely will be.
The writer, who heads the Center for Strategic and Policy Studies at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is a former head of the Mossad.
Copyright 1995-2005 The Jerusalem Post I guess he doesn't much want to go quietly. Kinda like that idea, myownself.
#2
Okay, slack cuttin time. He must have been thinking about the continuation of the draft law...? To prevent (one of my favorite acroms) OHIO. Over the Hill in October.
#3
One day after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt went to Congress to ask for a declaration of war against Japan. The Senate unanimously approved the resolution 82-0, while the House of Representatives vote was 388 to 1. That one vote was from Montana Republican Jeannette Rankin. âAs a woman, I canât go to war and I refuse to send anyone else," she explained on the floor of the House after being booed and hissed at by other members of Congress .
Rankin was a lifelong pacifist whose passionate support for women's suffrage earned her the distinction of being the first woman elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1916. She served two separate terms in the House, from 1917-19 and from 1941-43. In 1917, Rankin also voted "no" to declare war on Germany during World War I. She spent her entire life working for causes that promoted peace and women's rights. In 1968 she ran the Jeannette Rankin Peace Brigade, a anti-war group, and in 1971 she continued her efforts by writing a letter to President Richard M. Nixon, asking him to end the war in Vietnam. She died two years later, at age 92.
I'm surprised the left hasn't nominated her for sainthood.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/08/2005 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In World War II, the fall of France in 1940 led Congress to adopt the nation's first prewar conscription act as a result of a campaign headed by old preparedness leaders. The draft was to run through 1945, but because of intense opposition from pacifists, isolationists, and others, the draftees (aged twenty-one to thirty-five) were obligated to serve only one year, and service was restricted to the Western Hemisphere and U.S. territories. In August 1941, however, Congress, by a one-vote margin (203-202) in the House, voted to keep the one-year draftees in the Army beyond their term.
Posted by: Steve ||
07/08/2005 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
In a swift response to yet another Islamic terrorist attack, this time in downtown London at rush hour, Britainâs Prime Minister Blair stated, "It is important that those engaged in terrorism realize that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire to impose extremism on the world."
I like Tony Blair. He has been a steadfast ally of the United States on many fronts including the War on Terror. Even in the face of political malcontents at home, he remains calm, well spoken, deeply convicted in the cause of freedom and liberty, and steady at the helm. Despite great counter-pressure from his European Union partners, he stands firmly beside our commander-in-chief. But is he right in his statement?
Is the collective determination to defend our way of life stronger than the terrorists' will to kill?
I believe the prime ministerâs personal determination is that strong, as is that of the current American administration. But what about the hearts and minds of the people they represent? What about the people of those European nations who have a long history of appeasement, who still argue in defense of appeasement today?
Is âdefeatâ even the appropriate term? When a people believe so strongly in their extreme views and desires that they are willing to kill themselves in order to take the lives of innocents, when they hate the free world so much that they will strap a bomb to the chest of their own children and send them into a defenseless market, theater, or subway, then hide behind their women and children as if this is their only value in the worldâŠcan they be âdefeatedâ?
Iâm afraid our western culture of peaceful excess and immediate gratification fatally limits our imagination in this arena. Our field of vision is limited to the prism through which we see and assess all things. We are fighting enemies that we canât see, one to which we cannot relate, and one we canât begin to understand. Yet we believe we can âdefeatâ them, which is the first clue that we donât really understand the question.
We are not talking about fighting a nation, with its army in uniform, led by generals on a designated battlefield with rules of engagement dictated by the Geneva Convention. We are talking about individual jihadists, scattered in small cells around the globe, in every country on earth, largely undetectable until after an attack. They donât hit our military installations; they target only the unsuspecting, the unarmed, and those unaware of the peril that awaits them on the way to work, to shop, or to watch a ball game.
Unlike a nation whose army has been bludgeoned and flanked on the battlefield, there will be no white flag signaling âdefeat.â There will be no high-level negotiations between diplomats of the warring nations in an effort to reach some reasonable resolution to our differences. This time, our enemies have no state department, no negotiating team, no diplomats, and no interest in any peaceful settlement. They have no nation.
Meanwhile, we have people in our own countries who are horribly misguided, misled by anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-war, and anti-Bush and Blair administration headlines. They are people who spend so much time and energy attacking their own nation, that they have barely noticed the fact that the entire free world has a very serious problem on its hands. These are not enemies that can be âdefeated.â They are enemies that can only be eliminated with extreme prejudice. and these are not average citizens prepared to win anything.
What are the odds that our collective people have the stomach for such a challenge? What are the chances that we are prepared as a nation, to do what must be done to defend our way of life, as Prime Minister Blair suggests? Every indication is that the odds are not good.
In both America and Britain, the people re-elected the current leaders, in great part on the basis of how both are fighting the War on Terror in the post-9/11 world. But in both cases, by a somewhat narrow margin, which means, both nations have a large population of people who donât have the stomach, the understanding, or the will to win. In America, it seems that many believe we donât even have a way of life worth defending.
People in leadership roles like Senators Dick Durbin, Teddy Kennedy, and John Kerry continually attack the administration, our military leadership, and our intelligence community. DNC chairman Howard Dean, Al Gore, and other leaders in the Democratic Party join in a barrage of politically motivated attacks intended to keep those who defend our nation, on the defensive from attacks launched within our own ranks.
The once-mainstream news media are now the megaphones for organizations like MoveOn.org, the ACLU, Amnesty International, the United Nations, and people like George Soros, all of whom see America, George Bush, and Tony Blair as the real evildoers in this world, reporters often taking their headlines from the likes of Al Jazeera.
In all of these cases, the entire focus is on their own political plight and their plan for regaining political power at home at any cost. Every initiative, including in the War on Terror, is based upon dismantling support for the Bush administration, often at the expense of the War on Terror itself.
The evidence is in and it is overwhelming. Bush opponents couldnât care less about the War on Terror. They only care about what goes wrong and how they might exploit that to regain political power in upcoming elections. Anything they can say or do to undermine support for this administration's effort to provide security for the American people, is fair game. The casualties are just a necessary part of their political calculation.
So what are the odds that terrorism can be eliminated by nations whose people are more offended by Bush and Blair than by Bin Laden, and by people who are more concerned with their own lack of political power than the future of their own nation? These people donât share any set of values with men like Bush or Blair, so why would they defend them? They donât. They attack them!
The day before the attacks in London, alleged protesters at the G-8 summit in Scotland behaved more like terrorists, igniting a riot instead of staging a peaceful demonstration. Inside the building were the leaders of the eight largest industrialized nations. First on their agenda was global warming, second world hunger, and third the plight of the people in Africa, which has remained at issue for centuries. Well down the list was the issue of terrorism, until this morningâs terrorist attack in London.
The terrorists timed their attack in London to coincide with the G-8 summit. Why? While police were busy defending G-8 members from so-called peaceful protesters, terrorists moved about freely and undetected in London. What were the statements of those who immediately and proudly claimed credit for the attacks? What are their motives, and their issues of interest? Death to all western ideals - plain and simple.
Before the smoke clears in downtown London, we will hear some of our own so-called leaders recite the words of the terrorists, blaming America, Britain, and all other free nations for bringing these attacks upon ourselves. We will hear calls from within our own ranks to retreat in the War on Terror, and to negotiate with terrorists who have repeatedly and publicly stated their agenda to eradicate Israel and the western influence from the world.
Yet we think we have the will to win this war? We think we can âdefeatâ world-wide Islamic terrorism together?
Iâm here to tell you: We are not serious about âdefeatingâ Islamic terrorism until we first recognize that it can only be eliminated with extreme prejudice. We are not serious about winning this war until we are willing to sift through every Mosque and mini-mart in this country until we capture or kill every member of every sleeper cell. We are not serious until we stop calling criminal profiling by the improper name of racial profiling. And we are not serious until we begin holding elected officials who act or speak against their own national security interests, accountable for their ill-fated actions.
Until I see these things happening, I will predict that this war will be very long, very costly, very deadly, and in the end, unwinnable. Unlike Vietnam, we are negotiating the cost of our own freedom this time, as if itâs negotiable. Our enemies are not even at the table. We are negotiating with ourselves. They know it; in fact, they count on our sense of decency and honor as our weakness and they will exploit it, just as todayâs leftists do, until that sense of decency is gone.
Blair said what he should have said this morning. I just wish all free people stood with him in that statement. Until they do, this is not a war that can be won.
I send my prayers and pledge of support to Tony Blair and the people of England this morning. I wish I could offer optimism as well.
About the Writer: J. B. Williams notes that he is a business man, husband, father, and a writer. His website is at http://www.jb-williams.com. J. B. receives e-mail at JBW@JB-Williams.com. Not the usual message. And, as I've posted many times, we have to adapt to this enemy, change our law enforcemnt and ROE mindset to win. He just added on the obvious conclusion: if we don't, we'll fail.
#1
Spot on. Those words, every one of them, should be engraved in granite.
Myself, I don't think we have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this war against totalitarian Islam until we first win the war that has been declared on us by our own domestic anti-American Left, including the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/08/2005 7:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
While I think terrorism is going to get a lot worse, I don't agree we have to win this war, we just have to not lose it. At least on the political front the signs are positive. Support of the Iraq war has proven to be a formula for winning electoral support (Bush, Blair, Howard) and opposition a formula for political failure (Shroeder, Chirac). This despite the massive naysaying of the media. The people are smarter than the elites want to believe.
Twenty years ago I would have agreed with your assessment. My problem with playing on the defensive now is that we will merely be waiting for the day that Al Qaeda finally ponies up the bucks to buy a spare nuke off of Iran or North Korea.
We must be on the offensive in all facets of the game (military, political, diplomatic, economic). The only way this ends is when the message is writ large in the Arab world: Joining Al Qaeda means a painful death and you won't even stand a chance at killing an infidel.
#5
I echo DN - and believe the flypaper effect in Afghanistan and Iraq has been hugely advantageous. I sincerely appreciate the jihadis for their stupidity, in other words. We can use our military, the ultimate ass-kicking machine on the planet, as long as the fight is being staged on the road. We can be on the offensive. If they ever grab a clue, we've got big problems. No more home games, please.
And as for the other 'Slamo arenas, Iran / Syria, Saudi, PakiWaki, Indo, Malay, Filipines - pre-emption is the answer. Start the game in a place and at a time of our choosing. Iran's nuke pgm is an external driver that we don't need, but it can be dealt with in time, I hope... Go, Goss, go!
Norkies are another issue. Certainly I think we're screwing up if we've been allowing them to ship tech to anyone, such as the recent story about goodies to Iran. That needs a stealth response - I'm thinking some convenient maritime disasters that amount to a selective blockade. On the public level, the "ignore the tantrums" and "make them China's problem" gig is still effective.
What I read when I read this article is that either you support Bush and his administration 100% or you are a terrorist sympathizer, bullshit!
There is more than one way to skin a cat folks.
The American people are the baddest, meanest, most ingenutitive and outstasndingly patriotic people in the world. Even dissent is patriotic in America, and by God it's going to stay that way.
Any pansy ass journalist, right or left who thinks differently can kiss my red white and blue ass!
This article follows the same old Bush line that the Iraq War was part of the war on terror, garbage.
It's about WMDs, or maybe security, no its about democracy, no it's about Saddam's evil deeds, no its about Terrorism, yeah terrorism, that's catchy....bullshit!
Terorism is an effect, not a cause of our war in Iraq.
Dissent against the Iraq war is reasonable and warranted, and part of the greatness of America. Where else can average citizens make their opinions known without fear of death or reprisal. God bless those dissenters!
Maybe I don't agree with what they are all saying, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it! My granpa fought for the availability of those rights for everyone, and his grandpa did, and by god his granpa before him did too.
Iran, part of the terror infrastructure, what do we do about them....nothin. Syria and Saudi Arabia state sponsors of Zarq and Binny and lots of other bomb wearin freaks, what do we do? Nothin. Nothin. Nothin.
Why , you tell me. Is it because the liberal freaks are stopping it, no. So why? We know the Iranians will have the nuke within a month or two, and still we do nothing.
Therefore...This article is crap. Most of our politicians are looking out for themselves and noone else, and if anyone for a minute thinks that GW is any better than Ted Kennedy he/she has bought into the lie that idiots like the author of this article are selling for his own personal and political gain.
GW and his cronies couldn't give a crap about us, they're in it to win it for themselves. So unless you're helping them build their personal warchests, you're useless cannon fodder to them.
6,000 or 7,000 people is a small price to pay for trillions of dollars in profits, that's what they're thinking. I say institute the draft, lock, load and destroy our enemies and don't play this crap.
We will defeat our enemies, but only after we throw both groups of self servin intern banging, deal makin politicians onto their asses from the capital steps and start doing what's right for America, not what's right for the next election!
Up with America, down with partisan political crap like this!
Rather than continue to argue the stupid points this article attempts to make, I'll make one final comment
Remember Sept 11th!
Posted by: MM ||
07/08/2005 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Well, lol, that's one rather large disingenuous pile of schizoid Looney Poop! Lol!
#8
Thank you, MM. You've convinced me that it's all W's fault. It's all about our big oil conspiracy against Iraq. So, how does THIS fit in:
1972 - Attack on Iraeli athletes - Munich
1979 - Tehran embassy hostage crisis
1983 - Beruit barracks bombing
1985 - Achille Laura
1990 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie
1993 - WTC
1996 - Khobar Towers
1998 - Nairobi and Tanzania
Oh, I guess those are all W's daddy's fault. BTW,
does MM stand for Mad Mullah, Mainstream Media, moderate Muslim, or just something with a hard sugar coating that's soft in the middle and consumed by the bag full?
Posted by: Tom ||
07/08/2005 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Schizoid looney...perhaps...feel free to question my sanity .com
Disingenuous?
Sir, don't you ever question my patriotism.
MM
Posted by: MM ||
07/08/2005 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Lol! Did you look up disingenuous?
NewsFlash: Listen up, fool, I'll question your species, if I feel like it. After that steaming pile of schizophrenic DU / Buchananist wank-o-rific shit, utterly sans substance, you have nothing to say worthy of my respect.
#14
Maybe I don't agree with what they are all saying, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it! My granpa fought for the availability of those rights for everyone, and his grandpa did, and by god his granpa before him did too.
Death to cliches!
Posted by: The Black Hand of the Editor ||
07/08/2005 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#15
First .com Were I looking for your respect, I would simply dribble off some useless party line bantor as you seem to only be capable of.
And just for your illiterate ass, here's webster's definition of disingenuous:
Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: âan ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator.
In short, you questioned my sincerity about defending my nation, my constitution, and my way of life. I don't really care, because you're probably just some half ass wannabe with GW tattooed on your ass and forehead, obviously a bandwagon war supportor and GW bobblehead collector.
Go back to Repub party HQ and tell your neocon idols how good you've been on the blog today...
Perhaps you meant to point to me as naive with your ill informed comments, but Webster says that the most common misuse of the word...grammar boy.
Now, in order to pay my respects to the ever present Steve, RantMaster, I will keep this discourse civil henceforth, and ask that ye do the same.
Now as for the Tom's comments:
OK, so what? Iraq did these things or what Tom, what are you arguing. I'm arguing that our attention should be focused on destroying the terrorist networks, and their sympathizers. Then clean up the rest of the theatre.
I don't blame GW for any attacks on the US, I just don't think he's doing a good job. Would Kerry do better, no probably not. How the hell can anyone who never had a real job know what's best for people who work 8-5?
Let's get a real person in office for once instead of some ridiculous talking head. Give McCain a go, or is he too real for the lobbyists and Neocons who want to assure they keep getting those fat checks from Halliburton and the oil companies?
and...had you read my schizo ranting you would have read my disdain for both the administration's tactics and those of other ridiculous partisan political players. Clinton...don't even get me started, his ineptitude in dealing with the threat of terrorism is only succeedded by his ineptitude for choosing the right women.
But let's review the attacks you mentioned:
1972 - Attack on Israeli athletes - Munich-Palestinians
1979 - Tehran embassy hostage crisis-Iranians
1983 - Beruit barracks bombing-Hizbullah
1985 - Achille Laura-Lybians
1990 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie-Libyans
1993 - WTC-Al qaeda
1996 - Khobar Towers-al qaeda
1998 - Nairobi and Tanzania-al qaeda
As I said, wipe the Iranians out! They've got a freakin nuke, do you think they're going to wait til Iraq is done before they hand one over to some terrorist?
Now where does Iraq come into this equation. I'll tell you where...Iraq was our ally against the Iranians during most of the incidents listed above. Need I dig up stock footage of Rummy shakin Saddam's bloody hand?
And don't get me wrong, I'm all for killing any foreign mofos who talk smack about the USA, but to concede that anyone who questions Bush's leadership is a terrorist sympathizer, I'm not willing to concede that bull.
Let's kill the terrorist, yes, let's spend all of our national focus doing it. Let's not attack Zimbabwe because Mugabe is stupid, you get me. It was a tactical error of unprecedented scope to attack Iraq before Iran, North Korea, and Syria.
Kill Saddam later, bring me Bin Laden's head first.
Posted by: MM ||
07/08/2005 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
#16
MM, Rantbug is special for several reasons, not least it is mostly free of the 'the world would be wonderful if it wasn't for the bad people screwing it up' worldview that is extremely prevalent. I could point to 10 examples today in articles or comments here. It really doesn't matter who the bad people are - capitalists, communists, Americans, neocons, jews, arab rulers, etc, take your pick.
In order to improve things you have to solve real problems and often that involves many layered actions because the real world is a complex place. The reality is, terrorism in general and suicide bombers in particular is/are an extremely difficult problem. There is only one solution that demonstarbly works and that is physical separation of the population that produces the terrorism (think the West Bank barrier). There is no way this can be implemmented in current Western societies, so the bad news is terrorism will get worse and until we either find another solution(s) or we are forced into the separation solution. People don't want to hear this but it will require a suicide bomber coming to a mall near you before they are prepared to take the required steps to prevent terrorism. And note I say prevent not stop.
#17
w00t! Well, I guess that tells me! Dribbling is definitely not your style. Pretentious spew is more accurate and descriptive.
Regards the definition(s) - I'll have you know my ass is hairy, but not illiterate - and, indeed, there is more than just one - I do believe you covered more topics than merely that which could be ascribed to your patriotism, but no problem. You can claim anything in this anonymous venue - and I will accord it the respect I deem apropos. And your acceptance or rejection will, also, carry whatever weight I choose to attach.
Yes, you have it. No doubt about it. How could we have been so foolish? There are no concerns other than yours, all things are possible within your perceived timeframe, and anyone who doesn't please you is shit. Deep. Shit. Anything already accomplished is just shit. Why oh why were we not listening to you? Oh woe is us.
Knock yourself out, Micky Mouse. I'll watch, since you've got a woodie for "Steve, RantMaster", lol!
We have an Army of Steves, MM - those refrences to the AoS you may have seen hereabouts. But it seems likely you haven't lurked more than 5 minutes, you've decided to dive in and set us all straight. Thanx. That's, um, very special of you.
Steve? Take it away... I have to go report to my neocon masters, anyway.
#18
.com, I thnk you are being unduly optimistic to agree this is a 'blood feud' that will not increase in tempo over time. I ascribe the infrequency of these kinds of attacks to Arab efficiency and their slow learning curve. They will get better and hence we will see more frequent attacks. My view is that the limiting factor is they struggle with the logistics. Whether the Brits find the people behind this will be a key step, because if they don't, it becomes succesful model for a team capable of recurrent attacks. Something they have lacked to date in the West.
#19
Back to the subject... <<>>
IMHO, from Europe : ultimately defeating terrorism or not is pointless.
Unless they somehow get their hands on a nuke, terrorism is but a lever and a sideshow, though it can be a war method in open battlefields, past (Algeria war) or present, such as israel (where the paleos thought they could shatter the israeli society through repeated and localized acts of pure barbarity aimed directly at its fabric, the "spiderweb" theory of Nasrallah and Arafat), or in Irak (where the jihadist try essentially the same thing, spread chaos trhough terror).
- A lever because jihad is a global affair, alternating between stick and carrot; the bombings serve to make the "moderate" look moderate, and put some pressure on authorities, which are encouraged to relieve it through appeasement. The jihadist are just one mean of achieving a global goal, jihad is economical (profiting from oil, corrupting western elites), cultural (forcing the west to gladly acknowledge its own inferiority and the superiority of the islamic civilization... don't laugh), demographical (subsituting population through superior birthrate and immigration), religious (filling the western spiritual vaccuum with dawa), political (special right for muslims), moral (for example, theses statements advising mulsims to stay indoor to avoid retribution : a nice touch putting the bombings and the indignation they caused on the same level, nice moral equivalency),...
- A sideshow because gvt are worrying about an ennemy that is a fraction of what was nazi germany or USSR (it's horrible to say, but barring a WMD, terrorism is nothing compared to a WWII style destruction; I mailed the british consulate to express my support and sympathies, and i couldn't help but notice that the terrs and their bombs are not likely to succeed in intimidating a people that faced down Hitler and the Luftwaffe alone without flinching)... all the while the real threat takes place, noticed but untreated :
huge population changes in Europa, with 10-20% islamic minorities, deeply re-islamized thanks to the action of well-oiled org (according to survey, 85% french muslims want or would like hallal meat, religious practice is on the increase), constant growth of theses minorities through immigration (off. 6 millions muslims in France, probably 8-9 millions, possibly 10-15 non european minorities, a market survey by the meat producer Charal for hallal meat candidly put the potential market at 13 millions, 300 000 to 500 000 each year for France), higher birthrate (from 2,4 to 3,9 against 1,9 french birthrate, which certainly amounts to a "native" 1,4-1,5) and conversion (10 000 each year, against 100-200 chrisitan converts from islam).
So far, the response of the State to this loss of sovereignty has been appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.
Buy off islamists, give them posts in mayor office, buy the muslim community's vote by building mosques (theses are sprouting everywhere in France, often on public land sold for a symbolic cost by municipalities),...
#20
In order to improve things you have to solve real problems and often that involves many layered actions because the real world is a complex place. The reality is, terrorism in general and suicide bombers in particular is/are an extremely difficult problem. There is only one solution that demonstarbly works and that is physical separation of the population that produces the terrorism.
Phil,
Thanks for informing me about what works in the real world..I needed it.
Seriously though, what are you arguing, that we shouldn't attack Iran, that Iraq was the best first choice? That we should unquestioningly follow our fearless leader?
Where's the justification for choosing Iraq first? It's well known in intelligence circles that Iran helped facilitate Sept 11th, so what more would we have needed? You tell me that we needed Iraq to stage attacks on Iran, and I'll say cool, get em, but that's not what I'm hearing.
Honestly I'm hearing nothing from you here except that the world is a mean place, and that problems are complex.
Thanks, but I heard that one already. I still won't cede the "You are a terrorist if you don't support GW, now back to your free speech zone.
Attacking Iran isn't going to stop terrorism, no shit. It will increase it, but it may stop them from giving someone else their nukes. Iraq was never a real threat, we destroyed that threat with 11 years of aerial and economic bombardment.
Multi-tiered approach, yes, separating a majority of the population from a minority of people who share ethnic and religious similarities with a few looney terrorists, no.
The Israeli wall will be a temporary fix Phil, if even that. I'm willing to bet that it will only serve to impoverish the Palestinians and further radicalize their already out of work populace. Hezbullah loves the wall, it puts palestinians out of work and makes for a good flow of willing suicide bombers. Anyone ever heard of Davies J curve?
The war against terror is an open ended war, that's definite. Can we totally prevent attacks, no. Can we prevent most...maybe. I'm not willing to sell liberty to prevent a few attacks though, sorry.
Hundreds of thousands of young men have died for this country. That's why our soldiers are fighting and dying today, to preserve our liberties and way of life. So I'm not going to value my little life so highly as to sell my liberty to preserve it, or your life either, sorry Phil.
So, I'll say no to the "measures" you mention in addition to a National ID card, or security cameras on every one of our street corners. Big Brother is not my friend, what about you?
Anyway, thanks for the comments Phil, as you said Rantburg is a special place, a good place to exchange ideas, and sometimes a few insults and not full of a bunch of freakin looney hippies and I appreciate that. I just want Bin laden and his supporters dead, and I think we are all on the same page here in that wanting of terrorist heads, even good ole .com.
Thanks again,
MM
Posted by: MM ||
07/08/2005 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#21
phil_b - If we stood still while they"improved" in efficiency I would, indeed, expect more numerous attacks. However, we don't stand still any more than they do, certainly less so, in fact.
It always comes back to the untapped Muzzies, actually. If they were to stand up on their hind legs and actually fight this insanity / depravity, then the logistics would get dramatically worse for them. That they don't, well, we will respond in different ways if they hit us again and the threats become personal to those who can't quite grasp it, otherwise.
For instance, another hit on the London scale might strengthen the resolve of the Fibbies (or other DHS element) to "out" the imams who advocate and incite attacks. Deportation, jail, whatever... possibly diminishing the threat, and possibly not - as some of his "flock" would suddenly claim they were radicalized by the action against their imam.
In the end, the imams will all have to go. First the "radical" ones. Eventually, all of them. I do not see anything that suggests anything else, regards the domestic scene. Externally, well, we've bashed those about for years. You know them all, I'm sure.
#22
There have been several attempted attacks in the US. We are, either through skill or luck, taking down some local cells. That's good. We are drawing a lot of jihadis to fight us in Iraq where we can easily kill them. That is good. We are forcing/encouraging regime change and or stepped up counter-terror operations in some neighboring countries to Iraq. Also good.
Would it have been better to attack Iran or Syria first? Perhaps, but on what justification? If there was no justification to go after Saddam, someone with whom we were still technically at war, then how could you justify going after Iran? Likewise Saudi Arabia. Do we enrage every Muslim on the planet at square one (believe me I am tempted to just say yes on this one)? Probably not a workable solution, especially since it would immediately drive the world economy into the tank too. So methinks that Iraq was the only real option. Establish the base and radiate from there. If it does not work, we can always institute the draft and nuke Iran, both of which should go over like a fart in church.
#23
The benchmark for modern terrorism is the Provisional IRA whose geographic and population base was small, they had a large security force arrayed against them and had detention without trial or trial in closed courts used against them (a far more severe regime than anything currently contemplated against Islamic terrorism). Yet a typical IRA bomb team would make and plant hundreds of bombs. Yes, we will get better, but I see far more potential for Islamic terrorists to get better.
#25
phil_b - The jihadis certainly do have more room, potential, for improvement, yes.
Re: IRA - I'd guess, only as a distant observer, that they had great logistical support from the population, but perhaps that impression is bogus - a Hollyweird myth.
Back to the jihadis, once I would've been certain that all they had to do to swing the balance back to the side of a bona-fide solutions is hit us and kill Americans on our soil. Period. I presumed that those who were not True Believer Moonbats and hardcore socialists, and that must be at least half of them, would abandon them overnight.
Now I'm not so sure - even if we do react in support, the next question is, for how long?
We're funny critters. We have a short attention span (if it's not personal) and won't commit wholeheartedly until it is personal. I presume a normal person would find the 9/11 attack enough, but apparently not. I used to believe Americans were on/off wildcatters, sitting on their hands one day and real riverboat gamblers willing to go "all in" then next - when their neighbors were obviously under attack / being killed, such as 9/11. The subsequent nearly 4 years demonstrate that phenomenon no longer holds. The resolve wanes faster that I would've ever believed prior to this.
I no longer have faith in that wavering population segment - they seem to choose their direction with a wet finger, not internal values. Sigh. That's why this article hit so many buttons for me. Sigh. I hope we remain lucky and our agencies are improving and foiling attacks, whether we're aware or not.
#26
What's with the hostility here, can't take a little challenge to your opinions phil?
but to continue the discourse, hearts and minds, therein lies the victory.
MM
Posted by: MM ||
07/08/2005 19:40 Comments ||
Top||
#27
.com, we have discussed this before, but for me the real mystery is why the Islamic terrorists have not increased the tempo of attacks in the West. Its either because as the article suggests they don't want to - colour me sceptical on that, or they are unable to. The media is acting like bombs on the London underground is a big surprise but anyone with a basic understanding of the vulnerabilities of large cities and especialy London would have chosen the underground as a target. Go back 3 or 4 weeks and I specifically referred to the underground as the obvious target. What I don't understand is why it took so long?
#28
Hmmm... To a large degree I'd wager it's the need to stop the Iraq process. It's easy to say they're not very bright and it's only flypaper, but stopping Iraq is their most important task, IMHO. If it succeeds in creating a modern Arab democracy... that's a real threat with no choke point they can address.
If I'm Zarqi or Zawahiri or similar then everyone seems less pious than me... I see that there is a percentage (however small) of the population in every asshat Arab country that's hungry for a taste of Western decadence. I fear these Muzzies who think maybe, just maybe, the democracy might be a good thing. It wouldn't take many to disrupt my Caliphate game and undermine my financing and fodder - my logistical base. Iraq must fail and I must punish anyone who "collaborates".
I think they're committing suicide no matter where they decide to attack, but Iraq is the key - and they're failing because we haven't shown we're breaking and ready to bail out before the Iraqis are ready, Dhimmidonks notwithstanding. Attacks in the West are splashy - far more coverage than the same thing in Iraq or Afghanistan - but to what end? Greater antipathy and active opposition? Duh - in that case they become stupid in my eyes. In Iraq they're at least focused on the largest danger to their ideology.
When the bombs ripped through three underground trains and one of those familiar red London double-decker buses this morning, the first thought of almost everyone from the travelers who witnessed the incident to the G8 leaders assembled in Gleneagles, from Tony Blair to President George W. Bush, from the Queen of England to the new pope, was to denounce the bombings as acts of barbaric depravity.
The second thought ran: This was bound to happen sooner or later. After 30 and more years of terrorism, barbarism has become commonplace. Since September 11, we have expected that those behind that atrocity would strike again. And as the British authorities have repeatedly warned, they believed that places in Britain would be among the first targets to be attacked.
Precisely because of this prudent expectation, the London authorities had planned for this assault and, if first reports are an accurate guide, they responded with both efficient preparations and intelligent improvisation. As soon as the bombs went off, they closed down the transport systems. They used buses â which were readily at hand â to deliver the wounded to hospitals rather than waiting for ambulances. And knowing that the Madrid bombings had been triggered by mobile phones, they shut down the mobile-phone system all over the city.
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who happened to be nearby in Liverpool Street Station when the explosions occurred, will doubtless have useful comments to make on how the various British authorities coped with the emergency. Unless he and we are given new and adverse evidence, however, the initial verdict is likely to stand: The third great assault by Islamist terrorists on a great Western city produced not panic and disorder but calm on the part of ordinary Londoners, the customary courage of the emergency services, and efficient management by those directing them.
This is actually more significant than the bombings themselves. We do not write that lightly â we know that several hundred homes in and around London will be darkened tonight and for many days henceforth by this cruel crime. Fathers have been murdered, mothers wounded, sons gone "missing," daughters orphaned. We will not even know how many victims have perished for days â the bus packed with passengers was all but vaporized a moment later. Our first response should be to kneel down and pray for God's mercy on the souls that were ripped so untimely from this life. We are horribly aware of the magnitude of the crime and the tragedy of the lost and maimed.
Yet Britain is not "burning with fear and terror," as the group claiming to have murdered these innocent people alleges on an Islamist website. That allegation represents what the terrorists hope and calculate will be the response of its victims. The victory of the Spanish socialists in last year's general election, two days after the Madrid bombing, at least seemed to validate that calculation. Spain withdrew its troops from Iraq shortly afterward in what the terrorists inevitably concluded was a concession suing for peace. Nothing like that has happened in Britain. In addition to the self-disciplined response of Londoners on the spot, the remarks of Prime Minister Blair, opposition Tory leaders, and other public figures have all struck a note of determined defiance.
No doubt, politics as usual will return after a time and those opposed to the Iraq war will cite today's events as a consequence of the Anglo-American invasion. Democracy is about fierce and unrestricted debates over even the most sensitive topics. But the sensible center of British politics â not the Liberal Democrats but the right of the Labour party and the mainstream of the Tories â is likely to hold firm in the face of these arguments and to demand even firmer prosecution of the war against terrorism. Merely holding firm, however, is not enough.
What Britain and America need are some clear and visible victories in this war â terrorist groups broken up, would-be assassins captured and incarcerated, terrorist leaders tried and either imprisoned indefinitely or executed. Wars are not won by responding bravely to attacks from the other side, but by inflicting defeats on them.
Today the terrorists scored a typically vile success, but they were denied a victory by the courage of our allies. Now we know â indeed, we never doubted â that Britain can take it. But Britain and America have to show that we can also dish it out. Amen. Bravo to our cousins. A challenge for our leaders.
Another Mark Steyn reaction on the London bombings.
One way of measuring any terrorist attack is to look at whether the killers accomplished everything they set out to. On September 11, 2001, al-Qa'eda set out to hijack four planes and succeeded in seizing every one. Had the killers attempted to take another 30 jets between 7.30 and nine that morning, who can doubt that they'd have maintained their pristine 100 per cent success rate? Throughout the IRA's long war against us, two generations of British politicians pointed out that there would always be the odd "crack in the system" through which the determined terrorist would slip. But on 9/11 the failure of the system was total.
Yesterday, al-Qa'eda hit three Tube trains and one bus. Had they broadened their attentions from the central zone, had they attempted to blow up 30 trains from Uxbridge to Upminster, who can doubt that they too would have been successful? In other words, the scale of the carnage was constrained only by the murderers' ambition and their manpower.
The difference is that 9/11 hit out of the blue - literally and politically; 7/7 came after four years of Her Majesty's Government prioritising terrorism and "security" above all else - and the failure rate was still 100 per cent. After the Madrid bombing, I was struck by the spate of comic security breaches in London: two Greenpeace guys shin up St Stephen's Tower, a Mirror reporter blags his way into a servants' gig at Buckingham Palace a week before Bush comes to stay; an Osama lookalike gatecrashes Prince William's party.
As I wrote in The Daily Telegraph last March, "History repeats itself: farce, farce, farce, but sooner or later tragedy is bound to kick in. The inability of the state to secure even the three highest-profile targets in the realm - the Queen, her heir, her Parliament - should remind us that a defensive war against terrorism will ensure terrorism."
To three high-profile farces, we now have that high-profile tragedy, of impressive timing. It's not a question of trying and prodding and testing and finding the weak link in the chain, the one day - on Monday or Wednesday, in January or November, when an immigration official or a luggage checker is a bit absent-minded and distracted and you slip quietly through. Instead, the jihad, via one of its wholly owned but independently operated subsidiaries, scheduled an atrocity for the start of the G8 summit and managed to pull it off - at a time when ports and airports and internal security were all supposed to be on heightened alert. That's quite a feat.
But I wonder. It seems just as plausible that there will be as many supple self-deluding figures anxious to argue that it's Blair's Iraq war and the undue attention it invites from excitable types that's preventing us from ending poverty in Africa by the end of next week and all the other touchy-feely stuff. The siren songs of Bono and Geldof will be working hard in favour of the quiet-life option. There is an important rhetorical battle to be won in the days ahead. The choice for Britons now is whether they wish to be Australians post-Bali or Spaniards post-Madrid.
That shouldn't be a tough call. But it's easy to stand before a news camera and sonorously declare that "the British people will never surrender to terrorism". What would you call giving IRA frontmen offices at Westminster? It's the target that decides whether terror wins - and in the end, for all the bombings, the British people and their political leaders decided they preferred to regard the IRA as a peripheral nuisance which a few concessions could push to the fringe of their concerns.
They thought the same in the 1930s - back when Czechoslovakia was "a faraway country of which we know little". Today, the faraway country of which the British know little is Britain itself. Traditional terrorists - the IRA, ETA - operate close to home. Islamism projects itself long-range to any point of the planet with an ease most G8 militaries can't manage. Small cells operate in the nooks and crannies of a free society while the political class seems all but unaware of their existence.
Did we learn enough, for example, from the case of Omar Sheikh? He's the fellow convicted of the kidnapping and beheading in Karachi of the American journalist Daniel Pearl. He's usually described as "Pakistani" but he is, in fact, a citizen of the United Kingdom - born in Whipps Cross Hospital, educated at Nightingale Primary School in Wanstead, the Forest School in Snaresbrook and the London School of Economics. He travels on a British passport. Unlike yours truly, a humble Canadian subject of the Crown, Mr Sheikh gets to go through the express lane at Heathrow.
Or take Abdel Karim al-Tuhami al-Majati, a senior al-Qa'eda member from Morocco killed by Saudi security forces in al Ras last April. One of Mr Majati's wives is a Belgian citizen resident in Britain. In Pakistan, the jihadists speak openly of London as the terrorist bridgehead to Europe. Given the British jihadists who've been discovered in the thick of it in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Palestine, Chechnya and Bosnia, only a fool would believe they had no plans for anything closer to home - or, rather, "home".
Most of us can only speculate at the degree of Islamist penetration in the United Kingdom because we simply don't know, and multicultural pieties require that we keep ourselves in the dark. Massoud Shadjareh, chairman of Britain's Islamic Human Rights Commission, is already "advising Muslims not to travel or go out unless necessary, and is particularly concerned that women should not go out alone in this climate". Thanks to "Islamophobia" and other pseudo-crises, the political class will be under pressure to take refuge in pointless gestures (ie, ID cards) that inconvenience the citizenry and serve only as bureaucratic distractions from the real war effort.
Since 9/11 most Britons have been sceptical of Washington's view of this conflict. Douglas Hurd and many other Tory grandees have been openly scornful of the Bush doctrine. Lord Hurd would no doubt have preferred a policy of urbane aloofness, such as he promoted vis à vis the Balkans in the early 1990s. He's probably still unaware that Omar Sheikh was a westernised non-observant chess-playing pop-listening beer-drinking English student until he was radicalised by the massacres of Bosnian Muslims.
Abdel Karim al-Tuhami al-Majati was another Europeanised Muslim radicalised by Bosnia. The inactivity of Do-Nothin' Doug and his fellow Lions of Lethargy a decade ago had terrible consequences and recruited more jihadists than any of Bush's daisy cutters. The fact that most of us were unaware of the consequences of EU lethargy on Bosnia until that chicken policy came home to roost a decade later should be sobering: it was what Don Rumsfeld, in a remark mocked by many snide media twerps, accurately characterised as an "unknown unknown" - a vital factor so successfully immersed you don't even know you don't know it.
This is the beginning of a long existential struggle, for Britain and the West. It's hard not to be moved by the sight of Londoners calmly going about their business as usual in the face of terrorism. But, if the governing class goes about business as usual, that's not a stiff upper lip but a death wish.
#1
It's unfair to cherry-pick this great piece, but that's the way it goes...
The inactivity of Do-Nothin' Doug and his fellow Lions of Lethargy a decade ago had terrible consequences and recruited more jihadists than any of Bush's daisy cutters. The fact that most of us were unaware of the consequences of EU lethargy on Bosnia until that chicken policy came home to roost a decade later should be sobering: it was what Don Rumsfeld, in a remark mocked by many snide media twerps, accurately characterised as an "unknown unknown" - a vital factor so successfully immersed you don't even know you don't know it.
Perfect. This goes into the mailbag. Thx Mark. Thx A5089.
#4
...and lest we forget, thanks also for Fred, Glen, Jeff Goldtein, the gone-but-not-forgotten Allah, and all the others I haven't the recall or the bandwidth to mention. My sincerest thanks for what you do on a battlefront that this time around may prove similar in importance to any other.
For a little while now, the Blogosphere and airwaves have been inundated with all things Kelo. While it is impressive to hear and see such an uproar regarding personal property rights, Kelo's much more sinister second cousin has been quietly eating away at the right most Americans cherish.
For quite a few years now, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have required -- demanded -- that private property owners give up portions of their lands for ecological habitat in exchange for development permits. As an environmental consultant, I help my clients (many of northern California's and the nation's largest real estate developers) navigate the tortuous path of environmental regulation.
If a client was unfortunate enough to have wetlands on their property, the traditional method of compliance was to mitigate the impacts at a wetlands mitigation bank or other off-site location. Well, this wasn't too bad until wetland mitigation acreage started selling for upwards of $200,000.00 per acre. Yes, $200,000.00 an acre.
So, land speculators (often the developers themselves) were sitting fat and happy collecting large sums of money for land that was previously deemed worthless (I got some swamp land in Florida for ya?).
Apparently, this was not enough of a deterrent to development, so the agencies upped the ante -- they went "all in" for you poker players out there.
Instead of merely requiring mitigation, the agencies started requiring that the developers avoid impacts to wetlands and other waters and establish the avoided area as a wetland preserve. Not only did the developer have to avoid the wetland by engineering their land use plans so roads, buildings and other infrastructure ran around the wetland feature, the developer was forced to give the land to a "conservation-oriented third-party."
It gets better.
On top of not being able to develop the land and having to give it to someone else, the developer is forced to establish an endowment fund to maintain the preserve area in perpetuity -- which is forever.
I have personally had clients that walked away from development projects because the agencies were taking upwards of 25 percent of the project area (10 acres preserved on a 40-acre site) to preserve less than two acres of wetlands.
Duane at Blackinformant posts ...Henry Lamb, executive Vice President of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO), and Chairman of Sovereignty International talks about how a sustainable development program in the UK that may result in the loss of 10,000 homes.
Have you ever wondered why new houses cost so much?
The fun for developers doesn't end with the Endangered Species Act or the Clean Water Act. Local jurisdictions are getting in the fun of taking private property, as well.
In Sacramento County, California, a new affordable housing ordinance was enacted in January of 2005 that required developers to, once again, give away part of their land in exchange for development permits.
In a nutshell, the ordinance requires that projects seeking approval for five or more dwelling units shall include an affordable housing component. This component goes far beyond the typical low-income apartment next to the parking lot. A project is considered in compliance with the ordinance of the developer "Dedicates and extremely low income identified as suitable within the development to Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency AT NO COST."
So, it seems that we have been dealing with the Kelo clan for some time now. Unfortunately, it now has the SCOTUS stamp of approval.
I think I'll buy a boat. At least I understand the Coast Guard.
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Yesterday's bombings in downtown London are profoundly disturbing. In part, that is because a bombing in our mother country and closest ally, England, is almost like a bombing in our own country. In part, it's because one assault may have involved a suicide bomber, bringing this terrible jihadist weapon into the heart of a major Western capital. That would be deeply troubling because open societies depend on trust - on trusting that the person sitting next to you on the bus or subway is not wearing dynamite.
The attacks are also deeply disturbing because when jihadist bombers take their madness into the heart of our open societies, our societies are never again quite as open. Indeed, we all just lost a little freedom yesterday.
But maybe the most important aspect of the London bombings is this: When jihadist-style bombings happen in Riyadh, that is a Muslim-Muslim problem. That is a police problem for Saudi Arabia. But when Al-Qaeda-like bombings come to the London Underground, that becomes a civilizational problem. Every Muslim living in a Western society suddenly becomes a suspect, becomes a potential walking bomb. And when that happens, it means Western countries are going to be tempted to crack down even harder on their own Muslim populations.
That, too, is deeply troubling. The more Western societies - particularly the big European societies, which have much larger Muslim populations than America - look on their own Muslims with suspicion, the more internal tensions this creates, and the more alienated their already alienated Muslim youth become. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden dreamed of with 9/11: to create a great gulf between the Muslim world and the globalizing West.
So this is a critical moment. We must do all we can to limit the civilizational fallout from this bombing. But this is not going to be easy. Why? Because unlike after 9/11, there is no obvious, easy target to retaliate against for bombings like those in London. There are no obvious terrorist headquarters and training camps in Afghanistan that we can hit with cruise missiles. The Al Qaeda threat has metastasized and become franchised. It is no longer vertical, something that we can punch in the face. It is now horizontal, flat and widely distributed, operating through the Internet and tiny cells.
Because there is no obvious target to retaliate against, and because there are not enough police to police every opening in an open society, either the Muslim world begins to really restrain, inhibit and denounce its own extremists - if it turns out that they are behind the London bombings - or the West is going to do it for them. And the West will do it in a rough, crude way - by simply shutting them out, denying them visas and making every Muslim in its midst guilty until proven innocent.
And because I think that would be a disaster, it is essential that the Muslim world wake up to the fact that it has a jihadist death cult in its midst. If it does not fight that death cult, that cancer, within its own body politic, it is going to infect Muslim-Western relations everywhere. Only the Muslim world can root out that death cult. It takes a village.
What do I mean? I mean that the greatest restraint on human behavior is never a policeman or a border guard. The greatest restraint on human behavior is what a culture and a religion deem shameful. It is what the village and its religious and political elders say is wrong or not allowed. Many people said Palestinian suicide bombing was the spontaneous reaction of frustrated Palestinian youth. But when Palestinians decided that it was in their interest to have a cease-fire with Israel, those bombings stopped cold. The village said enough was enough.
The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks. When Salman Rushdie wrote a controversial novel involving the prophet Muhammad, he was sentenced to death by the leader of Iran. To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.
Some Muslim leaders have taken up this challenge. This past week in Jordan, King Abdullah II hosted an impressive conference in Amman for moderate Muslim thinkers and clerics who want to take back their faith from those who have tried to hijack it. But this has to go further and wider.
The double-decker buses of London and the subways of Paris, as well as the covered markets of Riyadh, Bali and Cairo, will never be secure as long as the Muslim village and elders do not take on, delegitimize, condemn and isolate the extremists in their midst.
#3
"In part, it's [disturbing] because one assault may have involved a suicide bomber, bringing this terrible jihadist weapon into the heart of a major Western capital."
I hate to ask a stupid question, but isn't that exactly what the 9/11 attackers did? Where the hell have you been all this time, Friedman?
"The Muslim village has been derelict in condemning the madness of jihadist attacks."
No shit, Sherlock; did you just now figure that out, all on your own? That's brilliant, Thomas!
Jesus... how the hell do we ever survive?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/08/2005 13:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
We WON'T survive if we depend on the Thomas L. Friedmans.
Posted by: Tom ||
07/08/2005 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Where the hell is my ClueBat? This guy needs a good whack.
#6
Where the hell have you been all this time, Friedman?
Taking either cash or flattery from the Saudis.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
07/08/2005 14:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If it's a "muslim problem", why are there so many dead Jews, Christians, Hindus, etc. in its wake?
This is a GLOBAL problem, and the sooner the world takes definitive action to solve it, the better. But that won't happen with all the apologists and fifth-columnists like Friedman pussy-footing and navel-gazing.
Posted by: Dar ||
07/08/2005 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
While we're bashing Friedman, it's worth pointing out this amazingly funny and harsh review of his new book "The World Is Flat." 'HTTP://www.nypress.com/18/16/news&columns/taibbi.cfm'
A few highlights:
"I'll give you an example, drawn at random from The World Is Flat. On page 174, Friedman is describing a flight he took on Southwest Airlines from Baltimore to Hartford, Connecticut. (Friedman never forgets to name the company or the brand name; if he had written The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa would have awoken from uneasy dreams in a Sealy Posturepedic.) Here's what he says:
"I stomped off, went through security, bought a Cinnabon, and glumly sat at the back of the B line, waiting to be herded on board so that I could hunt for space in the overhead bins.
"Forget the Cinnabon. Name me a herd animal that hunts. Name me one."
. . .
"The significance of Columbus's discovery was that on a round earth, humanity is more interconnected than on a flat one. On a round earth, the two most distant points are closer together than they are on a flat earth. But Friedman is going to spend the next 470 pages turning the "flat world" into a metaphor for global interconnectedness. Furthermore, he is specifically going to use the word round to describe the old, geographically isolated, unconnected world.
"Let me... share with you some of the encounters that led me to conclude that the world is no longer round," he says. He will literally travel backward in time, against the current of human knowledge.
"To recap: Friedman, imagining himself Columbus, journeys toward India. Columbus, he notes, traveled in three ships; Friedman "had Lufthansa business class." When he reaches IndiaâBangalore to be specificâhe immediately plays golf. His caddy, he notes with interest, wears a cap with the 3M logo. Surrounding the golf course are billboards for Texas Instruments and Pizza Hut. The Pizza Hut billboard reads: "Gigabites of Taste." Because he sees a Pizza Hut ad on the way to a golf course, something that could never happen in America, Friedman concludes: "No, this definitely wasn't Kansas."
"After golf, he meets Nilekani, who casually mentions that the playing field is level. A nothing phrase, but Friedman has traveled all the way around the world to hear it. Man travels to India, plays golf, sees Pizza Hut billboard, listens to Indian CEO mutter small talk, writes 470-page book reversing the course of 2000 years of human thought."
. . .
"Let's speak Friedmanese for a moment and examine just a few of the notches on these antlers (Friedman, incidentally, measures the flattening of the world in notches, i.e. "The flattening process had to go another notch"; I'm not sure where the notches go in the flat plane, but there they are.) Flattener #1 is actually two flatteners, the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the spread of the Windows operating system. In a Friedman book, the reader naturally seizes up in dread the instant a suggestive word like "Windows" is introduced; you wince, knowing what's coming, the same way you do when Leslie Nielsen orders a Black Russian. And Friedman doesn't disappoint. His description of the early 90s:
"The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever beenâbut the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned.
"How the fuck do you open a window in a fallen wall? More to the point, why would you open a window in a fallen wall? Or did the walls somehow fall in such a way that they left the windows floating in place to be opened?
"Four hundred and 73 pages of this, folks. Is there no God?"
Posted by: Tibor ||
07/08/2005 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
if he had written The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa would have awoken from uneasy dreams in a Sealy Posturepedic.
Heh, that gets *my* vote for Snark O' The Day. I used to regard Friedman as a voice of reason on the Middle East, but lately he is becoming a real asshat.
True, it is a Muslim problem and needs a Muslim solution to make Islam compatible with the modern world. However, due to the nature of radical Islam, anyone resembling a Martin Luther attempting an Islamic Reformation will find himself fatwahed and whacked in short order.
Since this is also an intolerable Western problem - Exhibit A being the corpses and burnt wreckage - with no Muslim solution in sight, the West will need to fix it. Sadly, this will involve killing a lot of people. The only question in my mind is how long it will take for the rest of the Muslim world to get on board and whether Islam will end up marginalized or extinct before that happens.
#12
Which door do you want?
1 2 3
Seems Friedman believes in #2.
Its going to be a long long wait TOM!
Better get a lounge chair and some Saudi coffee. Oh , while your at it convert now.
#13
I agree that Friedman is somewhat dense but he is influential and maybe, just maybe he has begun to see what Islam has become and begun to realize it hasn't become what he had imagined it to be.
#14
Well if this whole Muslim jihad thing needs a Muslim solution, they had best get to working on a good one asap. A non-Muslim solution isn't likely to be something Muslims would be too happy with, I'm sure.
#1
Can't have a list of bad things without Israel being on the list. Some of the islamodicks will be after us until the "occupation of Palestine" is finished. Of course, one could argue the Joos were there first, but I think it's easier in the long run to just scatter about 500 megatons across "Palestine" and be done with it.
But wait, surely someone would object?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/08/2005 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bin Laden has consistently argued in favour of further ghazavat inside the West. He firmly believes that the West is too cowardly to fight back and, if terrorised in a big way, will do 'what it must do'. That view was strengthened last year when al-Qaeda changed the Spanish Government with its deadly attack in Madrid. At the time bin Laden used his 'Madrid victory' to call on other European countries to distance themselves from the United States or face similar 'punishment'.
Thanks, again, Spain! Something that caught me last night, was I was flipping through and caught "Frontline" (I know, I know, PBS, puh!). They tracked the attacks since 9/11 throughout Europe and how each European country was handling their version of the WoT (mostly through intel + police). Of note, though, they highlited Spain and said 8 months AFTER 3/11 (after Zappy's govt's in and the Spanish military out of Iraq), the Spanish intel community had stopped 30+ jihadi attacks, arresting all involved. One specific attack planned was to hit 7 specific targets in Madrid (again, after they appeased the jihadis) including the judicial offices of Spain, a tall high-rise office building designed by the same architect who did the WTC, and Madrid's soccer football stadium! So much for the appeasement theory, and I, for one, would like to unleash some football fanatics on the jihadis in Europe!
Posted by: BA ||
07/08/2005 12:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
isrealis would object. Actually one of the thin safety nets of Israel is that Palestinians and Jordanians are near by...
The author of the legendary essay on "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology" takes the analysis to the next step. You really should read it all, but here's one of the good parts to get you excited:
Immediately after 9/11, the general consensus was that we were at war. And yet this evocation of the concept of war bothered me because it did not quite fit. Wars were things that Westerners did. They were fought for economic reasons or for territorial expansion; they were instruments of policy; they had a point and an objective. You knew when a war started, and you knew when it was over. On both sides of a war you had diplomacy -- the breakdown in diplomacy normally started wars, and a recommencement of diplomacy inevitably signaled their termination. . . .
If you try to make the random and scattered terrorist attacks since 9/11 fit into this pattern, you will soon realize that it takes a good bit of twisting and squeezing to make these events match the profile of Western warfare. Indeed, when I wrote "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology," I argued that war was not the appropriate model to employ in order to gain an understanding of the enemy that we faced -- and yet at the time I was still unclear what model of conflict would make more sense.
After the London bombing, I feel more than ever that the war model is deeply flawed, and that a truer picture of the present conflict may be gained by studying another, culturally distinct form of violent conflict, namely the blood feud.
In the blood feud, the orientation is not to the future, as in war, but to the past. In the feud you are avenging yourself on your enemy for something that he did in the past. Al Qaeda justified the attack on New York and Washington as revenge against the USA for having defiled the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia by its military presence during the First Gulf War. In the attack on London, the English were being punished for their involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the blood feud, unlike war, you have no interest in bringing your enemy to his knees. You are not looking for your enemy to surrender to you; you are simply interested in killing some of his people in revenge for past injuries, real or imaginary -- nor does it matter in the least whether the people you kill today were the ones guilty of the past injuries that you claim to be avenging. In a blood feud, every member of the enemy tribe is a perfectly valid target for revenge. What is important is that some of their guys must be killed -- not necessarily anyone of any standing in their community. Just kill someone on the other side, and you have done what the logic of the blood feud commands you to do.
In the blood feud there is no concept of decisive victory because there is no desire to end the blood feud. Rather the blood feud functions as a permanent "ethical" institution -- it is the way of life for those who participate in it; it is how they keep score and how they maintain their own rights and privileges. You don't feud to win, you feud to keep your enemy from winning -- and that is why the anthropologist of the Bedouin feud, Emrys Peters, has written the disturbing words: The feud is eternal. . . .
. . . Indeed, to those adept at the blood feud, nothing can be more absurd than provoking a feuding partner into an all out war of annihilation -- which perhaps explains why the Islamic terrorists tend to vary the locations of their attacks and to string them out over the course of years, rather than concentrating on a single target and hammering it repeatedly over the course of days and weeks, as in a normal military campaign. If the terrorists attacked the same people continuously, day after day, week after week, they would be bound to stir up a fury that would result in their own extermination. By intermittent and infrequent attacks, on the other hand, they are able to injure and wound their enemy, without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by their enemy's desperate desire to be rid of them once and for all. Even better, such sporadic violence permits the enemy to discount their own suffering, by realizing after each fresh attack that life goes on -- as indeed it does for those who chance to survive.
. . . Contemporary Islamic terrorism has permitted the ancient practitioners of the blood feud to introduce its brutal and primeval logic into a world of modern technology and parliamentary politics. The sooner we grasp this fact, the sooner we will be in a position to know our enemy for who he really is. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2005 11:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He ignors the Carthaginian option. Certainly solves the old blood feud problem. The difference between a society that practices modern [objective based] warfare versus a society locked into primitive [social based] warfare.
You're absolutely right. Massive Duh! A blood feud it is.
I wonder how folks are gonna deal with this. It, uh, doesn't fit the usual Western scenarios, models, world-views, solution sets, or psychodramas. It's, um, in yer face and nasty. It's uh, guaranteed to harsh yer mellow. I'm thinkin' it'll break some folks' minds like dry twigs...
"Nope, can't wrap my mind around, it, so it can't be true!"
Uh, huh. Time to plug in, wiretrippers. Remember, you use cold water to get the blood out. Hollyweird will love it, cuz it means the WoT can be serialized - w00t!
#3
I love the Carthinian option. Notice, after the third Punic War, the romans never had problems with the Carthinians again. Same with the Greeks and the decimating of Athens, same with the Gauls, Britains.....
We have history on our side, man!
#4
By intermittent and infrequent attacks, on the other hand, they are able to injure and wound their enemy, without the fear that they will be overwhelmed by their enemy's desperate desire to be rid of them once and for all.
This is why the John Kerry option ("get back to where we view terrorism as a nuisance") won't work.
In the blood feud there is no concept of decisive victory because there is no desire to end the blood feud. Rather the blood feud functions as a permanent "ethical" institution -- it is the way of life for those who participate in it; it is how they keep score and how they maintain their own rights and privileges.
Therefore, what might be called the "modified Carthaginian option:" identify those who perpetrate and benefit from the blood feud, and ruthlessly, systematically erase them--not Arab populations generally, but the terrorist/thugocratic elite; the Saddams and Osamas and Arafats and Rantisis and Imam Whatsisnames and Prince Al-Whoevers. The reprisal should not be proportionate to the attack, since that's just buying in to the rules of the blood feud game. No, make it disproportionate, and deliver a message: if you start a blood feud with us, you, your house, and all you value in life will be exterminated.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2005 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Time to clarify... and that means Devil's Advocate...
CG / mm821 - Carthago delenda est?
1) Pray tell, in precisely what locations would this be exercised?
2) And the collateral damage - those who were "Moderate Muslims", innocently going about their lives?
3) And those who are embedded within other societies, such as the UK and US? Will Detroit have to be burned and salted, as well?
...
Mike - A Law Enforcement approach? How would you identify the baddies you want to hunt down and erase, exactly?
Or are you saying the Israeli Whack-a-Leader game?
...
I'm asking these questions of all of you because without the answers, and the stones to back the selected soluition up without hesitation or moral prevarication and quibbling, we don't have dick.
#6
Fair question, Brother .com. I am specifically thinking of the Israeli approach. Don't hit back just at the cannon fodder, go for the bosses; don't arrest, erase. Incidentally, this is largely what we're doing in the ME--regime change is the Israeli approach writ large.
I don't, and Pres. Bush doesn't, want this to become a general war between the civilized world and Islam, or between the civilized world and Arabs as a class. Arabs, and Moslems, are created just as equal as you and me, and endowed by our Creator with all the same inalienable rights we have. They have goons for rulers, and an arguably messed-up culture, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve a shot at something better.
All that having been said, if it does come down to a general war between the civilized world and Islam, or between the civilized world and Arabs as a class--because they choose it to be that--I have no trouble figuring out what side to root for, and no qualms about doing what needs to be done.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2005 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
.com
Did we have to kill every Native American? Seems the Army did destroy directly or indirectly a number of tribes and clans. Others, paying attention, learned not to bother the wrong people. Its not nice, but I don't think by the time the actions occurred, those with the power care much anymore. Didn't have to do everyone. Just enough.
There is a trigger event to yet occur for our culture. When the idiots playing primitive war stupidly cross that point, they'll release any constraint from us to do what we are fully capable of. When the Japanese thought they could raise the cost of continuing the War in the Pacific to a level that will alter the American intent to finish it in a Jacksonian manner, Truman appearently had no problem with the option he took to get their undivided attention. Note even then, the 'die hards' still tried to prevent a resolution to the issue, but others overcame their dead end influence cause they had a self preservation motive whether it was individual or cultural. We'll start with the hotbed locations [like we don't know where those are]. Just waiting for that trigger event to happen.
Where is that line? I came to a very harsh conclusion, after much coffee and cheese danish, that we have to free ourselves of some treasured notions - especially our self-image. It's part 'n parcel to the hue and cry over Bush making pre-emption an acceptable policy for the US. I'm sure you know the still ongoing chattering class mantra of the "illegal war" - a direct result of pre-emption policy - even though he checked off every box along the way, UNSC, etc. Bush can't buy a break. And if they hated that one, just wait til they get a load of going down 'n dirty, fighting fire with fire. To "win" against these guys, we will have to do, as you say, "erase, not arrest" -- and that will cause yet another round of BS memery and wailing and gnashing of teeth - demonizing all involved.
The closest example I can conjure up is the Pacific island-hopping campaign against Japan. Holed up in honeycomb caves, we were forced to use grenades and flame throwers - even tank round fired point-blank into the cave mouth. My uncle told me first-hand stories that literally blew my young mind. The public only "gets it" on a very general level - WW-II was the last time that will be allowed to happen. The vets of that series of fights were some tough SOB's, cuz they did the deed and suffered in silence. There were similar Vietnam episodes, of course, but most who might be inclined to talk about the shit they did as tunnel rats, for example, have had enough of being demonized for doing the only thing they could. My point here is that our internal enemy, the Moonbat / socialist / LLL / MSM "cabal" is poised to blow anything done out of proportion and lead Johnny Dumbass and Madge Quiltmaker to conclude we are bad for fighting fire with fire - even if it was to secure their lives and permit them the freedom to bash the good folks who had to do the deed.
Gonna get ugly and no one who hasn't been there before, personally, is prepared for what that will entail. If we can keep the Whack-a-Dick game on the video-game level, ala Gulf War I, then they'll shut up and marvel at the tech. If not, well, it's going to be a nasty nasty revelation. Recall the reaction to the "highway of death" as the Iraqis fled Kuwait City with their stolen goodies. What did they think it would be like? Disneyland? Six Flags? TV? Fucking morons and lying whores.
Just my take. I've written about this several times, waaay back, and found myself in a shit-storm. And that was on RB. Imagine the NYT and it's tools and how they will react.
I see it this way: If 9/11 wasn't enough to convince every person in the US this is for all the marbles, then nothing will. Obviously we have a significant portion of our citizens who are, sans the niceties, on the other side. That Skeery got 20%, much less 47% is mind boggling to me. I do not have much confidence that our remaining non-idiotarian population has the stones or the brains to stay the course when it gets bad -- unless it comes home to roost. If the fight is here, then they'll finally get it. I'd prefer the fight was over there.
Timing is everything ("You can't wait for good timing.") and it looks like Bush will be around and sitting in the big chair when Iran (and its puppet Syria) pop up for resolution. Who will be sitting there when the time comes to deal with Saudi? When the PakiWakis stop fighting each other and turn outward? Etc. Etc.
Post-Bush looks very bleak to me, right now. The last year or so of Bush might be bleak, too, due to our sizable insane population segment.
#10
Sadly, I agree with you, .com! I (personally) haven't been there and "done what needs to be done," but you're completely right...if 9/11 didn't wake people up here at home, I'm afraid we're destined to another attack. As long as we're on the offensive, we're good. But, you're right, we're looking at borrowed time post-Bush.
Posted by: BA ||
07/08/2005 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Just for the record, I want to make it clear I'm not hand-wringing or giving up. I'd do some sawing myself, if that was needed.
If it makes it to our shores and it's big enough (since so many, especially the MSM fools and tools, seem to think it's a numbers game, sigh), then pity the poor Muzzies. If identified, pity their entire countries. All bets will be off and Carthage will seem like a trip to Swenson's.
Sure wish we could get there without being whacked.
#12
"That Skeery got 20%, much less 47% is mind boggling to me."
Amen to that! We can thank the NYT/CBS/CNN/BBC et al super-slanted MSM for many of those 47 points, but I was still flabbergasted that it was as close as it was. Shades of Lincoln's narrow reelection, I guess.
Speaking of MSM, have y'all noticed the latest bullshit meme-in-waiting, THE LONDON ATTACK MEANS FLYPAPER DOESN'T WORK!!!?? I've been fighting that one on a couple comments sections, but came too close to popping an artery.
#13
docob - That the 7/7 perps appear to have been homegrown is the answer, IMHO. Once that's confirmed, you'll have a sizable stick to whack the 'tards with.
#14
Thanks, .com, but I'm afraid I'll never be good at this troll-whacking stuff (at which you are, BTW, the best I have ever seen). My emotions get in the way. But hey, maybe practice will make perfect.
#16
Blood Feud is the is the perfect discription.
Getting the people in this country and in western civilization to wrap their heads around that is the problem.
Why did 47% of the country vote for Flechter? Because they are to lazy to find read the truth and wrap their heads around it. They will let guys like Feltcher, Dean and Galloway think for them. Do you think thast 47% or, even a full 98% in this country, has ever read what is in one typical allenist sermon of friday? Do they even understand the truth about the death cult.
My guess is a full 98% of this country hasn't and will not bother to get the facts about allenism. You have to surmount that mountain of a problem before we do more than poke this with a 8 foot stick. What we have going now is only scratching the scab.
Finally how do you put blood feud into a military doctrine? Going the Carthage vs Rome route is an option but are there others?
I likley didn't do well communicating what I think. PD knows how hard it is for me to accurately explain anything. If you don't understand what I put down don't worry you won't be alone.
#19
Me neither, .com (the hand-wringing comment). In fact, I wish we'd get on with it! I'm sick of the hand-wringing, as that only invites larger attacks. I'm ready for Rummy or someone with cojones to say "Ya know what, next terrorist attack leads to the seizure of Saudi oil fields. The one after that leads to the seizing of the almighty "black rock." The third leads to the nuking of Mecca. Any questions?" We need a new alignment of countries (a'la NATO) that'll go to bat for each other like NATO ("If one is attacked, we consider it an attack on all of us").
Posted by: BA ||
07/08/2005 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Seize the fields now. Then tell them the remainder.
#22
docob - I wuz just funnin' bro, cuz it was skeery, lol - don't you dare leave! :-)
SPo'D - I think you made perfect sense... and raised a helluva good question regards encoding blood feud into a military strategy. You know the Congresscritters won't be able to make sense of this, so it will have to be done stealthily. We MUST find a way to make certain that the"front" is always manned by our military - not the cops or the Fibbies or any other domestic element. The troops are the only element capable of and mentally prepared to do the deeds that must be done. It certainly sounds like a heavy focus on SF, to me. Lessee, isn't the current Joint Chiefs Chairman a guy who might "get it"? Heh.
#26
Interesting article. VERY interesting; Harris may be onto something, here. I'm not convinced yet by his argument, though, and I'll have to noodle on it for a bit, let it ferment in the brainpan and all. I also want to re-read his essay, "Al Qaeda's Fantasy Ideology", again. Might also behoove me to get off my ass and read the copy of "Civilization and its Enemies" that's been gathering dust on my bookshelf for the last six months.
But whether what's been going on is best understood as a "blood feud" or as a "war", it's certainly clear that the muzzies' behavior is influenced by their origins in primitive, blood feud cultures.
And either way, I agree with Mike said above:
"The reprisal should not be proportionate to the attack, since that's just buying in to the rules of the blood feud game. No, make it disproportionate, and deliver a message: if you start a blood feud with us, you, your house, and all you value in life will be exterminated."
Make it disproportionate, indeed: horribly disproportionate, because these people don't seem to be too swift at getting messages.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/08/2005 17:30 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Very thought provoking. But I can't stop thinking about Binny's fatwahs. It's pretty obvious that Binny and co. have big aspirations and for them this is war with specific objectives and big goals. They may be inspired by the phenomenon that Harris describes and, consciously or not, their attacks will follow such a pattern since it has a long history in their culture and orgainzed warfare does not. But in the end, Binny et al want to be more than Beddouin pirates. They want to be Salladin, or the 8th century Arabs, conquering lands, sweeping the infidel before them, converting the globe, purifying the corrupt and theheretics (Shias and Sufis too) imposing the shar'ia.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
07/08/2005 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#28
I thought our post-9/11 message was pretty clear, starting with the cluster bombs in Afghanistan and leading right up to exterminating Wahabi infiltrators along the Syrian border. But Al Qaeda doesn't seem to get the message. Apparently we need to hang the guy with the hook from the Tower of London and vaporize some "tribal areas". Along the way, it wouldn't hurt to tell the Syrians, the Pakistanis, the Saudis, and the Iranians that we've got a few thousand nukes we can target on them and we're going to be in a very foul mood the next time we get struck. The Saudis especially need to understand that we'll level their damned snake pit if another 9/11 traces back to them.
Posted by: Tom ||
07/08/2005 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
#29
The Saudis especially need to understand that we'll level their damned snake pit if another 9/11 traces back to them.
If there were sufficient support for that here, it would go a long way to cleaning up the Islamacist act. Maybe. But I suspect the ones who are deadenders don't really give a damn and half expect Allah to come down FINALLY on their side if we do.
Posted by: had enough ||
07/08/2005 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Fred: I think this is one for the "Classics;" one of the better discussion threads we've had here at the 'Burg.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2005 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#31
All of these comments are smart and incisive, and all of them miss the one point that matters: nobody in the West has the stomach to pursue a strategy of disproportionate response. I can't imagine the scale of an attack on the West that would get a majority of Westerners to sign off on a Carthaginian strategy. I just don't see it. We're going to be caught in this feud for a long time, and eventually there will be generation that will just give up and start praying to allah 5 times a day. They can wear us down because not enough of us love what we have enough to sacrifice for it.
But then I'm a bit depressed. Can you tell?
Posted by: Jonathan ||
07/08/2005 22:07 Comments ||
Top||
#32
"...nobody in the West has the stomach to pursue a strategy of disproportionate response."
That's not really true, at least not literally: there are some, including me, who'd be perfectly comfy with it. But though that number is significant, I'd agree that it's disappointingly small.
"I can't imagine the scale of an attack on the West that would get a majority of Westerners to sign off on a Carthaginian strategy."
Really? I can: a couple of American cities-- or maybe even just one-- attacked by terrorist-born nukes, and you've got multiple smoking, glowing holes in the ground at several places in Ragville. Take out a half-dozen American cities, and it's The Big Sleep for nearly the entire Muslim world. And I'd bet the bank on it: the American people would DEMAND nothing less.
"...eventually there will be generation that will just give up and start praying to allah 5 times a day. They can wear us down because not enough of us love what we have enough to sacrifice for it."
I disagree. We're not going to just give up and surrender to Islam; not now, not ever. At worst, in my opinion, our lethargy and and our short attention span will end up keeping us from succeeding at what we're trying to do now, and that's winning clean. It means we'll end up winning ugly instead-- that is, with a couple of our cities in uninhabitable ruins and a couple of million dead Americans before we get off our lazy asses-- or we'll end up winning dirty, with a couple of hundred million dead Muslims.
"But then I'm a bit depressed. Can you tell?"
Uh, yeah. A lot of us are.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
07/08/2005 22:35 Comments ||
Top||
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.
