The Iraqi High Court has announced the issuance of a limited edition Saddam Hussein keepsake ornament. Within the next thirty days, the Court will make available this carefully crafted hanging Saddam collector's piece. Only a few will be made, and each one will be accompanied by a Certificate of Authenticity.
The piece will be available in your choice of mustard gas yellow or uranium yellowcake orange.
Preorder now! Quantities will be limited. Be the first on your block to own a hanging Saddam. Think of how your neighbors will be green with envy as he swings in the breeze next to your wind chimes.
You must be 18 or older to order. Please have your credit card ready. No United Nations oil vouchers will be accepted.
To order, call now 1-900-DEADGUY. That's 1-900-332-3489.
#8
Amybody called the number to see what it goes to?
I'd like to get my keepsake early and avoid the rush. ;-p
BTW - champagne's chillin'.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/26/2006 22:30 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Just in time for the 2007 Democratic Congress. What is Saddam's persecution and slaughter of many 000's of local Iraqis-Kurds compared to 200Milyuhn-plus future Amerikans in the name of mainstream Clintonian Amerika's sacred National Communism-Socialism = Fascism??? "USSA, NOT USSR, ergo USSA must surrender to USSR".
December 26, 2006 -- URI Dan was, quite simply, the greatest journalist I've ever seen - and almost certainly ever will.
Uri's byline was well known on these pages; for a quarter-century, he covered the Middle East - and much of the rest of the world - for The Post. His death early Sunday at 71 ended a close personal friendship of nearly 30 years.
It's not just that, in the course of a journalism career that spanned 55 years, he broke hundreds of exclusive stories. He was an old-fashioned reporter - a whirlwind of energy, a perpetual motion machine who was constantly digging, questioning and probing until he got the story he was after.
Continued on Page 49
MSM Taqiyya: selective facts, crafted wording, order of presentation, vilification of anyone opposing the editorial agenda, packaging the problem with their chosen "solution" remaining as the only "rational" course of action, etc. Gotta give credit where due - the asshats are pulling out all the stops. Stalin would be proud.
Check this handy-dandy list of common propaganda techniques when you think you're getting the short straw to see how many you can identify. The list isn't comprehensive, of course, nor does it presume to pretense, often a failing of the classic Latin-based Logic Argumentation Techniques. "Ooooh, it's Latin, so it must be true!" Lol. Nope. This is simple, straightforward, English describing the most common effective techniques.
The authors, lol, were not immune to spin - with a *sniff* they label some as "government" techniques, conveniently ignoring the fact that media wonks created the propaganda the list describes... they just happened to favor the government, and America, at the time. Perhaps we should add editorial "sneering" and "scare quotes" to the list, lol. They use them to denigrate inconvenient facts. We use them to smack these asstards around, lol. [Note: no significance to the order should be inferred - it is alphabetical]
Propaganda Techniques
1. Assertion:
Assertion is commonly used in advertising and modern propaganda. An assertion is an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true. They often imply that the statement requires no explanation or back up, but that it should merely be accepted without question. Examples of assertion, although somewhat scarce in wartime propaganda, can be found often in modern advertising propaganda. Any time an advertiser states that their product is the best without providing evidence for this, they are using an assertion. The subject, ideally, should simply agree to the statement without searching for additional information or reasoning. Assertions, although usually simple to spot, are often dangerous forms of propaganda because they often include falsehoods or lies.
2. Bandwagon:
Bandwagon is one of the most common techniques in both wartime and peacetime and plays an important part in modern advertising. Bandwagon is also one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Bandwagon is an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well. Bandwagon propaganda is, essentially, trying to convince the subject that one side is the winning side, because more people have joined it. The subject is meant to believe that since so many people have joined, that victory is inevitable and defeat impossible. Since the average person always wants to be on the winning side, he or she is compelled to join in. However, in modern propaganda, bandwagon has taken a new twist. The subject is to be convinced by the propaganda that since everyone else is doing it, they will be left out if they do not. This is, effectively, the opposite of the other type of bandwagon, but usually provokes the same results. Subjects of bandwagon are compelled to join in because everyone else is doing so as well. When confronted with bandwagon propaganda, we should weigh the pros and cons of joining in independently from the amount of people who have already joined, and, as with most types of propaganda, we should seek more information.
3. Card stacking:
Card stacking, or selective omission, is one of the seven techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It involves only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it. Card stacking is used in almost all forms of propaganda, and is extremely effective in convincing the public. Although the majority of information presented by the card stacking approach is true, it is dangerous because it omits important information. The best way to deal with card stacking is to get more information.
4. Glittering Generalities:
Glittering generalities was one of the seven main propaganda techniques identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. It also occurs very often in politics and political propaganda. Glittering generalities are words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts. When these words are used, they demand approval without thinking, simply because such an important concept is involved. For example, when a person is asked to do something in "defense of democracy" they are more likely to agree. The concept of democracy has a positive connotation to them because it is linked to a concept that they value. Words often used as glittering generalities are honor, glory, love of country, and especially in the United States, freedom. When coming across with glittering generalities, we should especially consider the merits of the idea itself when separated from specific words.
5. Lesser of Two Evils:
The "lesser of two evils" technique tries to convince us of an idea or proposal by presenting it as the least offensive option. This technique is often implemented during wartime to convince people of the need for sacrifices or to justify difficult decisions. This technique is often accompanied by adding blame on an enemy country or political group. One idea or proposal is often depicted as one of the only options or paths. When confronted with this technique, the subject should consider the value of any proposal independently of those it is being compared with.
6. Name Calling:
Name calling occurs often in politics and wartime scenarios, but very seldom in advertising. It is another of the seven main techniques designated by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. It is the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing an enemy. The propaganda attempts to arouse prejudice among the public by labeling the target something that the public dislikes. Often, name calling is employed using sarcasm and ridicule, and shows up often in political cartoons or writings. When examining name calling propaganda, we should attempt to separate our feelings about the name and our feelings about the actual idea or proposal.
7. Pinpointing the Enemy:
Pinpointing the enemy is used extremely often during wartime, and also in political campaigns and debates. This is an attempt to simplify a complex situation by presenting one specific group or person as the enemy. Although there may be other factors involved the subject is urged to simply view the situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong. When coming in contact with this technique, the subject should attempt to consider all other factors tied into the situation. As with almost all propaganda techniques, the subject should attempt to find more information on the topic. An informed person is much less susceptible to this sort of propaganda.
8. Plain Folks:
The plain folks propaganda technique was another of the seven main techniques identified by the IPA, or Institute for Propaganda Analysis. The plain folks device is an attempt by the propagandist to convince the public that his views reflect those of the common person and that they are also working for the benefit of the common person. The propagandist will often attempt to use the accent of a specific audience as well as using specific idioms or jokes. Also, the propagandist, especially during speeches, may attempt to increase the illusion through imperfect pronunciation, stuttering, and a more limited vocabulary. Errors such as these help add to the impression of sincerity and spontaneity. This technique is usually most effective when used with glittering generalities, in an attempt to convince the public that the propagandist views about highly valued ideas are similar to their own and therefore more valid. When confronted by this type of propaganda, the subject should consider the proposals and ideas separately from the personality of the presenter.
9. Simplification (Stereotyping):
Simplification is extremely similar to pinpointing the enemy, in that it often reduces a complex situation to a clear-cut choice involving good and evil. This technique is often useful in swaying uneducated audiences. When faced with simplification, it is often useful to examine other factors and pieces of the proposal or idea, and, as with all other forms of propaganda, it is essential to get more information.
10. Testimonials:
Testimonials are another of the seven main forms of propaganda identified by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis. Testimonials are quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product or item. Testimonials are very closely connected to the transfer technique, in that an attempt is made to connect an agreeable person to another item. Testimonials are often used in advertising and political campaigns. When coming across testimonials, the subject should consider the merits of the item or proposal independently of the person of organization giving the testimonial.
11. Transfer:
Transfer is another of the seven main propaganda terms first used by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis in 1938. Transfer is often used in politics and during wartime. It is an attempt to make the subject view a certain item in the same way as they view another item, to link the two in the subjects mind. Although this technique is often used to transfer negative feelings for one object to another, it can also be used in positive ways. By linking an item to something the subject respects or enjoys, positive feelings can be generated for it. However, in politics, transfer is most often used to transfer blame or bad feelings from one politician to another of his friends or party members, or even to the party itself. When confronted with propaganda using the transfer technique, we should question the merits or problems of the proposal or idea independently of convictions about other objects or proposals.
Notes:
1) The Institute for Propaganda Analysis (IPA) wiki page.
2) The Bibliography was ommitted because all of the links are defunct. Lol.
#2
Dont forget 'Accusing the opposition'. Used often in politics (Democrats particularly). It is where you accuse your opponent of the crime you, yourself, are committing. That way when you are eventually caught doing it you can claim 'well they { are doing it too | started doing it first }'.
Example: The MSM often accuse Fox News of being a 'Conservative outlet' and getting 'Talking points from the white house' (Dan Rather) without a shread of evidence. At the same time the MSM also often simply echoes Democratic positions ('Everyone knows for example Bush lied in the lead up to the Iraq war' for example).
#1
Years ago, our own JosephMendiola coined the ultimate word describing Hillary, her ideology, and her political strategy: she's a BettyCrockerCommieCrat.
Love that word...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/26/2006 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hillary comes off about as "motherly" as a cobra...
#5
The poll asked Iowa Democrats which candidates they would vote for if the 2008 Democratic caucus were held today. The top three candidates were Sen. John Edwards at 22 percent, Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama at 22 percent and Vilsack at 12 percent. U.S. Senator Hillary Clinton of New York came in fourth at 10 percent.
Better start baking a shitload of cookies, Ma Clinton...
The real divide in American politics.
by Matthew Continetti
The polarization that has characterized American politics since the presidency of Ronald Reagan has extended its reach to foreign affairs. Never have the differences between the two parties on issues of war and peace been so distinct. At no time since World War II has the divergence of partisan support for an ongoing war been as great. Nor have attitudes toward power--its origins, nature, and application--reflected ideological and partisan identification to the extent they do today.
The great divisions in American life--between low- and upper-income voters; those who attend religious services weekly and those who do not; people who are married and people who are single; voters with a postgraduate education and those without--are often less predictive of voting patterns than one's stance on the use of American power abroad. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press concluded in 2005 that "foreign affairs assertiveness now almost completely distinguishes Republican-oriented voters from Democratic-oriented voters." Together, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the March 20, 2003, invasion of Iraq seem to have accelerated a shift begun some 30 years ago: The Democratic party is increasingly linked with the attitudes, tendencies, and policies of peace, whereas the Republican party is increasingly linked with the maintenance and projection of American military power. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
12/26/2006 08:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rehashed PC dribble. DEMOCRATS > 9-11/WOT = OWG = America must give up endowments + sovereignty and no longer in charge of own affairs; GOP > 9-11/WOT = OWG = AMERICA/"AMERICAN WAY" RULES WORLD + OWG else Amer's enemies will destroy America. HANNITY & COLMES/OTHERS > DEMS = DEM PARTY TOP LEADERSHIP HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY RADICAL/FAR/ULTRA-LEFT Xtremists whom want BIG GUBMINT in charge of everyone and everything, plus America suborned to COMMIE ASIA-EURASIA or in altern de facto destroyed. ASIA TIMES > DENG XIAOPING beliefs > can't have Communism without SOcialism [anti-US/US Lefts = FASCISM?], and can't have Socialism [Fascism?]without MATERIAL ADUNDANCE [Capitalism?]. LEFTISM > stands for Gubmint-ism Politicism + Totalitarianism +/or Anarchism/Libertarianism/Laissez Faire-
for-Gubmintism and similar.
Thomas Lifson
Rep.-elect Keith Ellison (D-MN) gave a speech yesterday to a crowd in Dearborn, Michigan, home to a large Muslim community. According to an account in the Detroit Free Press,
"You can't back down, you can't chicken out, you can't be afraid, you got to have faith in Allah, and you got to stand up and be a real Muslim," Detroit native Keith Ellison said to loud applause.
"Allahu akbar" - God is great - was the reply of many in the crowd.
I anxiously await the response of the New York Times, the ACLU, and other decriers of any hint of God talk on the part of politicians - at least when the God in question is mentioned in a Judeo-Christian context. Will we hear talk of a nascent "theocracy" from them? Somehow, I doubt it. Can you magine thecoverage which might be given to an evangelical Christian newly elected to Congress giving a similar speech, and receiving s similar response?
Ellison said in Dearborn that Muslims can help teach America about justice and equal protection, suggesting that Muslim activists may be part of God's plan. He spoke at the annual convention of two Muslim groups, the Muslim American Society and the Islamic Circle of North America. The convention ended Monday morning.
"Muslims, you're up to bat right now..." he said. "How do you know that you were not brought right here to this place to learn how to make this world better? How do you know that Allah, sallalahu aleyhi wasallam," (meaning peace be upon him) "did not bring you here so that you could understand how to teach people what tolerance was, what justice was?... How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?"
Perhaps Rep.-elect Ellison would care to teach us about justice when it comes to women's standing as witnesses in court, and in respect to inheritance rights. I am particularly curious as to his probably acceptance as a good Muslim of Quranic injunctions that women count as less than men in regard to these points.
I eagerly await the National Organization for Women's take on the subject.
The CogDis is astounding, yet I am surprised, on second thought, that I am surprised.
#1
How do you know that you're not here to teach this country?
Oh, they're here to teach America a lesson all right. It just may be one that nobody on either side anticipated too much. While controversy may not suit a nebbish like Ellison, perhaps it truly does suit what his actual presence stands for on the American political scene. Taqqiya represents one of the ultimate ethical and moral tresspasses. A lawmaker with religious reasons that permit him absolute relief from all compunctions of officially sworn duty should be tremendous cause for alarm.
#2
Condemning suicide bombings would be a good start. Condemning violent jihad in the name of Islam would be a good start. Condemning the atrocities done in the name of Sharia law would be a good start. Condemning the intolerance of other religions in the name of Islam would be a good start.
Guess they're not off to a particularly good start.
Posted by: ed ||
12/26/2006 9:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Detroit/Dearborn, the major muzzie outpost in the US. Others, like Minneapolis and Tucson trying to catch up. We're just standing by and watching. When can we attack ?
#5
"Equal protection"? Unless a Muslim woman has the testimony of 4 adult males to back up rape accusations, the accuser's testimony is deemed false and they are subject to execution. That's equal, to a moron.
If the way forward requires maintaining the basic course of the political process and empowering (and cleaning) the current government and its head then the only way to do this is to relieve Mr. Maliki, his party and the rest of the Shia alliance from the dominance and influence of Sadr, and there are two ways to accomplish this: either persuade Mr. Maliki and his team and promise them great support and protection from Sadr's reach, or deal a lethal blow to Sadr and his militia in order to render him unable to inflict harm on Mr. Maliki and other members of the United Iraqi Alliance.
Now really, it shouldn't be that difficult to figure out that the first way isn't working out right, what's needed now is to take the decision to try the second way and deal with the biggest threat to stability in Iraq in the way we should.
With Ayatollah Sistani's alledged passing and Sadr in ascendancy, it becomes all the more critical to plug Moqtada as an example of what happens to those who undermine Iraq's unity and pacification.
by Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal h/t Brothers Judd
A headline in the British liberal newspaper, the Guardian, caught my eye recently: IRAQIS CANT BE BLAMED FOR THE CHAOS UNLEASHED BY INVASION. The writer was that newspapers veteran foreign correspondent, Jonathan Steele (another immortal headline to one of his articles, in May 2002, read: NEW YORK IS STARTING TO FEEL LIKE BREZHNEVS MOSCOW).
Let us grant, for arguments sake, the articles premise: that American policy in Iraq has been naive, rash, foolish, precipitate, and culpable. Yet still it would not follow that Iraqis cant be blamed and so forth, unless one also believed what not even the severest critics of the Bush administration have allegedthat the American army, or other agents of the American government, have desired, planned, and even executed the ongoing terrorist attacks in Baghdad.
The only other explanation of the non-culpability of Iraqis would be that they were not really full members of the human racein other words, that they did not reflect upon their circumstances and act upon their reflections in the way that the fully responsible and therefore potentially culpable Americans do.
The headline makes clear that double standards are about to apply, double standards that are not flattering to the Iraqis capacity for independent action, despite the evident wish of the author to display as conspicuously as possible his sympathy with them by means of exculpating them. Forgive them, he invites all men of goodwill, for they know not what they do.
Like hell, they dont.
Not even the most ardent, anthropomorphic dog-lover credits his pet with a fully developed moral sense, and he therefore regards its misdemeanors with an indulgence that he would not extend to a ten-year-old child. The author regards Iraqis as if they were in the same moral category as pets: for can one really say that people who travel to a different part of the city to explode bombs, resulting in scores of deaths of people chosen merely because they are (most of them) of a different religious confession, do not appreciate what they are doing, any more than a dog appreciates what it does when it knocks over a precious porcelain vase? . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
12/26/2006 07:44 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Duh-oh! Meant to put this in "opinion." (Must be the eggnog hangover clouding my mind.)
Posted by: Mike ||
12/26/2006 7:51 Comments ||
Top||
The most encouraging thing about U.N. Security Council Resolution 1737, the sanctions on Iran that were passed over the weekend, is that the American under secretary of state for political affairs, Nicholas Burns, greeted it with the declaration, "We don't think this resolution is enough in itself. We want the international community to take further action, and we're certainly not going to put all of our eggs in a U.N. basket."
It's a good thing, because the United Nations' basket of sanctions has holes big enough for dinosaur eggs to fall through. Just last week, China National Offshore Oil Corp which is listed on the New York Stock Exchange announced a $16 billion deal with Iran to develop Iran's North Pars natural gas field. When American politicians shortsightedly rebuffed CNOOC's bid for Unocal, the Goldman-Sachs-advised Chinese company went looking for other ways to use its capital, ways that will wind up enriching America's enemies in the war on terrorism. The CNOOC deal is not covered by the United Nations sanctions, according to Mr. Burns.
Also not covered under the U.N. sanctions is Russia's deal to help Iran build a nuclear reactor at Bushehr, a project on which the Iranian government has spent billions of dollars."We all did agree to allow the Bushehr project to continue," Mr. Burns acknowledged in a conference call with reporters. The fiction used to rationalize this exemption is that a country with such vast natural gas reserves as Iran is so ardently pursuing nuclear energy at Bushehr for peaceful scientific and energy purposes. It is a fiction that will be sustainable only until the first mushroom cloud appears over New York or Tel Aviv.
Perhaps the biggest hole in the basket is that Security Council Resolution 1737 was issued under the authority of Article 41 of Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, not Article 42. Article 41 governs "measures not involving the use of armed force," while Article 42 governs action "by air, sea, or land forces." The resolution essentially endorses a non-military solution to the problem of a terror-sponsoring, Holocaust-denying Islamist state building nuclear weapons at a time that it promises the destruction of the Jewish state in the land of Israel.
Just as the Security Council was agreeing on sanctions, there were several interesting Iran-related developments. First, a federal judge in Washington, Royce Lamberth, found that the truck bomb that killed 19 American airmen at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996 had been assembled at a terrorist base operated by the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards. That exposed the Iranians to the possibility of significant civil financial penalties under American antiterrorism legislation in which a country can lose its sovereign immunity a kind of tort law version of war.
Second, a retired Israeli brigadier general, Zvi Shtauber, who is Jerusalem's former ambassador to the United Kingdom and a former adviser to Prime Minister Barak of Israel's Labor Party, released a report from Tel Aviv University's Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies that was skeptical of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran's nuclear program. "Our conclusion is that without military action you won't be able to stop Iran," General Shtauber told the Jerusalem Post. "There is no longer a possibility for effective sanctions to stop Iran."
Third, the New York Times reported that America had captured inside Iraq Iranian military officials plotting attacks on the American-backed, elected government of Iraq. The disclosure underscores the wisdom of the long-voiced warnings of Michael Ledeen that victory in the Battle of Iraq is not going to be possible without addressing the Iranian threat.
We don't want to sound unduly alarmist, but we are hoping that someone whether it is President Bush, Prime Minister Olmert, or either of their successors acts before the Iranians get the bomb. The direction to think in is targeted, covert sabotage of Iranian nuclear facilities, in combination with support, short of an American invasion, for regime change in Iran. The lesson of the past year, and especially of the past week, is that the United Nations basket isn't going to be tightly woven enough to contain the Iranian nuclear program.
#2
By continually threatening the existence of the USA = Israel, Moud has already justified UNILATERAL American = Israeli military action INDEPENDENT = EXCLUSIVE OF THE UNO-UNSC. Russia had better keep in mind that Moud said the words/dictates of the SUPERPOWERS [Plural], NOT MERELY SUPERPOWER [Singular = America/US-Brit only], no longer need be heeded.
By THOMAS P.M. BARNETT
Quick! Name the country we turn into a parking lot the next time al-Qaida's network pulls off a 9/11. If your knee jerks toward Pakistan instead of Iran, your instincts are sound because conditions are falling into place for that scary scenario to unfold.
No, we won't be toppling a regime - much less nation building - anytime soon in a country of 170 million Muslims (eight times the size of Iraq). But the United States could readily find itself unleashing the "gravest possible consequences" (remember that spooky Cold War phrase?) inside Pakistan's borders - specifically the federally administered tribal areas that border Afghanistan.
This swath of remote mountain ranges has never been effectively governed by distant Islamabad, but it's where the Taliban have - according to The New York Times - recently set up a virtual mini-state. The tribal areas are also where most terrorism experts believe Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida's senior leaders operate openly in secure sanctuary.
That's something that really puzzles me. This swath of remote mountain ranges has never been effectively governed by distance Islamabad, or by distant Karachi, or by distant Delhi, or what have you. But a bunch of Arab hoodlums and Afghan rubes is able to waltz in and take over. Is there a reason for that? Or is the basic premise silly?
This mini-state grew out of a series of peace deals that Pakistan's government felt it had no choice but to offer to thousands of Taliban fighters who've taken up permanent residence in the tribal areas since fleeing Afghanistan. The accords offered the warriors respite from the Pakistani military in exchange for a cessation of cross-border attacks into Afghanistan.
But the net result has been even more frequent incursions, plus the Taliban have used brutal terrorist tactics to subdue any opposition from the indigenous tribes, executing dozens of local leaders who dared stand up to them.
Worse, as the Taliban's grip grows stronger, the mini-state becomes a regional magnet for jihadists eager to get a crack at the 40,000 American and NATO troops operating next door. That means Afghanistan gets far bloodier in 2007, just as Iraq's civil war hits its stride.
Continued on Page 49
#1
I neither advocate this possible response nor condemn it. I just think it's essential we know what path we're on in this long war because, under the right conditions, nothing remains unthinkable.
Soon enough Barnett may find it necessary to make up his mind. Soon enough all of us will need to begin assessing just how badly we want our constitutional freedoms and how hard we're willing to fight for them. One thing Barnett is absolutely correct about is how a successful battle against present day Islam leaves out very few militaryalternatives, if any at all.
I'm halfway through his book: The Pentagon's New Map. In the image below, the dark blue areas represent what he calls "The Non-Integrating Gap". As distinguished from "The Functioning Core", this is how Barnett bases his assessment of world regions that will continue to present problems including global terrorism and tyranny in general.
Click here for a different and more detailed image of his map: (too big for page)
I'd welcome comments regarding his work. He is certainly able to articulate the issue and appears the have the military's ear. I have seen him be in turns both critical and supportive of Bush. Now that the holidays are over, I'll need to finish this interesting volume.
#4
Wrechard did the game theory on this long ago....
Posted by: Mark E. ||
12/26/2006 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lands ripe for conquest and colonization.
Posted by: ed ||
12/26/2006 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Zenster,
Very interesting book. Have you read Civilization and its Enemies: The Next Stage of History by Lee Harris? I recommend it. It presents a very interesting view on tribalism and what Harris calls the muzzy "Fantasy Ideology". Very interesting.
#7
How many nukes would it take to totally erase this Taliban "mini-state"? I can think of no compelling reason not to do this, if it's technically feasible.
#10
While it would be worthwhile to radiate these tribal shitholes, why waste valuable bombs ? We know the real targets. Islamabad, Tehran, Riyadh, Cairo. You take these out, and the heart is cut out. The body will shrivel and die soon after. This should be made public knowledge by presidential declaration. Any further atrocities in Western world whatever is to be followed by immediate immolation of named capitals. No more need be said.
#11
I can also recommend Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld, published in 1996. He believes that McWorld will eventually win over jihad, and actually represents a greater threat to individual liberty than benighted tribalism:
Neither Jihad or McWorld promises a remotely democratic future. On the contrary, the consequences of the dialectical interaction between them suggest new and startling forms of inadvertent tyranny that range from an invisibly constraining consumerism to an all too palpable barbarism. The market's invisible hand is attached to a manipulative arm that, unguided by a sovereign head, is left to the contingencies of spontaneous greed. Tyranny here is indirect, often even friendly. Alexis de Tocqueville first captured its character 160 years ago when he wrote: "Fetters and headsmen were the coarse instuments that tyranny formerly employed; but the civilization of out age has perfected despotism itself."
However, in 1996, bin Laden wasn't on his radar. Barber was more concerned with Waco, Oklahoma City, and the militias than the WTC bombing and al Qaeda. He grossly underestimated the potential for violent Islamist jihad and misunderstood the nature of Islam ("[Islam] has displayed considerable tolerance for other religions."). He does understand that democracy is incompatible with Islam.
It's an interesting book, written about the time that bin Laden left the Sudan for Afghanistan.
#12
Have you read Civilization and its Enemies: The Next Stage of History by Lee Harris?
No, but I'm adding it to my reading list. Thank you, jds.
Notice the areas? Almost 90% of the world's Muslim population is in there.
Barnett is totally unapologetic about this direct assertion. He views lack of connectedness (i.e., uncensored newspapers or media but telecom and Internet especially) as a chief driver in both the despotism and non-integrating aspect of this region.
We know the real targets. Islamabad, Tehran, Riyadh, Cairo. You take these out, and the heart is cut out. The body will shrivel and die soon after. This should be made public knowledge by presidential declaration. Any further atrocities in Western world whatever is to be followed by immediate immolation of named capitals. No more need be said.
Can't argue with you in the least, SpecOp35. This is part of the Riot Act that must be read to Islam. Let the occupants of these capitals begin chasing down all of the psychotic murderers they have loosed upon this world lest they themselves be incinerated for the misdeeds of those they trained.
In a feat of monumental hubris and an act of prestidigitation worthy of a Houdini, Islam has somehow managed to make the West responsible for fighting terrorism. Their foisting of this obligation upon us has seen the weaponizing of our culture's finest traditions as Islam turns them against us.
We are under ZERO obligation to carefully winnow through the world's Muslim population in order to delicately isolate Islam's more virulent strains. That job belongs to Islam alone and the onus of that immediate task must rest on their shoulders and no one else's. So long as there are no substantial consequences for inaction, we will be greeted with Islam sheepishly shrugging off its responsibilities while falsely protesting its inability to reverse what it has itself knowingly started.
This bullshit must end. The ball must be placed squarely back in Islam's court. If it requires reassembling the entire Muslim diaspora back in their lands of origin so that they can sort things out on their own home turf, so be it. But sort it out they must and sort it our they will or face the consequences that you suggest, SpecOp35.
We are squandering the precious lives of our young soldiers and BILLIONS of dollars in what can only be at best a partially effective campaign to limit the swath of damage being done by Islamic terrorists. Screw this nonsense. Let Islam clean its own house or face severe consequences for sowing endless furrows with the hydra's teeth.
#13
Zenster,
I find the book is can be attacked on 2 levels:
1) It is too pessimistic about parts of the world - especially Central and South America, the Balkans, and Southern Africa. All of these areas are much better off than the Middle East.
2) It is too optimistic about China, which the book believes will integrate nicely into the global economic system. This is crucial, because, it the enemy is jihadi/criminal, you need fast lightly armed troops to hunt them down. If the enemy is a conventionally armed China, you need a heavily armed force that can take a punch and keep on fighting.
This is the crucial decision we have to make in organizing our forces.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
12/26/2006 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#14
This swath of remote mountain ranges has never been effectively governed by distance Islamabad, or by distant Karachi, or by distant Delhi, or what have you. But a bunch of Arab hoodlums and Afghan rubes is able to waltz in and take over.
I think the answer is in the question, Fred. This swath of remote mountain ranges cannont be governed at a distance, no more than could the cantons of Switzerland, back when civilization was feudal and the Switzers were cowhide-wearing barbarian tribal types. But Mr. O. son of Laden and his Talibani and Al Qaeda henchmen aren't at a distance, they're smack dab in the middle marrying the local chieftains' daughters, nieces and aunts.
#15
That's something that really puzzles me. This swath of remote mountain ranges has never been effectively governed by distance Islamabad, or by distant Karachi, or by distant Delhi, or what have you. But a bunch of Arab hoodlums and Afghan rubes is able to waltz in and take over. Is there a reason for that? Or is the basic premise silly?
They're not governing it. They just brought the old Pathan game of raiding to a new high.
He's not a kook or an alarmist and he doesn't hear voices, strange eerie ones, in his head. He understands all too well what can happen and how if the public has been lulled into a false sense of security -- especially when the issue is illegal immigration.
As absurd as this story line surely must seem to rational people, Mr. Boehm worries that someday taxpayers actually could be forced to pay for lawyers representing illegal aliens in the U.S. who want amnesty and citizenship.
Boehm is co-founder and chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center, a Virginia nonpartisan foundation promoting ethics in public life. He also is not delusional.
No one need be a visionary to picture a day so surreal when taxpayers pay for legal representation for illegals. It almost happened a few months ago and it could happen before you know it if opponents of illegal immigration are not vigilant once Congress (with all those new members, mostly Democrats) convenes in January.
"Once again, the government was requiring taxpayers to pay for something not in the best interest of taxpayers," Boehm says about this year's U.S. Senate immigration bill. "In effect, it's an entitlement program for criminals."
Continued on Page 49
#1
find out which of the Senatorial Weasels placed this amendment. If none will take parentage of the lil bastard, slam the entire Senate, publicly, for their usual cowardice and backroom skullduggery. Time to lower their public approval to single digits
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/26/2006 8:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If the Trunks had real guts, they should play the Donks game. Sure make them legal by the millions and tack their weight upon the Social Security System. That ought to collapse it far more quicker. Then hammer the Donks, day and night, for creating the mess by adding the millions to the rolls and failure in obstructing reform for 50 years. As the Donks have shown in '06, you don't need solutions. You just need to keep hammering. Watch granma vote when she only gets 60% of her SS check now and not avoid the issue for another generation. Watch the youngins vote when the Donks say half their pay has to go to cover the 'entitlement'.
#5
Well, the state has always paid for lawyers for people accused of crimes who can't hire their own. If you get representation for murder and rape, why not illegal entry.
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.
Thomas Lifson
Never say Ken Boehm didn't warn you.
