He receives threats from various media outlets every week. Frequently checking his e-mail on a laptop, he finds an update from his lawyer about his latest lawsuit, brought by a TV-show host who objects to being labeled an "extreme leftist" even though the purpose of this particular host's show is to criticize French media for not being left enough.
Philippe Karsenty's last lawsuit, won in court, was brought by the website proche-orient.info, which Karsenty accused of taking its marching orders from Jacques Chirac. The lawsuits are wearing on him by demanding so much of his time and money. Perhaps that is the goal of his adversaries. Karsenty is not well-loved by the French media, and thereby the French government, which runs the French television stations that he has taken on directly.
Karsenty's Media Ratings is a French media watchdog organization, and for all its lawsuits and threats of lawsuits brought on by its daily efforts to expose bias in the French media, its oldest charge will only be coming to court this September. Karsenty accused state-run television station France 2 of perpetrating a fraud upon the world by reporting that Israeli soldiers shot and killed the Palestinian boy Mohammed al-Dura in 2000. The 55 seconds of video, taken by Palestinian cameraman Talal Abu Rahma and distributed at no charge to media around the world by France 2, is regarded as a major catalyst for the second intifada.
Theatrics heard round the world
Do you remember the Mohammed al-Dura video footage? The Muslim world does. The video shows a Palestinian father and son cowering against a wall, apparently taking cover from what sounds like an erratic spray of bullets, allegedly coming from IDF soldiers. The next scene in the video is of the father slumped over, as if injured, and the boy lying down, his face in his hands, apparently dead. Inexplicably, the actual shooting of the boy is not on the video, rather there is a cut to the end result.
The French reporter, Charles Enderlin, who presented the story on French television, claimed later that the actual shooting to death of Mohammed al-Dura was edited out because it was too gruesome. Karsenty asserted to France 2 that the entire video had been staged.
A simple Internet search of "Mohammed al-Dura" will turn up not only the many pro-Palestinian sites dedicated to the memory of their martyr, but analyses from several different sources explaining why the video is so phony it may as well have been performed by the puppets from "Team America: World Police." Although France 2 vehemently denies the charge, it has not produced footage of the actual shooting and, rather than accept responsibility for participating in this fraud and publicly retract the story, they have allowed it to stand.
The al-Dura video became a rallying cry around the Muslim world, a bitter symbol of Israel's alleged oppression of the hapless Palestinians. The image of little Mohammed seeking shelter with his father has been commemorated on postage stamps in Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries, and an image of the father and son was featured on a poster in the background of the Daniel Pearl beheading video. France 2, meanwhile, has socked away the original video and brought a lawsuit against those who have accused the station of fraud.
The al-Dura video became a rallying cry for another group: media critics like Karsenty who question the veracity of video footage coming out of the Palestinian Authority-controlled territories and broadcast by media worldwide.
The al-Dura video raises two questions: What is the motivation for fabricating media-supported material, and why is the media so willing to broadcast it? The answer to the first question seems obvious: to foment rage against Israel and the Western world in the Muslim street. The answer to the second question is the business of Karsenty's organization, Media Ratings. It is the hypothesis of Media Ratings that the French media, upon which the organization is focused, has a powerful bias to the left. This bias causes the government-run French media to want to show the al-Dura video because it supports their anti-Israel agenda. But the media go ever further and become apologists for Muslim violence.
During a panel discussion in Los Angeles, which included Victor Davis Hanson and Walid Shoebat, Karsenty presented a montage of the Paris riots from this past November to illustrate what the French media were showing on television versus what was really going on. The Muslim men burning cars and chanting in the streets were referred on the TV news as "les jeunes" the youths. The chants of the rioters, "Sarkozy sale juif!" (Sarkozy, dirty Jew!) was changed to "Sarkozy, fascist!" in the captioning of the news clips. Why was the French media, the government, disguising the fact that the rioters were Muslims and that their chants were anti-Jewish? According to Karsenty, the French are afraid. Muslims, now 10 percent of the French population and growing, are an intimidating force in France.
Karsenty was asked during a Q&A session after the panel presentation about the public service announcements the government has been running, encouraging people to be tolerant of Jews. The questioner seemed to feel the PSAs were a positive turn of events. Although having to occasionally search for words in English, Karsenty approached the microphone and confidently declared, "It's bull." Surprised by his frankness, the audience hesitated a moment before laughing and then applauded. He later elaborated that the underlying tone to the tolerance ads was something to the effect of: "The Jews are OK. You can like them. See the dirty Jews? They're OK "
Skeptisemitism
Lest anyone think these television spots were directed toward a Muslim audience, Karsenty explains that the French themselves maintain a long history of anti-Semitism and believe every disaster can be traced back to the Jews. His imagined dialog with a Frenchman goes something like this:
"You felt pain for 9-11? Did you? Of course, that's because you're a Jew. The Jews caused 9-11, because the U.S. is a Zionist country. You felt bad about the bombings in England? Of course, because you are Jew. It was Israel's fault because the Arabs are so frustrated by the occupation of Palestine. "
He continues, unabated, through every natural disaster or terrorist attack. It is relentless, and ridiculous, but then that is the point. How could someone possibly conclude that the Jews caused the tsunami? It is that same, Old World paranoia that created and perpetuates the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion," the blood libel or today's conspiracy theory that the "neo-cons" or the "Israel lobby" pushed the U.S. into war in Iraq and is pushing for war in Iran.
It is what Karsenty refers to as "skeptisemitism" calling into question the validity of a Jew's word or position because he is Jewish, and therefore not a reliable source. This skepticism of Jews is what motivates left-leaning Jews to prove their credentials to French leftists by being the ultimate leftists, not to be outdone by anyone. Consequently, all the lawsuits, according to Karsenty, have been brought against him by fellow Jews.
The calm before the storm
According to Karsenty, the status of Jews has been declining in France, especially since the most recent intifada. The French media, he asserts, have been covering up attacks on Jews and Jewish institutions out of fear of their Arab/Muslim population.
While many people familiar with the al-Dura video wrote it off as a fake a long time ago, no such thing has occurred in France. The current socio-political climate in Paris suggests anything but a clear-cut trial for Karsenty. In fact, according to Karsenty, the France 2 reporter, Enderlin, received a letter from Ehud Olmert's spokesman, Raanan Gissin, refusing to challenge France 2's position that the al-Dura video is real.
Clearly, something is amiss if France 2 cannot produce footage of the "death throes" of Mohammed al-Dura, but without a political figure or another media outlet supporting Karsenty, he hasn't got much leverage in a French court. The Muslims do not want to let go of the iconic image of Mohammed al-Dura, and neither do the French.
The AP ran an earlier story on the Osama bin Laden tape that included an admission implicating two Gitmo detainees in the 9/11 attack. However, the the AP later ran "excerpts" of the Bin Laden tape, that admission curiously went unreported -- even though it would have a significant impact on the debate over the fate of Gitmo detainees...
"I was in the Third Ranger Battalion. Our job was to strike fear in the hearts of the Iraqi people.
We would go into peoples houses and plow down entire families. We would interrogate people. If we didnt like the answers that they gave, then we would kill the youngest child. If they gave more answers that we didnt like, then wed move on to the rest of the family. They couldve been innocent people.
We would leave the bodies in the streets and blame it on the Shiites or the Sunnis. [In Fallujah] we were ordered to go into mosques and slaughter people while they were praying. I wont go into full detail because Im still haunted by the memories."
What was the assault on Fallujah like?
"Fallujah is where we slaughtered people in mosques. We provoked the people there. Some people escaped from the mosques and saw us. We would dig holes and leave mass graves of children, women, and old men. We were ordered to let people die on the street. We were told that the Geneva Convention means nothing to us in combat..."
(much, much more at link)
Some of the problems with Jesse's pic and story, plucked from the DU itself! You gotta love it when they eat their own.
Claim: Attended Ranger School. Truth: would be awarded the Ranger tab, worn on the left shoulder above the 3/75 scroll.
Claim: Attended Special Forces Qualification Course. Truth: Would be awarded the Special Forces tab, worn on the left shoulder above the 3/75 scroll. SFQC from start to end takes about 1.5 years to complete, without any breaks. In a 11-03-2003 interview with the Eastern Arizona Courier he claims to have been home 2.5 months, making it 08-20-2003. He claims to have spent 14 months in Iraq and Afghanistan, making it 06-20-2002 when he departed for overseas. Special Forces is a total of 18 months making it 01-20-2001. Infantry combat training (boot camp) is 13 weeks, Jump school is 3 weeks, and Ranger school is 8 weeks (total of 24 weeks) making it 07-20-2000. A total of 3 years and 4 months of training and combat. If he was 19 years old in the interview then he was 15 or 16 when he enlisted. Minimum age of enlistment is 17 with parental consent. He also claims to have joined when he was 17, so the training and combat timelines do not work out. And this is if the system worked perfectly and the day he finished one school he started another, which is impossible because these schools are not collocated.
Claim: Fought with 3/75 in Afghanistan and Iraq. Truth: Would be wearing former wartime service 3/75 scroll on right shoulder.
Claim: Wearing Special Forces shoulder sleeve insignia on right shoulder, with Special Forces Qualification tab. Truth: No claims of being assigned to any Special Forces Group. The Special Forces Qualification tab is not worn on the right shoulder as a part of the former wartime service insignia.
Claim: United States Army Soldier. Truth: Rolls his uniform sleeves inside out not authorized in the Army.
Claim: Combat Infantryman Badge 2nd award. Truth: CIBs are issued during qualifying eras. The two most recent eras are Persian Gulf War, 17 January 1991 to 11 April 1991 and Somalia, 5 June 1992 to 31 March 1994. He would have been 9 years old to qualify for a second award.
Claim: Combat Action Badge 2nd award. Truth: IF he was an infantryman, he would not qualify for 1 CAB, he would have had to change his MOS prior to the incident awarding the CAB. There has not been a second qualifying era to award a second CAB, so it is impossible for him to have a second award.
Claim: Ranger. Truth: His beret is the correct color, but he is wearing the flash for the 1st Special Forces Group (wrong) and no distinctive unit insignia (wrong), which is required.
Claim: Operation Iraqi Freedom/ Battle of Fallujah. Truth: The Battle of Fallujah (Operation Phantom Fury) began on 11-08-2004. As we read about our intrepid Soldier was at home protesting coffee prices. Operation Vigilant Justice began on 04-05-2004 and did not include elements of 3/75.
#2
He's wearing his beret mashed on the wrong side - and in the wrong way too. Thats the most obvious thing of all, even plain leg REMFs can get that one right.
No way that skinny little ratbag would have made it thru RIP, much less the 18 branch Q course.
I invite him to come visit 3/75 Rangers and give a little talk on "war crimes" comitted by the Rangers. I'm sure they will find the time to even take him up and renew his jump wings. I'm sure he remembers his training and how to check his main. mwahahah!
#3
amend above to "I heard in an email..." about the beret - havent seen ti for myself. But if he did have the Beret on wrong, then its funny as hell, because thats one of the first thing any one does when they get thier first REAL beret (Airborne Maroon in my case) is to learn how to get jus thte right drop, angle and "mash" on it to make it look good.
#4
more beret-bashing comes in a quote from Army spokesman John Boyce via LGF:
...There are also numerous wear and appearance issues with the Soldiers uniform a mix of foreign uniforms with the sleeves rolled up like a Marine and a badly floppy tan beret worn like a pastry chef."
#8
This is a lot worse than just faking SF membership. It is providing valuable and dangerous propaganda to aid and abet our enemies - in other words, TREASON. He should be shot.
#9
Shooting is too good. He wants to be high-speed, low drag....? Hook him up at the Green Ramp with a night combat equipment (rock filled rucksack) NOE water jump.... at 600 AGL over the Gulf of Mexico. No reserve. The JM can hand him his static line as he exists the door. Problem solved.
#11
ArmyRanger.com
Sort of a tip for the folks at DU, though they couldn't get the website correct w/o drifting off to take another hit of acid. But it pointed me in the general direction.
Posted by: ed ||
05/24/2006 8:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm maybe naïve, but doesn't imperonnating a military man, claiming false ranks and so on constitute a felony?
Beside the sheer sleaziness of all that mess, I mean check this guy's bio, there is a distinct and persistent attempt at slandering the US Army and aiding the ennemy IN A TIME OF WAR.
The military brass should really, really ask for legal actions against this pos, perhaps this would dissuade the next bunch.
When I was growing up, everyone thought Id be a criminal, but they were wrong. Im gonna be one of the leaders of the revolution.
Ive read some opinions about this guy dismissing him simply as so committed to his cause that he fabricated his credentials. This is not like lying on your resume. It is more akin to intentionally torching a house so you can rush in and pretend to save the occupants. His mental instabilities do not warrant any sympathies and his actions demand only contempt.
#15
Fraud - just straight generic fraud charges. Set up a baseline prosecution - all these lies vs. 1st amendment rights to free speech and free press. A whole lotta lying is covered under those protections (James Frey, the NYT, network television), so you need to throw in a very specific and very small crime (find something about improper uniform) and then load up on the fraud evidence.
If nothing else, how about something under the military code, so federal courts are avoided altogether? That's where the uniform abuse would start.
#17
nice combination: the lightbulb-shaped head of Assad Sr., looks like Uday Hussein, and all the truthiness of Ward Churchill = loser
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Oh come on guys the LLL Mo0b@t fever swamp cant help but love him he is everything they wanted in a war hero: he began his enlisted in lieu of prison, he joined an elite group, he committed war crimes, he is unemployed, and he hates Bush. Ok only the last two items are actually true, but does that mean anything to the left? By the end of the week we will hear from a team of shrinks that IF young Jesse ACTUALLY joined the military he would have done everything that he claims he did, so that kind of makes it true. FYI I hear he is joining Veterans for Kerry 2008.
#20
Personally, I'm impressed by how quickly the Rove/Halliburton/Mossad team moved to discredit him. 'Course, it's all part of the plan: infiltrate the peace movement with blatanly fake antiwar vets like Jesse and use them to discredit the real antiwar movement and the real stories of real atrocities that really happened.
(There! That'll get the moonbats going!)
Posted by: Mike ||
05/24/2006 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Just another "castroccino" sipping ass-clown looking for his 15 minutes. The only op he's a veteran of was OPERATION SOY LATTE SPITTLE during the famous battle of the starbucks in phoenix, AZ, spring of '04.
#22
"OPERATION SOY LATTE SPITTLE during the famous battle of the starbucks in phoenix, AZ, spring of '04." Sad but I rememeber the Air Force coming out with campaign ribbon for that with bean clusters! We zoomies lovre our java!
#23
Let me first apologize for the bandwidth I am about to take up, but I think the LLL needs this information:
How to Avoid Getting Caught as a Fake Veteran
Recently a man named Jessie MacBeth was caught lying about his military service in a video where he described various atrocities committed in Iraq. Within one day, every aspect of his claims and public life were examined and found severely wanting. His attempt to discredit the war did a great deal of harm to the credibility of anti-war organizations that embraced his claims. If you want to avoid a similar fate, there are several basic steps you can take to avoid discovery.
1. Do Not Lie About Your Military Service. This step is so basic that many people forget it altogether. The easiest way to avoid discovery of your lies is not to lie. The truth is a much easier story to keep straight than lies and it often has a useful paper trail that you can point to when confronted.
2. Do Your Research. If you must lie about your military service, it will take a lot longer for you to be caught if you take some time and make sure the story holds together. Regrettably, the more detailed and factual your story is, the more likely it is that the people who were there will be contacted and out you for the fink you are. When discovered, you should be ready to disappear, even if you are in Congress. The easiest way to do your research accurately is to spend several years in military service okay, maybe not the easiest, but certainly the best.
3. Do Not Say Your Unit Activities Were Classified. Especially if you are claiming a war that is more than ten years old, nothing is worse than the old line "I can't tell you, it's a secret." Real veterans grit their teeth the instant that line is told and start their search engines. A certain Republican Congressman from Oregon discovered the hard way how badly this line is received. If you were involved in a special-ops black bag program, you're probably either dead or making six figures still doing it. Either way, nobody who does super-secret stuff talks about it, ever.
4. Do Not Play Dress Up. There are these things called "uniform inspections" that everybody in the military goes through, a lot. In them, the slightest imperfection in uniform appearance is noted and commented upon. This is called "attention to detail" and the military is really big on it. They act like their lives depend on attention to detail, mostly because their lives depend on attention to detail. Showing up in costume may make you feel important, but it makes you look like a fool to real veterans who can spot an imposter from a mile away. Once again, the best way to avoid this faux pas is to spend some quality time in the military, learning by doing.
5. Do Not Slander The US Military. If you are going to lie about the military, do not give veterans, their friends, families, loved ones, and survivors a burning desire to discredit you. Military people have been known to carry grudges for decades after being slandered and libeled. They get really touchy about getting called "baby-killer", "rapist", "murderer", "mercenary", "traitor", and "coward". Actually, they get more than touchy; they become enraged by this kind of thing, especially because it is almost always a lie. Lying like this will tend to get you caught and publicly exposed at Internet speed these days. Veterans and their families will drop everything to shut this kind of slander down. Not just because this is hurtful, but because it saps the morale of those who need it most.
Some people, including many who have actual military service, just can't help lying about their service or at least improving on the truth to make things more interesting. Jessie MacBeth is only the latest to be caught lying about his service to gain attention, he won't be the last. Everybody has access to an Internet search engine if they don't have access to a real veteran, and fake veteran stories just don't hold up they way they used to. If you want a veteran who is opposed to the war speaking at your rally or for your organization, you owe it to your cause to make sure that they are authentic and actually speaking truth when speaking to power.
Patrick S Lasswell is a Navy veteran of Operations Southern Watch and Uphold Democracy. He once sailed by Operation Restore Hope and went to the location of Operation Just Cause only seven months after it was over. He very nearly got to go move cargo for Operation Desert Storm and might someday get mobilized for Operation Iraqi Freedom or not. http://pslasswell.blogspot.com
#24
They act like their lives depend on attention to detail, mostly because their lives depend on attention to detail. Deliciously written, sir!
For those of us Rantburgers who never did the military thing (and there are about as many of us as of you-all, just because of between-wars X-generation), your comment is valuable, Cyber Sarge. Thank you. May I suggest you copy the whole thing and paste it over at IndyMedia or Kos -- some of the smarter ones will absorb the lesson, and it'll speed up the cycle the next couple of times. (As for me, I wouldn't go over there even just to look -- my skin is too delicate for the scrubbing required afterward.)
#25
I believe we can bring the charge of bruising a baseball bat with his teeth, and make it stick.
In most cases like this, these asshats have been beaten up so badly that they stop these games as they mature. That's why God gave us fists.
#26
Cyber Sarge: very interesting, good points.
Best point I reckon is this asshat did his own side far more damage than good.
Lesson for psyops perhaps? Combat the conspiracy theorists and loons witha few good plants like this. Not suggesting Jesse was a plant for a minute, mind, he looks like a 100% through-and-through Sheehan-worshipping moonbat.
#27
oppsio, While I would love to take credit for this it was from a navy guy: Patrick S Lasswell is a Navy veteran of Operations Southern Watch and Uphold Democracy. He once sailed by Operation Restore Hope and went to the location of Operation Just Cause only seven months after it was over. He very nearly got to go move cargo for Operation Desert Storm and might someday get mobilized for Operation Iraqi Freedom or not. http://pslasswell.blogspot.com
I think it should be required reading for LLL Mo0nb@ts thinking of virtually joining the Military.
#28
"Either way, nobody who does super-secret stuff talks about it, ever. "
Well some do, but only to reporters it seems. /snark
The rest of us will tell you some "war stories", gloss over some parts with "then we did some stuff we can't say" (or more likely, not even mention those parts at all), and move right on. Usually the stories at the VFW and Legion Hall get bigger with more alcohol, and invariable start with "This is no shit, there we were...". LOL
Most of the time, we just say we did our duty overseas, drop an UNclassified person or place name (that others would know), and others who are in the know can mentally fill in the blanks from there - no need to talk about it because if you've been there done that, you will get the context. Plus there's stuff that I don't know, and to be honest, I dont want to know - I don't want the responsibility for keeping anything more in my noggin than whats already there, stuff I did is enough to watch out for, much less some stuff some other ops did.
Beyond that, NOBODY ever speaks specifics. You hear that, its a dead giveaway that someone is lying to you unless you know them personally and are in a cleared area.
"I wont go into full detail because Im still haunted by the memories."
Dead giveaway. Soldiers move on. Thats why we have chaplains. Killing is not a normal thing, but all your training prepares you for it. And once you get over the shock of dealing death to an enemy, you go one of two ways - either you go buggy (and a few do - these days with an all volunteer force, probably the nubmers are mega-low), or you adjust and keep going. Just like all sodliers have done from the Spartans where you came home with your shield or on it.
If you were to talk to me in person, you'd find my stuff pretty boring - I am no super solider, jsut a guy doing the job I was trained to do, for the country I love, and also because I enjoyed the hell out of it. But the stories I can tell are funny at times, because I do have some funny stuff to tell when people messed up. Like a combat egress from the upper part of a barn that landed our platoon leader in 3 feet of liquified pig manure (he managed to somehow hit dead center in the sump in a pig sty, instead of hitting all the muddy but non-liguid area nearby). And what makes it better is that we had a 5K road march back to the AA in stinking soggy fatigues and boots: crap was soaked into his trousers, socks and boots, and half way up his chest, all over and in his ruck and butt pack, in his hair and on his arms from the inital splash. Even after hosing him off, we had to make sure we stayed upwind from him if we didnt want to gag. Had wind coming over our shoulders for most of the march, so that was the first and only time I've ever seen a West Point ring-knocker pulling point-man duty. He was noisy as hell, but thats OK - they'd have smelled him long efore they heard him.
#29
CS and OS: thanks for the comments. Rantburg U at its best.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/24/2006 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Speak for yourself OS; I was a Sniper/SpecOps/Marine/SEAL/Fighter Jock/Tank Commander. I served with the 101, 102, 103 Airborne Super Secret A-Team. I personally lead the attack force that captured the high ground and saved the day, all the while caring for my fallen comrades, and calling in air strikes to decimate the enemy. I was awarded the Silver Star with special 'BS' device, A Bronze Star with for battle stars, a CIB while serving in the Air Force, and most treasured procession is the floppy hat that some CIA pussy gave me after I saved his ass in a Da Nang whore house. The preceding message is a good example of what you will hear from a "War Hero" or after a few stiff drinks at the VFW.
#34
It's ok Broadhead6, any CIA/FBI/NSA/EIEIO trained killer would have spotted that whore as a VC sapper (her one leg didn't fool me). But I will be keeping the hat just the same.
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Sarge: You saved no one, I was simply giving Kie hand-to-hand instruction with my kabar. Kindly return the booney hat. I inadvertently left it hanging on the back of the door. BTW, I saw her the following Saturday downtown. She said your gun jammed that night. Sorry mate.
#39
Actually I was CIC at the time, right before that I was CID then OSS.......speaking of which, this one time me and Col Flagg infiltrated a bunch of drunken Maoists in the great Gobi jungle, they caught us on the wrong side of the wall, we were low on everything except hate, discontent, and dirty pinkos, needless to say when we got done dealing out the death on those drunk commie bastards the place looked just like a desert......and that's a no shitter.......
Posted by: ed ||
05/24/2006 19:50 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Good times JH, good times. Of course the Gobi isn't a jungle anymore, it looks like anyplance in Georgia now. I was working for CID then, HA! not really of course, that was just cover. I must make like the wind.
#45
buncha throwbacks to Commander McBragg...now THERE was aman with some stories!!
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 20:18 Comments ||
Top||
#46
How can I possibly top any of THAT from CS and OS? Unless it's the two-striper that set off the ejection system in an RF-4 in Alconbury, and buried the seat in the overhead concrete arch of the shelter. Good stories, one and all, and some of them are even true!
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/24/2006 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#47
"(As for me, I wouldn't go over there even just to look -- my skin is too delicate for the scrubbing required afterward.)", Oh, TW! That is the best comment on this entire thread (and there were a bunch of good ones, too).
There are a lot of losers out there like this guy. But just look at this mutt. I was never pretty (my mother loved me though, I'm told) but these losers really look the part. And to think they thought they were dressing for the part. God help us.
Besoeker, you sound as if you were Airborne. Yes?
Cyber Sarge, most of the time though they have the decency to start off the tale with the universally recognized preamble "No Shit, there I was!"
This is the best blog / news site anywhere. Hi Fred.
Posted by: Whiskey Mike ||
05/24/2006 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
#48
I so tired of blatently obvious pseuds like Jessie/Jesse MacDuff-whatever, I am kicking around the notion of doing a one-stop-shop blog entry on detecting the faux-veteran, and what you can do to check him/her/it out, and expose him/her/it to a couple of weeks or decades of exposure, mockery and humiliation. I am totally serious about this, I have a daughter (not Desert Blondie, BTW--- just Cpl/Sgt Blondie) who has already been asked impertinant questions while in uniform in a fast-food place in San Diego, about killing babies. Up with this, I will not put. Suggestions about what to look for, and where to contact to check out possible pseuds are invited, here or wherever.
I'll bet that a week ago, he was figuring his life couldn't get much worse than working at Wendys, dodging probation officers and bench warrants. Heh, heh. Guess what, moron? You're now "radioactive."
He's going to not only "start the revolution", he is going to LEAD IT!!!!! From a Wendys in Tacomo. With his home-boyz, Fidel and Che.......
Well, my bug-eyed friend - you certainly are revolting. I understand there may be some leadership openings coming up in Code Pink. Or maybe the Westboro Baptist Church brigade.
'Maybe the VP will even take you out on a snipe hunt: "Hey, Jesse - you go flush them, and I'll ......"
#50
not a typical SD response Sgt Mom. We like em here...musta been in Hillcrest/North Park?
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#51
LR, or he could get hired to clean blackboards at the local high school with those bushy-assed eyebrows he's got going..........looks like a couple of caterpillars are getting ready to f*ck on his forehead.
#55
Last comment for me on this today: "While you mooks were fight the Latte battle I was deep deep cover in the probing actions in the outer Nevada badlands. Point Chicken, Mustang, and Rabbit will be forever burned no SEARED in my memory. Sometime we went in unprotected and we never knew what we were getting out of it. It took about six months of rehab and probably a thousand CCs of kindness from a blonde nurse assigned to the 4077th MASH (I think they called her hotlips).
#56
Fast food place, near the airport, and there was a big anti-war demo going on that weekend.
No, it wasn't typical, but if it could happen in SD, god only knows what's been happening in towns where the military isn't popular...
#57
well, my apologies for our local troll's bad behavior. My son enters in September - basic at Ft. Sill
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 23:13 Comments ||
Top||
#58
You know, if the internet had been around in the early 60's, ol' Lee Harvey Oswald never would have gotten close to the Dealy Plaza. When he defected he would have been eviscerated. When he came home, we would have strangled him with his own intestines.
A much-esteemed, long-neglected friend sent an email this morning, which was delightful to recieve. At one point he mentioned this post from yesterday and wrote: I think (President Bush) has lost his bearings. but then, so did Moses from time to time, its quite understandable.
That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with his base or have they?
When I read my friends line, I thought of a line from Pride and Prejudice, in which Elizabeth Bennett says in new appreciation of Mr. Darcy, In essentials, I believe, he is very much what he ever was.
Perhaps I am a dim bulb, but President Bush has never surprised me, and that is probably why I have never felt let down or betrayed by him. He is, in essentials, precisely who he has ever been. He did not surprise me when he managed, in August of 2001, to find a morally workable solution in the matter of Embryonic Stem Cells. He did not surprise me when, a month later, he stood on a pile of rubble and lifted a broken city from its knees. When my NYFD friends told me of the enormous consolation and strength he brought to his meetings with grieving families, I was not surprised. When the World Series opened in New York City and the President was invited to throw the first pitch, there was no surprise in his throwing (while wearing body armor) a perfect strike.
He did not surprise me when he spoke eloquently from the National Cathedral, or again before the Joint Houses of Congress, when he laid out the Bush Doctrine. He did not surprise me when he did it again at West Point, or when he went visionary at Whitehall (Lauri points out the video can be found at this link. Its worth watching!)
There were no surprises in President Bushs invasion of Afghanistan to battle AlQaeda. There were no surprises when he went after an Iraq which everyone believed had WMD, an Iraq that had tried to assassinate an American President, an Iraq whose NYC consul did not lower its flag to half-mast after 9/11.
Actually, there was one surprise. He did surprise me by going back to the UN, and back to the UN, in that mythical rush to war we heard so much about. But then again, the effort in Iraq was never as unilateral as it had been painted.
President Bush did not surprise me when, faced with the scorn of the world community and those ever-ready A.N.S.W.E.R. marches which sprang up condemning him and Tony Blair, he stood firm. A lesser man, a mere politician, would have folded under such enormous pressure. I was not surprised when Bush did not. (Aside - its funny how they just cant get a good-sized crowd together for those protests these days, innit? Everything about Iraq was wrong and everything about Iraq is failure and quagmire and yet, somehow, we all breathe a sigh of relief that the job is done, that Saddam is out of power and that Iraq, save a very small piece of troubled land, is - in remarkably short order (and despite the wild pronouncements of John Murtha) - tasting its first morsels of democracy and liberty, and showing promise.)
It never surprised me that Yassar Arafat, formerly the most welcomed foreign Head of State in the Clinton White House was not welcomed - ever - to the Bush White House.
I wasnt surprised by the, not one, but two tax cuts he got passed through congress, or the roaring economy - and jobs - those tax cuts created. I wasnt surprised when he killed the unending farce that is the Kyoto treaty (remember, the thing Al Gore and the Senate unanimously voted down under Clinton?), or when he killed U.S. involvement in the International Criminal Court, or when he told the UN they risked becoming irrelevent, or when he told the Congress and the world, America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country. Not surprising.
I wasnt surprised at all to watch him - in a foreign and hostile land - go rescue the Secret Service agent who was being detained and kept from protecting him. Or to see him shoot his cuffs, afterwards, and greet his host with a smile.
I was never surprised that he tried to change the tone or tried reaching across the aisle to invite onesuch as Ted Kennedy to help draft education reform, something none of his predecessors dared touch. Just as they never dared to try to reform social security or our energy policies. The feckless ones in Congress wouldnt get the jobs done, unfortunately, but he is a president who at least tried to get something going on those dangerous issues. His senior prescription plan was unsurprising and it is helping lots of people.
I was not at all to surprised to see President Bush forego the trembling lip photo-op moment in which most world-leaders indulged after the Christmas Tsunami of 2004 in order to get real work done, to bring immediate help to that area by co-ordinating our own military (particularly our Naval support) with Australia and Japan. Stupid, stingy American. I was surprised, actually, to see him dance with free Georgians. I didnt think he danced.
#1
The Anchoress is one of my more favorites reads when I have a little time to devote to other blogs.
Posted by: Steve White ||
05/24/2006 1:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
She does have a point. I do like Bush's foreign policies and I never liked his domestic policies, but since I am more concern about our war I can live with his domestic policies.
#3
I've come to appreciate that boring can be better. So he doesn't get the awe of entertainers or MSM pundits. That makes him MORE appealing
In an age of postmodernism, when people are trampling over each other to get to and live in the gray area because they have been brainwashed by our education and infotainment industries to believe that doing so makes you automatically oh-so-smart and a good person to boot (they're wrong, of course), it's refreshing to find someone who sticks to their guns. People who reflexively label any and all steadfastness as closedmindedness are immature at best and dishonest at worst. Some things are worth standing for like a rock.
I'm better off with someone with whom I disagree and is a known quantity. I disagree with W on any of a number of issues, but he there's a constancy there which I respect.
In fact, I think that this is a big part of why people have left the Dems for the Repubs. The devil you know, and all. The Repubs generally wear their faults on their sleeves. You many not like their POV on something, but it is more often than not a known quantity.
The Dems have the sneaky Gramscian thing working everywhere, always. The majority of voters have figured this out, and realize that this is not good from an investment of time and energy standpoint. You are never sure what you're going to get. Look at the packaging of Clinton - the guy presented as a "moderate" who got into office and tried to convert 14% of the private sector economy to socialism and made possible sweeping gun control changes.
The Dems will for the foreseeable future pretend that a candidate for prez is moderate, then run hard left when in office. They'll NEVER say what they really want to do. See Kerry's "go to my website" in the debates. Widely promulgating what they actually wish to do is electoral suicide for the Dems, and they are all too aware of this.
It's a good thing when the President isn't too exciting or up on pop culture - or politics. I don't want one that is.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/24/2006 6:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bush hasn't surprised me either. I think he's been the most consistent president we've had in a long while & I can only guess what the pressure has been like for all the senior people in the White House since 9/11.
Posted by: was a lib sort of once ||
05/24/2006 6:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Agreed, Bush is not surprising at all. Doggedly determined, principled, stubborn (some would say to a fault), sentimental, personable, and many other things, but not inconsistent or surprising. I've never seen a President so completely unconcerned with the popular current. However, I think he sometimes mistakes the popular current with the legitimate will of the people. The immigration issue is such a case. Overwhelmingly, both Republicans and Democrats (not the politicos, but the average joe) are in opposition to Bush's approach. Lately he reminds me of the Lincoln quote:
"My old father used to have a saying: If you make a bad bargain, hug it all the tighter."
#6
Yep, the immigration thing is where I really break from him. I would've ram that issue down the dems throats and shown them for the wimps they really are. In the process thrashing McCain, Hagel and any other rino's in the mix. Other then that and wasting money on africa he's done pretty much what I expected & shown good resolve on the WOT.
#7
I voted for President Bush twice and, were it not for the 22nd amendment, would vote for him again. I think that 100 years from now, he will rank with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Polk, Roosevelt, and Reagan as one of the great American presidents. He is dead wrong on amnesty, but I can live with that.
#8
"Polk" ? What did he ever do (aside from inventing a pattern of dots, I mean...)
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
05/24/2006 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Bush has made big omissions: His failure to veto McCain/Feingold was one disaster. Last year, when the Supremes allowed New London, Cn. to forcefully steal the Kelo property, Bush should have blown a gasket, but he failed to make a ripple. The practice is now in full swing at a town near you. He took absolutely no action to help the Venezuelans to defend their democracy against the commie dictator Victor Chavez. he could have, but he failed.
Among the greatest presidents ? Subtract the 9/11 reactions from the mix, and he was adaquate.
I am a right winger.
#10
Last year, when the Supremes allowed New London, Cn. to forcefully steal the Kelo property, Bush should have blown a gasket
Respectfully disagree. This administration is, for good reasons, really pushing the boundary of executive powers. Having him criticize a SCOTUS decision would just be a red flag for critics.
It's a horrid decision, absolutely horrid. But he was right not to comment in public IMO.
And re: Chavez, our hands are somewhat tied after the Venezuelan military flinched and didn't really back the attempt to overthrow him in 1992. I met the US military attache who made the news during the coup attempt, btw .. he had lots to say about the mess in the country and is married to a Venezuelan who hates Chavez.
What he said he would do. Mexican American War and Oregon Territory Treaty established us as a continental nation. He served one term only. For my money he was the only good President between Washington and Lincoln.
#12
#7 I voted for President Bush twice and, were it not for the 22nd amendment, would vote for him again. I think that 100 years from now, he will rank with Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Polk, Roosevelt, and Reagan as one of the great American presidents. He is dead wrong on amnesty, but I can live with that. Posted by RWV 2006-05-24 11:04|| Front Page|| ||Comments Top
...but your children and grandchildren might NOT be able to.
#13
"Subtract the 9/11 reactions from the mix, and he was adaquate."
Words fail.
Yeah, if we subtracted the Civil War reactions from the mix, Lincoln would've been merely adequate. Same for Washington and the Revolutionary War. Frickin' pikers. And don't get me started on Teddy.
Now if Bush was big into investigating crop circles, whoa, lookout!
#14
RWV: He is dead wrong on amnesty, but I can live with that.
What? You are in favor of amnesty?
I didn't think so. Neither is Bush:
"4. We Must Deal With The Millions Of Illegal Immigrants Already Here
The President Opposes Amnesty. President Bush opposes giving illegal immigrants an automatic path to citizenship because it would be unfair to those who are here lawfully, would compromise the rule of law, and would invite further waves of illegal immigration. The President supports increasing the annual number of green cards that can lead to citizenship, but for the sake of justice and security, the President is firmly opposed to amnesty.
President Bush Believes That Deporting Every Illegal Immigrant Is Neither Wise Nor Realistic. There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant and a program of mass deportation.
President Bush Believes Illegal Immigrants Who Want To Stay Should Have To Pay A Meaningful Penalty For Breaking The Law, Pay Their Taxes, Learn English, And Work In A Job For A Number Of Years. The President also believes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record. Those who meet our conditions should be able to apply for citizenship but approval will not be automatic, and they will have to wait in line behind those who played by the rules and followed the law."
#15
KBK, I really don't care about "amnesty" per se. What I care about is that we are "a nation of laws" and any time that our elected representatives at any level decide to selectively enforce the laws, we become less American. Any program that leaves illegals in place rewards them for brazenly and continuously breaking our laws. A "meaningful fine" is a joke. Many illegals have paid significantly more than $2K to be smuggled into this country. If paying $2,000 was all it took to get a green card and a place at the "back of the citizenship line" most of India, China, Korea, England, et. al. would be in the line tomorrow. The fact that our elected officials choose to pander to the only voting block they view to be in play to the utter disregard of our laws and any sense of fair play is a national disgrace and a recipe for anarchy. Once you selectively enforce the law, independent minded people will decide for themselves which laws they will obey. That being said, I still like and respect George Bush even though his immigration views are deliberately clueless.
#17
I'm with KBK - we on teh border want a big FUCKING fence and real penalties for smugglers and employers. Feds should quit winking at the games and cheap labor and do THEIR jobs or get out
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I could care less about a fine. If they go home and get in line to immigrate, that's fine too. Anything less is amnesty. Perhaps only partial amnesty, but amnesty. They get an advantage over the fools who followed the rules. That's not right.
The response was typical from the local office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR): Ahmed Bedier, the director and a spokesperson for CAIRs Central Florida Council stated,
Obviously, if they had recently arrived here and they are from Saudi Arabia, they may not be familiar with American rules and laws. They might have thought it was some kind of public transportation.
CAIRs usual response any time authorities detain or question Muslims or Arab nationals in the US who are suspected of potential terrorism planning came about when two young Saudi nationals, Mana Saleh Almanajam, 23, and Shaker Mohsen Alsidran, 20, both of Tampa, boarded a Florida high school bus with local students one morning. The bus driver who radioed police was notified by alarmed students on board when they noticed the Saudi men behaving strangely and one wearing a long trench coat on a very hot day and profusely sweating. A half hour later they were removed from the bus by a sheriffs deputy and interrogated. Almanajam and Alsidran are both reasonably fluent in English according to acquaintances and Florida State University language instructors and should know the difference between public transportation and a school bus.
So was this just a mistake or another example of our State Department, Saudi Arabias best friend, at work?
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office spokesman J.D. Callaway explained,
the men were speaking in Arabic, they were making funny sounds, it was very unusual. It was alarming for the students on the bus.
Callaway described them as cagey and evasive as they answered questions.
The men told authorities they were from Morocco because they worried Americans fear Saudi Arabian men.
They told authorities they are enrolled at the English Language Institute at the University of South Florida. The defendants gave several versions of the reason they took a school bus to a high school, said Callaway.
Excuses changed from their seeking to enroll in an English language program at the high school even though they already were in one at the University of South Florida, to they just wanted see a US high school or just for fun.
In 2001, after information came out that most of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi nationals, the visas of most Saudi students in US colleges were revoked sending them home. But Almanjam and Alsidran were admitted recently to a US college thanks to the US State Department once again allowing 21,000 Saudi national to flood US campuses after pressure from US colleges seeking Saudi tuition money. That figure is roughly equal to the number here just before 9/11.
These two men were initially charged with trespassing by local prosecutors and already had a bond posted and CAIR to speak on their behalf, but after further deliberations the bond was revoked and Homeland Security has begun investigations into their cell phone communications and documentation (anyone hear the ACLU screaming?). Further interrogations revealed the two had planned the bus invasion the night before and knew what they were doing.
One law enforcement official involved in the case described the two Saudis as very cocky in their dealing with authorities. And why shouldnt they be? Surely someone at State will respond to appeals from the Saudi consulate along with help from CAIR. Meanwhile, the government has scheduled these two Saudi students for an immigration hearing so thankfully they are still in custody in federal lockup and will probably be deported since these arent the sons of some fabulously wealthy sheiks.
But dont bet on it.
Even though they were in the country as students, subsequent information has also revealed they were not qualified as such, needing to complete a course in English at FSU to even apply. Apparently the US State Department is so intent on allowing Saudi students into the US they are even admitting those ill-equipped to follow a normal required course of study. Perhaps all a Saudi student needs to get a State Department visa is the ability to fly an airplane, no need to know how to takeoff or land. As mentioned, several of the hijackers on 9/11 were Saudi students who overstayed on student visas. The US State Department just doesnt get itor doesnt want to.
Long trench coats on hot days and heavy sweating are something security forces tell bus drivers to look out for in Israel to prevent suicide bombings on buses. Was this a dry run or an experiment to see how easily access to school buses could be attained? In any event, the government has scheduled these two Saudi students for an immigration hearing With no bail and thankfully they are still in custody in a federal lockup.
The first World Trade Center attack in 1993 proved to al Qaeda and its terror allies the need for preparation and dry runs before launching a successful mission. This event needs to be scrutinized as potential training and preparation for what may lay in store for high schools across the US. Our high schools and children are and will be one of our most vulnerable targets not just by indoctrination in the classrooms and textbooks, but for physical attacks as well in the case of terrorist attacks.
Leave it to the US State Department to leave open any possibility of another 9/11 when it comes to admitting Saudi students.
#7
Just searched for 'Rantburg' on google blog search. Plenty of hits for other mention of RB, but no hits for the Burg itself. Gues we have been labelled hate speech.
Just signed up for A9. Incredibly it doesn't tell you what A9 does until after you have signed up. Otherwise it looks interesting.
#1
I agree. My first step was to join ACT (the American Congress for Truth) with generous donations. Brigitte Gabriel, founder and head of ACT is an expert on the violent side of Islam. Her life is now devoted to ending this violence.
I suggest we all join Brigitte and network with her to get the ball rolling.
Tell your friends as I am telling you, as the man who wrote this article is telling us. Spread the word, and support the sites that make a difference.
Osama bin Laden says he doesn't fear dying. He says he fears being humiliated.
So let's give it to him.
Bin Laden and others have thrived on the almost obsessive American focus on them as personal rivals. We give them the coveted ``Enemy of the Great Satan'' brand whenever our national leaders single them out by name.
What would happen if we ridiculed the terrorists instead? Would young people still flock to become ``fighters'' and suicide bombers? Would they still leave on their doomed missions with tearful support from their mothers, fathers, grandparents and the pretty girls at home, blessed by a cleric who justifies murder as a noble sacrifice in Allah's name?
Terrorism is psychological warfare: to accomplish much with little by manipulating people's perceptions, emotions and actions. That's why terrorists like soft targets -- innocent civilians in a skyscraper or mosque -- that have little if any military value. The killings serve to terrorize civilized society, Muslim and otherwise. Ridicule strips the terrorist of his power. If we stop being afraid, we turn the icons of fear into objects of contempt.
The U.S. military may be developing its war-fighting skills to do just that. Recently it shattered the seemingly invincible persona of Al-Qaida leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whose beheadings and bombings have terrorized Iraq and the world, by pairing his latest video release with captured raw outtakes. The outtakes showed Zarqawi not as a fearsome fighter but as a confused, bumbling fat boy in American sneakers and a black ninja costume who couldn't figure out how to operate a simple machine gun. (And even if it wasn't simple, there was no way to know that from the outtakes.) For the first time ever, the world saw Zarqawi's weak side: a pudgy, vulnerable, even contemptible creature who can't fight like a real warrior.
To most Americans, ridiculing terrorists might seem trivial, even sophomoric, as a weapon of war. But dictators and terrorists, being unable to function in the free market of ideas, need propagandists to control (not merely spin) their public images. They require obedience or acquiescence -- a fear factor that cannot long coexist with put-downs and snickering. (That's why, six months after taking power in 1959, Fidel Castro had signs placed in official buildings that read ``Counterrevolutionary jokes forbidden here.'' One of the first publications he shutdown was Zig Zag, a humor magazine.)
Pride, honor and shame are profound in much of Arab Muslim culture. The Zarqawi video was devastating. That's why Iraqi television and other moderate Arab media gave it plenty of play.
The ancients of the Middle East understood the mortal power of ridicule. In the Talmud, the basis of Jewish law, the Hebrews proclaimed, ``All mockery (leitzanut) is prohibited except for mockery of idol worship.'' Muhammad, the founder of Islam, weaponized ridicule. From the third to the fifth years of his annunciation as a prophet, Muhammad deployed warrior poets ahead of his invading armies to soften the targets through mockery and derision.
Back in simpler times, Americans reflexively ridiculed their enemies. In a 1940 episode of ``The Three Stooges,'' Moe did a ridiculous impression of Hitler while Larry heiled as propaganda minister, and Curly dressed as Goering with his belly and buttocks festooned with medals.
When the United States entered World War II in 1941, the Army turned film studios into wartime propaganda mills. Humor about sacrifices at home and ridicule of the enemy were staples in Disney and Warner Bros. productions that starred Donald Duck and Bugs Bunny. (In fact, ``Donald Duck in Nutziland'' won an Academy Award in 1942.) To home audiences, the parody brought comfort and reassurance that, mighty as the enemy was, we could still defeat it.
In a January 2006 recorded message, bin Laden signed off by saying: ``I swear not to die but a free man even if I taste the bitterness of death. I fear to be humiliated or betrayed.''
If he's not afraid to die, let's pour on the humiliation.
As long as the terrorists can make themselves look like fearsome winners -- and as long as we inadvertently help them -- they will always recruit followers. But nobody likes to follow a loser.
#2
Excellent point.
To ridicule them successfully, we'd need a compliant mass media system, like in WWII as noted in the article... but it doesn't suit their agenda anymore. In fact, they're on the other side, not only on the WOT, but in the whole culture war thing.
Perhaps the "red scare" sci fi movies and the likes were made possible by the earlier purge of Hollywood's commies (didn't last too long, though), so the logical step would be to change the power structure there again, one way or an another, don't know. Could it even be done?
Posted by: ed ||
05/24/2006 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This should be done professionally. Islamists all over wanted an "insult to Islam" from the west so much that they fabricated one, the "cartoon rage".
What in the west we would consider ridicule is too blunt for the target audience--potential jihadi recruits.
What is needed is to set up a chain of axioms among them, a series of "facts" that nobody even notices, but when put together are just enough to undermine their whole philosophy.
This is not emotionally gratifying on our side, but it works.
A good comparison for subtlety is why Rush Limbaugh is so popular. His secret is to tell jokes and anecdotes with the second or third best punchline. Most of his audience can figure out the best punchline, and it really makes them feel good.
It takes a great deal of intestinal steel to do this, as you want to tell the joke yourself. But in the long run, it really pays off. You will become very popular by not trying to tell the joke the "best" way. But it is very, very hard to do.
In the final analysis, we want to set up a situation so that in much of the world, in a near spontaneous manner, large numbers of jihadist supporters just say "Blecch!", and quit forever, in disgust.
#5
Heck, I've been telling my peers this about the arabs for years. Reduce the terrorists to the 'nerds' that they really are and people will get a new take on them. That's their biggest fear - being thought of as nerds, clowns, or impotent blow hards. It should be easy enough to do since in reality that's what these misguided jerk-off's are.
If we were to run "SNL" style skits on t.v. about Zarki fumbling w/that weapon ala what Chevy Chase used to do the Gerald Ford routine people would laugh their ass off. Cater that to middle eastern media via Al Jiz or whatever and they would get it; that would be very effective propaganda in my book.
#7
I like the idea, but I think a5089 has a good point here about the media. And we should remember that this "humiliation" tactic was in place when we first went into Iraq, which is why some soldiers got traction to do such things as the "pyramid of nude prisoners" idea. The old axiom of using 'what your enemy values most' against him is true, but once the media gets a hold of how you did it, be prepared for it to backfire in unanticipated ways. It comes down to: are we prepared to do what it takes to win, including things the international community will outraged about, and have we thought through ways to counter that outrage deftly?
Posted by: bk ||
05/24/2006 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Brownshirts with clown shoes.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
05/24/2006 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
To most Americans, ridiculing terrorists might seem trivial, even sophomoric, as a weapon of war.
Historically, humiliation as an endgame for motivation is counterproductive. That has been especially true in the Muslim World. Ridicule fuels self-loathing. The leaders that manipulate collective guilt understand this to be the foundation for recruitment to their violent ideologies. And when the leaders themselves are the targets, it only strengthens their resolve to change that perception. Exposing truths that result in humiliation, as a by-product, is a much more effective deterrent. I doubt that portraying Zarqawi as a bumbler had any real net effect on his persona one-way or the other. However, the news of the Talibans desire to execute a convert from Islam did open the eyes of many that otherwise have taken a more neutral stance. And it seems to me, the people that intentionally target school children repulse most humans. Motivation for change rarely occurs when people are told they are wrong. Persuasion is most effective when people believe they have reached conclusions on their own.
#11
a5089, et al: The word coming out from Hollywood is that a significant number of the young generation of writers, producers and actors view themselves (and vote!!!) Conservative Republican. Mostly they are biding their time quietly as they do the bidding of the Hollywood Establishment, waiting their turn to replace those currently in power, although they've managed to quietly make themselves known to one another. Ten to fifteen years out, the messages coming out of the film industry should be very different than what the world sees and hears now.
#16
#6 We need to do things like "Blazing Camels" with Osama in the bathtub with the rubber duckie.
I'll let youse comedy geniuses fill in the rest ;^)
I get a mental image of a foam of accumulated filth trying to crawl out of the tub over the sides just to get away from OBL...
Iraqis can participate in three historic elections, pass the most liberal constitution in the Arab world, and form a unity government despite terrorist attacks and provocations. Yet for some critics of the president, these are minor matters. Like swallows to Capistrano, they keep returning to the same allegations--the president misled the country in order to justify the Iraq war; his administration pressured intelligence agencies to bias their judgments; Saddam Hussein turned out to be no threat since he didn't possess weapons of mass destruction; and helping democracy take root in the Middle East was a postwar rationalization. The problem with these charges is that they are false and can be shown to be so--and yet people continue to believe, and spread, them. Let me examine each in turn:
The president misled Americans to convince them to go to war. "There is no question [the Bush administration] misled the nation and led us into a quagmire in Iraq," according to Ted Kennedy. Jimmy Carter charged that on Iraq, "President Bush has not been honest with the American people." And Al Gore has said that an "abuse of the truth" characterized the administration's "march to war." These charges are themselves misleading, which explains why no independent body has found them credible. Most of the world was operating from essentially the same set of assumptions regarding Iraq's WMD capabilities. Important assumptions turned out wrong; but mistakenly relying on faulty intelligence is a world apart from lying about it.
Let's review what we know. The National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) is the intelligence community's authoritative written judgment on specific national-security issues. The 2002 NIE provided a key judgment: "Iraq has continued its [WMD] programs in defiance of U.N. resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."
Continued on Page 49
In the beginning, neoconservatism was a movement of onetime liberals enraged at the wave of violence and disorder that overtook the cities in the 1960s. Riots convulsed urban America in that stormy decade, crime rates soared, student radicals seized campuses. How could anyone see all this, the first generation of neocons inquired, and still remain a liberal?
For it was all the liberals' fault. Wafted along by their vaporous good intentions, indifferent to any unintended consequences those intentions might engender, wrapped up in their dizzy notions of the perfectibility of humankind, the liberals (at least, as the neos caricatured them) crafted criminal codes devoid of punishment, welfare programs requiring no work. In the world the liberals made, civic order took a back seat to individual rights, and as order vanished, the urban middle class vanished with it, abandoning once-vibrant neighborhoods for the safety of the suburbs. A neoconservative, the movement's founding father, Irving Kristol, famously observed, was a liberal who'd been mugged by reality. While liberals dithered, neoconservatives argued first and foremost for more cops.
Fast-forward four decades and we've come full circle. The neocons have refocused their attention on foreign policy and, in championing the Iraq war, have come to embody everything they once mocked and despised in '60s liberals.
Bolsheviks in the cause of their vaporous intentions, so bent on ignoring reality that they dismissed and suppressed all intelligence that prophesied the bloody complexities of the post-Hussein landscape, they conjured from nowhere and guaranteed the world an idealized postwar Iraq.
The sharpest irony was their stunning indifference to the need for civic order. When the Army chief of staff, Gen. Eric Shinseki, said that the occupation would require many hundreds of thousands of troops to establish and maintain the peace, he was publicly rebuked by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, the administration's foremost neocon, and quickly put out to pasture. When the first U.S. official to take charge in post-invasion-Iraq, Jay Garner, called for a massive effort to train Iraq's police and restore order, he was summarily dismissed. When looting far more widespread than anything the United States had ever known swept Iraq's cities after Hussein's fall, Don Rumsfeld shrugged and said, "Stuff happens" -- a two-word death sentence for the possibility of a livable Iraq.
And now, just as middle-class Americans fled the cities in the wake of urban disorder, so middle-class Iraqis are fleeing, too -- not just the cities but the nation. In a signally important and devastating dispatch from Baghdad that ran in last Friday's New York Times, correspondent Sabrina Tavernise reports that fully 7 percent of the country's population, and an estimated quarter of the nation's middle class, has been issued passports in the past 10 months alone. Tavernise documents the sectarian savagery that is directed at the world of Iraqi professionals -- the murders in their offices, their neighborhood stores, their children's schools, their homes -- and that has already turned a number of Baghdad's once-thriving upscale neighborhoods into ghost towns.
Slaughter is the order of the day, and the police are nowhere to be found. "I have no protection from my government," Monkath Abdul Razzaq, a middle-class Sunni who has decided to emigrate, told Tavernise. "Anyone can come into my house, take me, kill me, and throw me into the trash."
Irving Kristol initiated neoconservatism at least partly in revulsion at the disorder of John Lindsay's New York. Now his son William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and the single leading proponent (going back to the mid-1990s) of invading Iraq, has helped convert neoconservatism into a source of a disorder infinitely more violent than anything that once disquieted his dad. To do so, he and his fellow war proponents ignored all credible information on the actual Iraq and promised an Eden more improbable than anything that '60s liberals ever imagined. "There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America," he told National Public Radio listeners in the war's opening weeks, "that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's been almost no evidence of that at all," he continued. "Iraq's always been very secular."
He wasn't entirely wrong. Iraqi professionals were disproportionately secular. Now they are packing up their secularism and taking it to other lands. The war, and the failure to establish order that led to the barbarism that's driving Iraqis away, can't be laid solely on the neocons' doorstep, of course. These second-generation neos needed a trio of arrogant, onetime CEOs -- Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld -- to actualize their vision. But actualize it they did, and the ideologues whose forebears once argued that the drugged-out Bronx was a monument to liberal folly have now made blood-drenched and depopulating Baghdad the monument to their own neocon obsessions.
#1
What this fellow-traveller is leaving out is that the "secular middle-class" that is fleeing is overwhelmingly former Baathist and Sunni. The Triangle Arabs are getting payback from the Kurds and the Shia, and now that it is clear that the Sunni terrorists will not win, the Sunni Baathists are fleeing. Of course, that fact would put the lie to the gloom and doom tone of the article and would not allow him to berate Bush and the neocons.
The findings suggest several general conclusions about public opinion regarding terrorism in these six predominantly Muslim countries. (Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Morocco) First, the 2005 poll finds support for terrorism on the decline, although there are a few exceptions to this pattern, and support remains rather high in some countries, notably Jordan. Previous research has shown that support tends to decline among publics after they have experienced attacks on their own soil, and future research will determine whether such a drop has occurred in Jordan following the November 2005 bombings in Amman.
Second, terrorism is not a monolithic concept, and different facets of terrorism have different patterns of public support. Many individuals who say suicide bombing in defense of Islam may be justifiable do not support it in Iraq, and vice versa. For example, while Moroccans are the least supportive of suicide bombing when it is described in general terms, they are the most likely to approve of suicide bombing specifically in Iraq.
Third, demographic characteristics appear to have relatively small effects on attitudes towards terrorism, with the exception of gender. Contrary to Fair and Shepherd, we find that women are generally less likely to approve of terrorist acts and are less likely to hold favorable views of Osama bin Laden.
Fourth, views about Islam are linked, to some extent, to views about terrorism. In particular, and consistent with Fair and Shepherd, we find the perception that Islam is under threat is positively correlated with support for terrorism.
Next, we find that opinions of the United States and of American foreign policy are important determinants of attitudes towards terrorism. The perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally in international affairs, concerns about the American military becoming a threat, negative views of the Iraq war, the belief that the U.S. opposes democracy in the region, and a generally unfavorable view of America all drive pro-terrorism sentiments.
Finally, the multivariate analysis finds significant country-specific effects, suggesting that conditions giving rise to terror are greatly influenced by local political, social, and religious factors. Future studies should seek to shed more light on these country specific influences, as well as the factors that shape public opinion on terrorism across nations. Complete analysis at link
A few weeks old.
What bothers me is what theses countries will do with their surplus of young men, before collapsing under their weight when they get older, with following shrinking generations not numerous enough to support them (not even evoking the lack of strong economies, the end of the oil free money,...).
IMHO, demography is paramount to what will happen next.
"Nicest" solution would be (and is) mass emigration to the West, notably aging Europe, worst would be some kind of lashing out.
And, IIRC, black Africa faces the same challenge, only worse, as its demographical shift toward lesser natality is even slower, and it has less economical perspective, and water/wood/... issues.
By Hichem Karoui
PARIS, France (UPI) -- Some analysts have been focusing on the economic and demographic pressures that drive the Middle East towards terrorism and extremism. The threat is driven by forces that are generational, rather than limited to a few years:
The Middle East and North Africa are a long-term demographic nightmare. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that the Middle East is a region where the population will nearly double between now and 2030. The total population of the Gulf has grown from 30 million in 1950 to 39 million in 1960, 52 million in 1970, 74 million in 1980, 109 million in 1990, and 139 million in 2000. Conservative projections put it at 172 million in 2010, 211 million in 2020, 249 million in 2030, 287 million in 2040, and 321 million in 2050.
The Middle East and North Africa, or MENA, region had a population of 112 million in 1950. The population is well over 415 million today, and approaching a fourfold increase. It will more than double again, to at least 833 million, by 2050.
The need to come firmly to grips with population growth is all too clear. Some of the most important, and sometimes troubled, countries in the region will experience explosive population growth. Algeria is projected to grow from 31 million in 2000 to 53 million in 2050. Egypt has a lower population growth rate than many of its neighbors, but is still projected to grow from 68 million in 2000 to 113 million in 2050.
The Gaza Strip is projected to grow from 1.1 to 4.2 million, and the West Bank from 2.2 to 5.6 million. Iran is estimated to grow from 65 to 100 million, and Iraq from 23 to 57 million. Morocco is projected to grow from 30 to 51 million. Oman will grow from 2.5 to 8.3 million. Saudi Arabia will grow from 22 to 91 million, and Syria from 16 to 34 million. Yemen`s population growth rate is so explosive that it is projected to grow from 18 to 71 million.
Population growth is creating a 'youth explosion.' This growth has already raised the size of the young working age population ages 20 to 24 in the Gulf area from 5.5 million in 1970 to 13 million in 2000. Conservative estimates indicate it will grow to 18 million in 2010 and to 24 million in 2050. If one looks at the MENA region as a whole, age 20-24s have grown steadily from 10 million in 1950 to 36 million today, and will grow steadily to at least 56 million by 2050.
The World Bank estimates that some 36 percent of the total MENA population is less than 15 years of age, versus 21 percent in the United States and 16 percent in the European Union. The ratio of dependents to each working age man and woman is three times that in a developed region like the European Union. The U.S. State Department has produced estimates that more than 45 percent of the population is under 15 years of age.
Population growth presents major problems for infrastructure. Major problems now exist in every aspect of infrastructure from urban services to education. At the same time, population pressure is exhausting natural water supplies in many countries, leading to growing dependence on desalination, and forcing permanent dependence on food imports. Demand for water already exceeds the supply in nearly half the countries in the region, and annual renewable water supplies per capita have fallen by 50 percent since 1960 and are projected to fall from 1,250 square meters today to 650 square meters in 2025 -- about 14 percent of today`s global average. Groundwater is being over pumped, and 'fossil water' depleted.
Much of the region cannot afford to provide more water for agriculture at market prices, and in the face of human demand, much has become a 'permanent' food importer. The resulting social changes are indicated by the fact that the percentage of the work force in agriculture has dropped from around 40 percent to around 10 percent over the last 40 years. At the same time, regional manufacturers and light industry have grown steadily in volume, but not in global competitiveness.
Employment and education will be critical challenges to regional stability. The Gulf already is an area where approximately 70 percent of the population is under 30 years of age and nearly 50 percent is under 20. It is also a region where real and disguised unemployment averages at least 20 percent for young males, where no real statistics exist for women, and where the number of young people entering the work force each year will double between now and 2025.
This creates an immense 'bow wave' of future strains on social, educational, political, and economic systems whose effect is compounded by a lack of jobs and job growth, practical work experience, and competitiveness. The failure to achieve global competitiveness, diversify economies, and create jobs, is only partially disguised by the present boom in oil revenues. Direct and disguised unemployment range from 12-20 percent in many countries, and the World Bank projects the labor force as growing by at least 3 percent per year for the next decade.
Hyper-urbanization and a half-century decline in agricultural and traditional trades impose high levels of stress on traditional social safety nets and extended families. The urban population seems to have been under 15 million in 1950. It has since more than doubled from 84 million in 1980 to 173 million today, and some 25 percent of the population will soon live in cities of one million or more.
(Hichem Karoui is a Paris-based journalist and researcher for the newspaper Al Arab in London. This article is reprinted by permission of the Munich-based World Security Network.)
#2
This is the typical result of extrapolation in a static environment. Cut off Western food and medical aid and the population growth will tail off rather dramatically. Real simple, if you are starving, you don't successfully reproduce. This kind of hyperbole has been around as long as there have been "scientists" willing to manipulate statistics in pursuit of the next grant, talk show notoriety, or furtherance of a political/social agenda (e.g. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb 1968).
A seemingly larger concern should be the increasing fragility of Arab and mideastern populations due to societal pressures and predilections for inbreeding (keep marrying first cousins and bad things happen).
#3
This article also doesn't take into consideration the effects of large-scale warfare with a more sophisticated opponent, and the effects that has on population growth. It usually means a sudden decrease in the number of 'youts' in the 20-30 age bracket, and a large number of wounded and disabled requiring long-term care. It also doesn't help when you have a 'religion' that significantly restricts at least half of the population, and limits education to the other half to one book.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
05/24/2006 21:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Shame if Israel developed the vaccine against bird flu too.....you could cut a decimal point of each of those increases
Posted by: Frank G ||
05/24/2006 21:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Birth rates are already declining in the ME. But they will have a bad pig in a python problem. And it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of folks.
#6
IOW, ME-North African Muslims = USSR = producing whole, generations without their fathers or grandfathers, comnprised mostly of adult and older women, versus youthful or tweeny males. None or not enough food, water, jobs, state security/benefits, or women - plenty of AK47's, RPG's, SA-7's, camel curd-yogurt and raisin/date beer though. AAAATTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAACCCCKKKKKKK, ye Lions of Islam, Samurai of the Desert, at least the local daycare or kiddie school!? Time to wipe out/honour kill the women and dromedaries at the next le' village.
This is excerpted. This is a true evisceration of Allen and Mo. D.E.V.A.S.T.A.T.I.N.G.
By Ali Sina 2006/05/23 In one of my articles I wrote:
I promise that if we continue this campaign of discrediting Islam and Muslim scholars, in no more than a quarter of century, Islam will be defeated. Islam will fall, like communism fell. Mark my words today, even if you think I am nuts. If we all work together, especially the ex-Muslims, we can get rid of Islam sooner than anyone can imagine. Iran is already anti Islamic. More than half of Iranians do not call themselves Muslims anymore.
We are demolishing Islam from its foundation. The edifice seems to be intact. But don't let appearances deceive you. This high tower of lies will come down at once.
I actually agree with this. When Islam is defeated, it will be like the collapse of Naziism. It will all go at once, like a bubble bursting. People will take their turbans off and stare at each other and ask "What were we thinking?" There will be a few pockets left here and there, like there are of fascists, but the whole thing will be dead and its remains viewed with revulsion. I don't know what will follow it probably something equally vile, in another place and in another guise, something for those who have to believe in something. But that'll be a problem for our grandchildren to worry about, unless the Marshmallow People surrender before we've won, of course.
Let me clarify one misunderstanding in the outset. I have not claimed that I will eradicate Islam. I am not a megalomaniac fruitcake with thoughts of grandiosity... I said WE can eradicate Islam if we work at it together and in this I am confident. Where this confidence comes from? I am confident because I know Islam. Islam is nothing but puff and pomposity. It is 1400 years old and it has 1.2 billion followers. Nonetheless it is based on lies. Its like a tall high-rise built on moving sand. As long as those sands remain in place the edifice will stand on its feet. But as soon as you disturb the sand or remove it from its beneath, the edifice will come down crumbling.
Islam is a lie. Its god is a lie and its prophet was a liar. He was not just a liar but also an extremely evil man. Many consider Christ to be a myth and Christianity a fairytale. Although I am certain that someone called Jesus must have existed and a lot of what is attributed to him are true, I have no doubt that much of Christianity is fairytale. The stories of virgin birth, walking on water, converting water to wine or resurrection and ascension are for the feeble in mind. The early believers must have added these stories to, as we say today, sex up their religion and make it look attractive. Simpleminded people like to believe in fairytales. This was more so in the past when the average man was illiterate and unsophisticated. But putting aside all the fairytales, the essence of Christianity is not bad. It teaches love and forgiveness. Today, many psychologists, self-help gurus and motivational speakers, will tell you the same thing. You must learn to give up your selfishness, see beauty in everything, and love. Love your neighbor, love your fellow being, love yourself, love the world, and learn to forgive not only forgive others, but also forgive your self. ....
Christian love is something that can be taken to an extreme, just like anything else. Being too damn syrupy goes against the human grain and eventually reaction sets in. But Christianity is founded on the principle of forgiveness of sin, the triumph of substance over the form of empty ritual, Christ winning his battle with the Pharisees. Islam represents the triumph of form over substance, Pharisees triumphant. It's founded on principles of robbery, rapine, and murder, and it exerts its control through blood, not through true belief.
What will remain of Islam once you separate facts from fiction? Once you discard the ridiculous claim of splitting the moon and climbing to the seventh heaven to bargain with Allah about the number of prayer that Muslims should say during the day and other stupidities like these, youll find Islam is nothing but hate, violence, and terror. The psychopath narcissist does not understand love. He understands fear. Islam is based on fear.
Since Islamists will try to kill you if you try to quit, beat you up if you don't adhere strictly to the forms.
Then when you compare the life of Muhammad with that of Jesus, youll see that there is no comparison. One was the paragon of goodness while the other was the embodiment of evil. This is not comparing apples to oranges; we are talking of two opposite poles.
Sounds like a description if the Antichrist, if you're into Revelations. I believe he's supposed to be adored just as slavishly by his followers...
With all this consideration, it is clear why it is a mistake to compare Islam to Christianity. Just because Christianity has withstood criticism, it does not mean Islam will also survive criticism. ....
I believe the holy men are well aware of this, since they react so hypersensitively to any hint of criticism. If they didn't kill the people who left, people would simply leave.
There is nothing good in Islam. Islam is sheer evil that is sustained by fear. Not only the teachings of Islam are evil, Muhammad was a monster. You cannot say this about the founders of any other major religion. Muhammad was more evil than most cult leaders. He can be compared to Shoko Asahara and Charles Manson. So as you see, there is a fundamental difference between Islam and other religions....
But Islam is a different story. Islam is not a religion but a political movement in the guise of religion. Islam promises afterlife to rouse the foolhardy followers to wage war, kill and get killed cheerfully and advance the megalomaniac ambitions of grandeur of a psychopath. It is easy to defeat Islam. All we have to do is tell the truth. All we have to do is expose its foundation, remove those sands of lies from beneath it and it will fall on its own. Christianity and other religions are rooted in something good. The foundations of these religions are solid. But Islam does not have any foundation. It is based on sheer lies and unadulterated evil.
Muslims know that Islam will fall if exposed. On a subconscious level Muslims know that Islam is a lie and that it cannot be defended logically. That is why when you criticize Islam they panic. You can criticize all other religions, but all you can do is destroy their superstitions and fallacies. The foundation of these religions remains intact. As a matter of fact these religions have benefited immensely from criticism and thanks to that they were forced to give up most of their absurd tenets. They have adapted to the changing world. The evil practices of Sati in Hinduism, stoning in Judaism and inquisition in Christianity are things of the past.
But you cant criticize Islam. If you tamper with the sands beneath it, the whole edifice will fall. Muslims know that. They know that Islam cant take criticism and that it is very fragile. That is why they are so protective of it. That is why they become hysteric when a few cartoons are drawn depicting Muhammad. That is why they killed Theo Van Gogh and threaten to kill anyone who attempts to remove those sands of lies on which Islam stands.....
Muhammad was a psychopath. Psychopaths want to control others. The first thing they do is they destroy the selfhood of their victims. Thanks to Islam, Muslims have no pride, no self esteem, no dignity, no honor. Such a people are often very dangerous. Lack of self esteem is the cause of all evils. ...
That's probably why they yap on the subject so much.
This is what makes Muslims so evil. Its their lack of self-esteem. They are ruthless and exploitative on the outside, but that is to cover their inner insecurity and fears. They are unhappy, fearful, walking scar tissues.
Muslims are bullies. Some researches have erroneously concluded that bullies suffer from unearned high self-esteem. But there is no such thing as high self-esteem. We have pomposity, hauteur, pretentiousness and vain glory. These are the flipside of low self-esteem. People who lack self-esteem wear these masks to hide their belittled and humiliated selves. Muhammad led his followers to deny their self worth. They are made to believe that without Islam they are nothing. They are even made to despise their own ancestral cultures and civilization. The narcissist has to destroy the selfhood of his victims in order to make them completely dependant.
I was thinking about this earlier, not that I had the time to write on the subject. Christianity is culture-neautral. You can build a church in any number of places and the parishoners don't have to give up their culture, their history, what makes them what they are. A Korean Christian remains a Korean. Islam is a cultural weapon. It wipes out existing cultures and replaces them with something else, occasionally beautiful, but not what was there before. Egyptians speak Arabic and they think of themselves as part of the Arab nation, rather than as the descendents of the people who built the pyramids and were the most powerful people in the eastern Mediterranean. Persian culture was strong enough, barely, to survive the Arab onslaught, but Persian culture's heavily influenced by the Arabians. The best they can manage is a different style of turban. The Paks deny all their history prior to the Muslim conquest no Guptas, no Mauryas, no Vedic epics, no Rama, no horse sacrifice. They fawn on all things Arabian, while denying their connection to their own past. In North Africa, Cathago is not only delenda, but mostly forgotten, except for a few tourist sites. The Berbers have no memory of Jugurtha. All has been replaced by minarets and the call to prayer.
Muslims are not fools.
Even though they're fond of saying foolish things...
They just try to fool themselves. They can see Islam is false. They realize it is against human intelligence and that it makes no sense, but they are so much trapped in it that they cant leave it. They force themselves to believe, because without it they are lost.
That's the insidious effect of forced daily ritual, bonking the nut five times a day and reciting the same affirmation of faith, over and over, until it's worn the desired groove into the brain. It's short, it's easy to remember, and repetition from babyhood means they're never really going to get rid of it. The best they can hope for is to understand it. Add in the other strictures ablutions, how to pee, and that sort of nonsense and things get even worse. The Salafists load even more requirements on, so that eventually a person has no time for anything but ahering to the requirements of religion. There's no time to think of anything else, to include making a living.
One Muslim wrote to me Apparently some of the verses may seem or sound bad or barbaric. But it is Satan who is making us see them this way. This explains the Islamic pathology. Muslims see that Islam is foolish, but they cant let go. They cant let go because they have nothing else to cling on. Muhammad robbed their identity and destroyed their selfhood. They must cling to Islam, even though they can clearly see that it is false because Islam is the only thing they have. It is the only straw in an ocean of uncertainties.
They need constant reassurance and repeat to themselves that "Islam is a beautiful religion" and that "Muhammad was the perfect human". They even seek these reassurances from others. They collect the the complimentary comments of non-Muslims (particularly Whites, because they think White people are superior) and even lobby politicians and political institutions to issue official statements recognizing Islam as a "great religion". Talk about insecurity.
We see these periodically in the Pak press. It's mental masturbation, without the need for a mental tissue, since nothing ever comes of it.
And then there is the fear the fear of Hell and the punishment in the grave that has been inculcated in their minds since childhood. This fear has paralyzed their thinking ability. They dismiss any doubt as soon as it comes to their minds.
This is where Christianity can compete, though hellfire and brimstone has become kind of passe. Spread Dante's vision enough and they might start coming around. Where's Cotton Mather, now that we need him?
Miss Ruby is an educated Muslim. She is a solicitor. She considers herself a moderate Muslim because she lives in America, enjoys all the liberties and has no reason to become a terrorist. Miss Ruby joined the FFI forum in January. She wrote over 700 messages. After this much debating on May 12th she wrote:
Hello friends and enemies,
This is my last post, I have had fun here at FFI and have started to doubt my own religion.....THIS IS NOT GOOD.
I hereby testify that:
1) I believe that there is one Allah
2) I believe in the prophets
3) I believe in the four books sent from Allah..
4) I believe in the Angels
5) I believe in the day of judgement (Qayamat)
6) I believe in the resurrection after Qayamat
There is a purpose for my existence on this Earth and that is to serve only Allah....and his FINAL PROPHET is Muhammed (pbuh).
It was a mistake for me to join this forum and I will try to forget that I even doubted the words of my Allah.
Stay happy and dont hate.
What we can make of this? We can make two things. One is that Muslims can clearly see that Islam is false. Next is that they are trapped in it. There is a mental block that they cant get rid of. That mental block is psychological. Miss Ruby cant cut her umbilical cord from Islam. She thinks without it, she will go to hell. She has not learned to be independent.
However, Miss Ruby and the Muslim whom I quoted before her and millions of other Muslims who are in their position are only fooling themselves. I know that, because I was there. They are smart enough to know it too. When I read the Quran and saw this is a book of nonsense, at first I started denying my own intelligence. ...
I left a message for Miss Ruby and wrote:
You don't believe in any of this nonsense. You can never be the same. Once your brain expands, it will never shrink again. Believe me I tried it for two years because I was afraid to be free but at the end I failed (which means I won). These doubts that you start having will not diminish. They actually will keep multiplying. You'll start doubting even things you had taken for granted all your life. This is how people get enlightened. They suddenly find it is hard to believe in superstitions."
I knew there is no going back for Miss Ruby. I thought she will be back in a few months telling us she can no more withstand the lies of Islam and is leaving it. I was very wrong. Despite saying goodbye, Miss Ruby came back after a couple of days and kept talking with the friends. On May 19th, just one week after saying goodbye and reconfirming her shihadah, she wrote the following:
I have read your testimony and identify with lots of experiences emotionally. I am also reading the book 'Prophet of Doom', I am angry!........all these years, I have been lied to and deceived. Hey Mo is actually not the Rasool Allah at all!.....and he is a false self-proclaimed prophet of doom. I have to admit something to everyone right now, maybe the Muslims will also identify with this feeling inside. But I have never ever felt any love radiating from the Quran or any other Islamic scripture!.......actually when I read the Quran, I always feel tired and bored and start to yawn immediately!.
When I think of Jesus (although Im not Christian), I always had a good feeling inside when I think of him. Maybe because he is worthy of respect more than Mo. But these are my feelings and emotions so far, I will write more tomorrow.
goodnight.
And this is what she wrote on May 22, 2006
Hello people this is my contribution for this thread, I have said this on another thread but would like to repeat myself on here for the Muslims who view it.
1) I acknowledge that Mohammad did rape and had sex with an underage girl who didnt know what 'sex' was and shouldn't have had to deal with this invasion on her body at that tender age.(Ayesha)
2) I acknowledge that Mohammad looted and kept what was not his, so he was a thief.
3) I acknowledge that he had no sympathy or an ounce of compassion for anyone who disobeyed him and thus by definition CANNOT be merciful.
4) I acknowledge that he was a delusional illiterate power hungry man, who couldn't have had 'revelations' from Allah.
5) I acknowledge that Islam is a farce, it cannot be a peaceful religion because Muslims are by definition not peaceful right now. They can kill and maim and reach heaven and count their houris as a reward for destruction.
Let this be known all you Muslims, I am not one of you anymore. Mohammad was nothing short of a Bastard who liked SEX,SEX AND MORE SEX. He was a false prophet, and has lied to us all and has claimed falsehoods.
This religion cannot last too long. It will wipe out the rest of the human race if we dont do something to stop it. Change yourselves, think for a moment, think for a year, then find your answers, deep inside. A person who orders to kill another is not human.
That is all I have to say on this matter.
#1
Prophet of Doom is a fabulous study. I may have preferred a tad less of gratuitious Christian theology, but I did not write the stuff, Craig Winn did, hence he deserves some slack in that regard. Zizzer & Zazz--two thumbs up.
GE 43:32 And they set on for him by himself, and for them by themselves, and for the Egyptians, which did eat with him, by themselves: because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
GE 46:34 That ye shall say, Thy servants' trade hath been about cattle from our youth even until now, both we, and also our fathers: that ye may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians.
EX 8:26 And Moses said, It is not meet so to do; for we shall sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians to the LORD our God: lo, shall we sacrifice the abomination of the Egyptians before their eyes, and will they not stone us?
Just like it was in the end, was it like in the big inning.
#4
Let's compare the Ten Comandments with the Five Pillars of Islam.
Here are the five pillars
1) The Sayada: affirming there is only one God and Muhammad is DA Man
2) Praying or more exactly telling five times a day that Muhammad is the greatest and more genial
men who ever exixted
3) Fasting for Ramadan. Ramadan was a sacred month for Arabs well before Islam, one where they
didn't make war. So Arabs travelled unarmed during this month and it was by attacking an unarmed group of merchants during Ramadan trhat Muslims got their firsyt victory and their first booty (20% of it went into Muhammad's pocket BTW)
Anyway there is nothing specially positive in fasting
4) the Hadj. Have all people of Arabia (and later from many other places some of them much poorer) leave their hard earned money into the hands of Meccans (Muhamlmad was a Meccan)
5) Charity. This is the only thing who could be thought as positive. But this charity is only towards Muslims and it is limited to 3% of revenue (before or after taxes and professional expenses?) provided you can afford it. Nothing in common with what Christ says about charity. It is more like a tax on the rich.
And voilà, that is all in the five pillars there is nothing like the "Thou shall not killé, "Thou shall not steal" or other commandments who aim to make men better or at least get them better together. I have met Muslims (who BTW were not wahabists) who are good people but it is certainly not the five pillars who made them good.
#5
The woman quoted in the text says "I acknowledge that he was a delusional illiterate power hungry man"
Muhammad was not illiterate. He or his followers created this myth in order to accentuate the "miracle" of him being dictated the Koran by an Angel and aparently writing it despite being illiterate. But in the first part of his life he ran the business of his first wife. This woman was not a mere shopkeeper but appanetly engaged in overseas commerce. It would have been impossible for an illiterate man to manage a business of this size and complexity.
#6
JFM, excellent comparison between the 'five pillars' and the Ten Commandments. A careful analysis of the Ten Commandments reveals just how comprehensive they are. The first five deal with man's obligations to God, and the last 5 deal with man's obligation to man. If I meet my obligations to both God and man, what else is there? In contrast, the 'five pillars' deal almost entirely with the idea that God must be 'appeased' by outward religiosity. Not a peep on our obligations to our fellow man, unless you count the 'charity' clause for muslims only.
but you can't compare a religion to a purely secular political movement and say because it is 'a lie' it will come crashing down.
Since when has ANY religion had to be empirically proveable truth?
That is the whole essence of religion: all religions. They are based on beliefs that cannot be proven or disproven.
They are all 'true' to their believers who suspend disbelief no matter how ridiculous the premise nor how many laws of physics it breaks. Whether it is a rainbow serpent or a Goddess whose evil son tears her to bits and whose good son sews her back together then has babies with her, whether it's dancing Shiva or a virgin who 'miraculously' gives birth, to the poor misguied scientologists.
And no religion ANYWHERE at any time has had a mass revelation where all of them at once 'woke up' and decided atheism was for them.
No.
Religions gradually lose touch with their flocks or people convert from one to another but the need to believe in magic is hardwired into the human brain and the cultural reinforcement prevents 'waking up' no matter how damaging the religion.
no, I'm afraid Moderate Muslims are our allies and secularising Islam is our only hope for victory.
Keep the good bits of the religion - and there are some, marginalise those that cling to the bad bits and sooner or later you'll civilise them.
unfortunately to get rid of the fascist elements you may need to nuke Mecca, Medina and Riyadh. But the rest of the billion Muslims will be all right once you root out the rads.
#8
anon1, your hostility to religion aside, (dismising those who believe in the virgin birth as loons, for example) I think you missed my point. Islam, if widely practiced, does not make the world a better place. However, a man who believes in God but also believes in helping his fellow man does make the world a better place. Consequently, an adherent to the Ten Commandments also makes the world a better place.
At no time was the argument advanced that Christianity or Judaism was "empirical truth", although, now that you mention it, I do believe the Bible.
The psychopath narcissist does not understand love. He understands fear. Islam is based on fear.
That about sums it up. The islamic leaders are psychpaths. They are unable to feel empathy, they are not wired for it. You cannot reason with them. You have to use power, fear, and ridicule. Cartoons are a good a weapon as anything, maybe a wee warning box in the corner to satisfy the lawyers?
And remember, "Moderate Muslims" are not Good Muslims, in the eyes of the clerics.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
05/24/2006 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I don't think people leave religion for atheism. It's a belief that there is no god. Rather, I think agnosticism is a more natural progression -- not knowing, and usually not caring if there's a God. Sometimes they'll call the agnosticism something else, like Unitarianism or Episcopalianism or Reformed Judaism if they're gregarious folk who like getting together for a few hours on a weekend.
I enjoy reading the Old Testament, but I read it as history, and I read it in the context of the time and place, keeping in mind that the ancients didn't write history the way we do. Herodotus is also the "father of lies." The same sorts of miraculous happenings show up in the tales of other peoples, and occasionally the same ones. The Babylonians and the Persians had lots of convergences, the Egyptians somewhat fewer.
There was a "King David" who ruled at Ebla, in Syria, 1500 years before King David ruled in Jerusalem -- and they were two different real people. Noah didn't meet Gilgamesh in the Old Testament, but he seems to be the same as Utu-Napishtim, who did. I'm guessing both were mythical, but if I'm ever in Abu Dhabi I'm going to check the phonebook to make sure (unlike Noah, Utu-Napishtim achieved immortality).
The Koran doesn't have the same historical value as the Old Testament (or for that matter the New Testament, which is kind of a 100 year snapshot into that end of the Roman Empire.) But its weakness is what the author lays out as the weaknesses of Islam. It's a tool for building empire, not for guiding humanity to the Pearly Gates, assuming God does take an interest in the affairs of men.
I don't think that God eats adoration. I can't conceive of a mentality capable of creating the universe that requires periodic head bonkings from men, whether Mo had to split the moon and fly off to argue with him about it or not.
Posted by: Fred ||
05/24/2006 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#11
In contrast, the 'five pillars' deal almost entirely with the idea that God must be 'appeased' by outward religiosity.
Not merely that: three of the five pillars either aim to boot Muhammad's ego or to make him (and his successors) richer. Contrast this with Judaism (afaik neither Moses or any other Prophet or Patriarch is mentionned in Judaic prayers) or Chritianism (while the belief in Jesus divinity is the core of Christainity, his name is not present in the "Our Father" or Pater Noster ie the main Christain prayer and the only prayer created by Jesus himself.
Not a peep on our obligations to our fellow man, unless you count the 'charity' clause for muslims only.
And even that charity doesn't ring as something coming from heart and from compassion for the fellow man. 3% of revenue. Fixed. And then you are free of obligation.
Contrast that with Jesus scolding the Phariseans because they had given their excess money and they had tried to get publicity and status of their charity. Jesus praised the poor woman who had donated a small sum but it was money she really neded. Remember also Christs's requirement for secrecy when practicing charity: Christianism doesn't place a cap (or a floor) on how much you should doante, it must come from heart (that is why he scolds Phariseans) and you must not try to get a benefit (through publicity) from it. It must pure unadulterated charity born from compassion.
#12
My $.02 - I concur a lot w/Fred though I tend to call my progression from organized religion and being a Catholic to being more with what one I guess would call a Deist, more in the spirit of Washington, Jefferson, et al. I believe in God - just not half the shit that's been written about the guy by some asshole w/an ajenda to control other dumb assholes. I don't believe in any revealed regional religions, or in walking on water, virgin births, water to wine, the substitutional theory for atonement, or any other miracles ascribed to "sex up" the religion - I think the author summed it up perfectly. As far as I'm concerned just the contemplation of the universe and earth itself is enough for me to believe in a higher power. Take away the "miracle" stuff and get to the meat of Jesus' spirtiual ethical construct which was basically love God, love truth, love your neighbor, love the sinner but hate the sin. ("Sin" essentially meaning to act without love.) That's where I'm at. If folks want to believe in things I find highly unlikely then that's cool w/me. Whatever floats your boat. However, with Islam they don't know when to back off and have no concept of religious tolerance - therefore they will most definitely have to be dealt w/in the manner outlined by the author or by overwhelming crushing force - and sooner rather then later.
#14
I agree with you, Fred. I do think it is a more natural progression from religion to agnosticism: the belief that there may be a God but it is unexplainable by organised religion.
I myself vacillate between Christianity and agnosticism.
But yes, I do not resile from lumping Christian miracles with any miracle from any other faith. They are all faith-based and unable to be proven or disproven by scientific methods which deal in the 'real' world.
That does not have to be taken as a criticism.
It just means you cannot prove or disprove it. So an appeal to rationality or logic is going to have no effect on the followers of Islam because they do not need to have a rational or logical basis for their belief.
That is the nature of religion, it is based on the human capacity for magical thinking whether or not there is a God, we all have the capacity to believe in the supernatural.
It is part of the human condition.
So you cannot defeat Islam by arguing with it's followers rationally, trying to disprove that Mohammed was a prophet or that their God Allan is good and worthy of worship, or that their religion will cause them to fail and fail again in life. They won't care they *know* they are going to heaven and because there is no way you can prove or disprove scientifically that they are right or wrong you will get precisely nowhere.
That's why I say that moderate muslims are our best bet.
And to argue comparative religion (Christianity is better than Islam because we have the 10 commandments) is usually fairly unproductive I believe, because with religion it is all in the interpretation.
It is only because we are enlightened, 21st century people that we listen to the 10 commandments, and not for example the directives in the old testament to sacrifice a dove and burn our clothes and burn the house if it gets mould in it.
That's in the bible!
Or that we are not all communists (it's easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into the kingdom of heaven).
With religion it is all in the eye of the interpreter.
A humanist, secular interpretation of Islam could be just as much a force for good in the world as the humanist, secular interpretation of Christianity has been. And it has, I'm not knocking Christians I believe they do a world of good, and the only reason we have tolerant secular democracies was because they built the foundations.
#17
I cannot agree that "there is nothing good in Islam." I wholeheartedly agree that Muhammadanism is a lie, but a lie with enough truth mixed in to make it strong. "Know your enemy" is a good rule.
So what's true about it? Stuff Muhammad borrowed: One God, maker of the world, expects right actions from the people he created and will judge them accordingly. He wants to be merciful. Etc. Most of the right actions are perfectly benign, and there are people who try to live their lives accordingly, and succeed as well as anybody else. However, Muhammad fits John's definition of antichrist quite nicely even without the nasty stuff.
The bulk of the problems for the rest of the world come from the stuff he added in to consolidate his own power, justify extra wives for himself, protect his favorite wife, encourage energetic razzias, etc. And, of course, from all the sayings made up later to support one caliph's policy or another; and the notion that arabian customs at the time were a good default.
Of course my ideal would be for them all to convert to Christianity. But if we're trying for the more limited objective of suppressing the more violent and revolting aspects of Muhammadanism, then we'll get farther by trying to encourage them to judge the bad by the good. You can address this sort of thing step by step: Use the tradition of respect for different schools to undercut the Wahhabi claims to define the religion; use things like the case where a pregnant rape victim was to be punished while the rapist went free to address the way sharia uses precedent, and so on. Think "achievable incremental changes."
Of course when I say "use" I mean that they have to do it themselves: our contribution could only be covert at best. And I'm not convinced that the "moderates" will try very hard, though if the radicals keep getting themselves killed and the funding pipeline dries up the "moderates" might find a little courage to try.
I don't think Muhammadanism is going to collapse. And I think the violent aspects are too deeply built into its sacred documents to completely get rid of them. Short of my ideal, all I can hope for is that the survivors of this struggle in Muhammadanism will focus on its peaceful aspects.
Posted by: James ||
05/24/2006 14:18 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.
"I was in the Third Ranger Battalion. Our job was to strike fear in the hearts of the Iraqi people.
In one of my articles I wrote: 
