#1
The running joke in Get Fuzzy is that Bucky (the cat) is more-or-less Republican, and Satchel (the dog) and Rob (their owner, more or less) are Democrats (a recent strip had Rob wearing an Edwards t-shirt). Usually Satchel and Rob get the better lines, but this one makes up for all of that.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/09/2007 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oh this must make the rounds at work next week.
The Chairwoman of the German branch of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) - Angelika Claussen - was recently interviewed on "Kulturzeit" a program on the German state-sponsored television channel "3sat".
When asked to comment on the danger of nuclear terrorism, Claussen refers to the 9/11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center as "airplane accidents" and "airplane crashes." The exchange was brought to our attention by German blogger David Harnasch and can be viewed below (with English subtitles):
It is interesting to note (in what can only be described as journalistic malpractice) that the interviewer - Dieter Moor - does not challenge or so much as question Ms. Claussen's outrageous characterizations of the attacks on the World Trade Center buildings as "airplane accidents" and "airplane crashes." Instead, he continues on - completely unperturbed by Claussen's twisted references to the 9/11 terror attacks - and concludes by thanking her for the "outstanding discussion"
Once again - German taxpayers' money is being put to good use by state-supported public television. Just makes you want to run out and pay your GEZ fee (a mandatory state tax on all radio and television owners) early this month - doesn't it?
Simply put: There is a segment of the Angry Left in Germany that is determined to deny or alter the reality of September 11, 2001. They revel in conspiracy theories or pretend the whole thing was an unfortunate accident. Is it any wonder then - with individuals like Ms. Claussen in positions of influence - and German public television offering them a ready-made platform to propagate their ideas - that so many Germans have so little sympathy towards the United States and the victims of 9/11?
#1
When asked to comment on the danger of nuclear terrorism, Claussen refers to the 9/11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center as "airplane accidents" and "airplane crashes."
Wasn't it Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer who described the Madrid atrocities as "train accidents"? This sort of revisionism is so evil as to be criminal.
"Our strategy is this," President Bush said last month. "We will fight them over there so we do not have to face them in the United States of America." He was talking about jihadists, of course. And Mr. Bush is behind the curve. The president apparently missed the smoking-gun 1991 document his own Justice Department introduced into evidence at the Holy Land Foundation trial in Dallas. The FBI captured it in a raid on a Muslim suspect's home in Virginia.
This "explanatory memorandum," as it's titled, outlines the "strategic goal" for the North American operation of the extremist Muslim Brotherhood (Ikhwan). Here's the key paragraph:
The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means. The Ikhwan must understand that all their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and "sabotaging" their miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God's religion is made victorious over all religions. Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.
The entire 18-page platform outlines a plan for the long haul. It prescribes the Muslim Brotherhood's comprehensive plan to set down roots in civil society. It begins by both founding and taking control of American Muslim organizations, for the sake of unifying and educating the U.S. Muslim community this to prepare it for the establishment of a global Islamic state governed by sharia.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory out of a bad Hollywood movie but it's real. Husain Haqqani, head of Boston University's Center for International Relations and a former Islamic radical, confirms that the Brotherhood "has run most significant Muslim organizations in the U.S." as part of the plan outlined in the strategy paper.
The HLF trial is exposing for the first time how the international Muslim Brotherhood whose Palestinian division is Hamas operates as a self-conscious revolutionary vanguard in the United States. The court documents indicate that many leading Muslim-American organizations including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) and the Muslim American Society are an integral part of the Brotherhood's efforts to wage jihad against America by nonviolent means.
The Muslim Brotherhood is an affiliation of at least 70 Islamist organizations around the world, all tracing their heritage to the original cell, founded in Egypt in 1928. Its credo: "Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Quran is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope." Sayyid Qutb, hanged by the Egyptian government in 1966 as a revolutionary, remains its ideological godfather. His best-known work, Milestones, calls for Muslims to wage violent holy war until Islamic law governs the entire world.
According to a 2004 Chicago Tribune investigation, establishing the Brotherhood in the United States has been a 40-year project that has worked mostly underground even beneath the notice of many Muslims. Richard Clarke, the former top U.S. national security official, told the Senate in 2003 that the Muslim Brotherhood is the common thread linking terrorist fundraising schemes in the United States which likely explains why so many mainstream American Muslim organizations were named by the feds as "unindicted co-conspirators" in the HLF trial.
Is this just alarmist paranoia? Not at all.
This matters because high-profile organizations with roots explicitly in the Muslim Brotherhood have successfully established themselves in a paramount position to define Islam in America according to a radical politicized model. And they've done so without the American public having the slightest idea about their real agenda. Indeed, the Bush administration is unwittingly helping the Islamist cause by including their leaders in public events, thus conferring them legitimacy. On Labor Day weekend, the same Department of Justice that's presenting evidence of the ISNA's involvement with radical Islam at the Dallas trial sponsored a booth at wait for it ISNA's national convention in suburban Chicago.
Look, no rational person believes America is going to exchange the Constitution for a caliphate. Rational people aren't the point. As the London subway bombings showed, even a tiny cell of committed radicals can kill a lot of people. Mustafa Saied, an American Muslim who left the Brotherhood, told the Tribune that he worried about the radicalism the Brotherhood inculcated in its membership here. "With the extreme element," he said, "you never know when that ticking time bomb will go off."
As long as they commit no crimes, CAIR, ISNA and the other Brotherhood-related groups have the right to advocate for their beliefs. But they don't have the right to escape critical scrutiny, and they deserve informed opposition. Courageous Muslims like Dr. Zuhdi Jasser of the American Islamic Forum for Democracy are sounding the alarm about radical Islam's stealth takeover of U.S. Muslim institutions. Why are the news media ignoring this? Fear of being called Islamophobic?
This has got to stop. Six years after 9/11, we're still asleep. Islamic radicals have declared war on us and some are fighting here in what looks like a fifth column. Read their strategy document. It's there in black and white, for those with eyes to see.
The English translation of the strategy document is at the bottom half of the link above.
It means there's a whole lot more killin' that needs doin'.
The time to outlaw shari'a is NOW. This one basic step will allow for prosecution of all who support it. Classifying shari'a as the violation of human rights that it is would provide a massive lever with which to deal with emerging Muslim "democracies". This is the principal lesson we must learn from Afghanistan and Iraq. I used to think it was how readily Muslims kill each other but that has changed. Shari'a represents the bedrock of Islamic society and culture. We need to cut those foundations out from beneath their collective feet. It is the first step in exposing Islam's giant fraud in masquerading as the Religion of Peace [spit].
If America is to make any pretense of championing religious freedom, then banning shari'a is job one. There is ZERO irony in doing so. Part and parcel of this task is the eventual classification of Islam as a political ideology. This will strip away all tax shelters and other freedoms of expression with respect to promoting jihad in any way shape or form.
The Muslim Brotherhood is Public Enemy #1, well beyond drugs, the mafia and any Hispanic or Asian crime syndicates. It is time to turn Islam's unfair advantages against it. Make taqiyya and kitman reasons to validly doubt anything that a Muslimany Muslimsays or does. Put Islam behind the eight ball and off balance until their entire house of cards comes crashing down.
Fatwa (Muslim Opinion) Concerning Petroleum and Gas Law
In the name of Allah, the Compassionate the Merciful,
Allah said :(Oh, ye that believe! betray not the trust of Allah and the Messenger, nor misappropriate knowingly things entrusted to you)
Therefore, all properties originally are the possession of Allah, all properties belongs to him, he said:( To Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth; and Allah hath power over all things) and said: (Give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you )
Islam has declared that a human being can possess properties in accordance with a certain manner known as reasons of possession, so it must clear that a possession right would not be fixed unless a religious confirmation and confession, as the religion is the source of the Law and the rights would not be confessed unless with the religion, and also the rights in the religion are not natural rights came by thought, but they are Allahs gift to the human being according to evidences related.
The has classified the properties into three kinds: individual properties, common properties and properties of the State. We are interested in this Fatwa with the common properties...
Fourth : It is forbidden to a leader of muslim country to make the properties available to non muslims or wrong people, as the nation of that muslim country has the rights in that property... The Association of Muslims Scholars in Iraq (AMSI) actively supports Sunni terror groups. Unfortunately, for them, US and Iraqi forces captured their headquarters on Aug. 20, arrested all present and confiscated pro terror material. However, this fatwah is typical of dogma that binds Sunni clerics, and should cause us to question their value as allies.
Sixth : Every muslim has to know that voting or having the most common opinion would not be in such matters regarding the religion, Allah said It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path). That is why true democracy and liberty are anathema to educated Muslims.
From this point and what has been mentioned above, this is considered void and null from the stand point of islam religion if the members of the Ministers Council have confirmed, and should be interrogated and settle outstanding accounts over it.
In addition, it is religiously forbidden to the members of the recent parliament to vote in favor of the law or confirm it in any case, the angriness of Allah will be upon who will agree and will be considered as the assistant of the enemy in taking the common properties wrongfully, more over considered as faithless to Allah and his Prophet Muhammed. It means that authoritative Sunnis oppose the new Oil bill on Islamic grounds, and prescribe jihad against any legislator who affirms the law. The Sheiks aren't saying that the resource belongs to the people; they are claiming sheik control over it.
#2
This is a perfect illustration IMHO of what islam has been by design from the very start, a vehicle for the ambitions of the Learned Elders/Fearless Leader more than an actual religion (except for the little people, but from the pov of the LE/FL, it is a quite totalitarian-like mean of societal control).
Shiism is even worse. Ayatollah Rafsanjani is worth a reported 1.4 billion US. Of the top 14 Ayatollahs, the poorest is worth over $100 million. And they use an Islamic group - Basij - as strike-breakers, to ensure that labor is without power. This is possible, because Islam's phony 'prophet' claimed 20% of all proceeds of Islamic governance. In Iran, the "khums" tax is benefited only by the clerics. A degree from Qom seminary is worth more in Iran than a Harvard MBA.
The most successful countries reject monopoly stagnation and encourage enterprise. If you want general poverty, convert to Islam.
#4
Yet one more reason why Iraq's current government needs to be dismantled and replaced with one that refuses to accept any role of shari'a law. All who insist upon inclusion of shair'a should be put to death. If that includes 90% of Iraq's population, I could not give a ripe sh*t.
#6
I think I understand the poverty of Islamic societies, now. Hernando de Soto (the modern one) could write a couple books about how mandating that the clerisy deserves all the fruits of property leads to poverty.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
09/09/2007 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
how mandating that the clerisy deserves all the fruits of property leads to poverty.
It's merely a repackaged "divine right of kings" and just as evil.
#10
That's fine. They can have their God-forsaken sand box, as long as we infidels/Christians/Joos/whatever get to take back our rightful properties on-site. Let's see 'em get that black gold outta the ground w/o American ingenuity, equipment, resources, captial, etc. Gotta be quite hard, and would result them in being what they were w/o American resources...just a bunch of Bedouin tribes killing off each other.
Posted by: BA ||
09/09/2007 21:38 Comments ||
Top||
It looks like Bin Laden didn't read my last post about Islam being the solution so I will repeat the question to him.
First of all what form of Islam are you inviting America to endorse? If it's Sunni Islam then do you reccomend the Hanafi, Shafi'i or Salafi doctrine? And if it's Shi Islam, which hierarchy would you recommend? The Iranian one of Khamenai, the Iraqi with its four great Ayatollahs, or the Lebanese represented by Hussein Fadhlallah? Or maybe sheik Bin Laden is going to graciously leave America to choose its new faith freely!?
Second, Bin Laden didn't specify how this endorsement of Islam would be enforced; should it be by an executive order from the Bush administration, a legislation from the Democratic Congress, or would it be up to the American people to answer Bin Laden's call, voluntarily?
ITM, if I remember correctly, are two self described agnostics of Shia backround.
#3
I believe it's part of the duty of a jihadi to offer the victim convertion to Islam first before killing him. Apparently Binny has another surprise planned for us soon. It's like a dhimmitude Miranda; You have the right to remain infidel. Should you choose to convert, any form of Islam will suffice. You have the right to a Koran, if you cannot afford a Koran, one will be traded to you for your goat or daughter.
#4
Pope Benedict delivered a deeply moving and instructive homily today during Mass at St. Stephen's Cathedral, Vienna.
The last paragraph I found apropos to this thread, and to Fred's cover essay from yesterday:
In this Sundays Opening Prayer we call to mind firstly that through his Son God has redeemed us and made us his beloved children. Then we ask him to look down with loving-kindness upon all who believe in Christ and to give us true freedom and eternal life. We ask God to look down with loving-kindness. We ourselves need this look of loving-kindness not only on Sunday but beyond, reaching into our everyday lives. As we ask, we know that this loving gaze has already been granted to us. What is more, we know that God has adopted us as his children, he has truly welcomed us into communion with himself. To be someones child means, as the early Church knew, to be a free person, not a slave but a member of the family. And it means being an heir. If we belong to God, who is the power above all powers, then we are fearless and free. And we are heirs. The inheritance he has bequeathed to us is himself, his love. Yes, Lord, may this inheritance enter deep within our souls so that we come to know the joy of being redeemed. Amen.
#6
To even concider or even discuss is out of the question. I will never convert, concider it, or listen to it. Islam is based on hate, repression, murder. We are thousands of years beyond Islam, beyond this kind of hate.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/09/2007 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Erm ... How about, "None of the Above"? Either that or "Armed Response".
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/09/2007 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Actually I can get behind "embracing Islam", as long as it's the kind of embrace in the Russian folktale......
All the animals of the forest decided to get together and have a peace conference. The rabbit said "we must ban teeth" and the wolf said "we must ban deer antlers" and soon all the animals were yelling and fighting. The bear then let out a huge roar and when all the other aniumals stopped to look at him, he said, "Brothers, we must abandon everything, everything except the great universal embrace".
#10
Thank you, mrp. Pope Benedict is a wise man, indeed. And thank you for posting Iraq the Model's most important question, mhw. I haven't laughed so hard in quite a while.
Osama Bin Laden's widely publicized video address to the American people has a peculiarity that casts serious doubt on its authenticity: the video freezes at about 1 minute and 36 58 seconds, and motion only resumes again at 12:30. The video then freezes again at 14:02 remains frozen until the end.
All references to current events, such as the 62nd anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Japan, and Sarkozy and Brown being the leaders of France and the UK, respectively, occur when the video is frozen! The words spoken when the video is in motion contain no references to contemporary events and could have been (and likely were) made before the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The audio track does appear to be in the voice of a single speaker. What I suspect was done is that an older, unreleased video was dubbed over for this release, with the video frozen when the audio track departed from that of the original video.
#1
As commenters at the link note, the detail and wide angle of some shots almost certainly precludes them having been taken with a Kodak Brownie. Only my best Nikon lenses combined with low ASA high-grain film render that sort of resolution.
#3
I've seen some of them before, too, in a Life Magazine History of WWII. And I am kind of half-remembering reading about a movie documentary crew coming to Pearl within a couple of months, to do some "why we fight" type movies, and recreating some of the scenes, and that some of their stills are mixed up with authentic photos taken on December 7th, 1941. Any one else remember this?
For a "sailor" to have snapped pictures from all the perspectives shown above, he would had to have been in the harbor aboard his ship, on the ground at Hickam army airfield, and aloft in an airplane -- all while the attack was in progress. Moreover, the ship on which this wide-rangng sailor supposedly served, the first USS Quapaw, wasn't even built until well after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Most (if not all) of these images are readily identifiable as archival photos that have been available since the early 1940s and have appeared in countless articles and books about the Pearl Harbor attack.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/09/2007 13:17 Comments ||
Top||
The recent U.S. consideration to designate the 125,000 person strong Revolutionary Guard of Iran as a specially designated global terrorist (per Executive Order 13224) has quite a few international security implications. (1) On the most basic level, it highlights growing U.S. and Iranian tensions over Irans nuclear weapons program and Iranian involvementvia its Quds Force belonging to the Revolutionary Guardin both fermenting and supporting terrorist and insurgent activities in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
What may be far more significant, however, is the U.S. designating the military branch of a sovereign state as a terrorist organization. In the past, such designations have applied only to non-state entities. (2) While the intent of such a designation would be to target the Revolutionary Guards multi-billion dollar business network with ties to over 100 companies, (3) broader implications concerning state sovereignty, political legitimacy, and, ultimately, non-state-on-state conflict readily emerge.
The issue with such a well-warranted designation, however, are the implications for political legitimacy it then extends to Irans Revolutionary Guard and, ultimately, to the Islamic Republic of Iran itself. If the Revolutionary Guard is labeled a 125,000 person force of criminal-soldiers then would it not follow that the sovereign state that fielded it would also be considered criminal? State sovereignty and legitimacy issues will thus become more and more important as time goes on because warfare is shifting from state-on-state to non-state-on-state conflict. In this new form of conflict, war is increasingly being fought over humanitys future social and political organization and not over more traditional notions of the extension and preservation of national sovereignty.
While the Islamic Republic of Iran might appear to be a state at first blush, in actuality, it is representative of a Shia apocalyptic non-state group that has taken over the vestiges of state trappingsthe Ayatollahs ruling under Mahdi mandate kept in power by their religious enforcers.
The critical question stemming from this observation is should the U.S. currently designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization and, as a result, give a de facto challenge to the political legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Or do we bide our time, considering the already extended nature of our resources, before preparing to engage in direct global conflict with another non-state entity and its terrorist and insurgent allies. Since the U.S. is already in a global war with radical Sunni entities (e.g. the Al Qaeda network)do we really want to go hot and openly enter into a new global shooting war with radical Shia entities (e.g. the Ayatollahs, Hizballah, et. al.)? Prudence would suggest otherwise.
In a war over humanitys future social and political organization, the U.S along with other Western Democracies and their allies cannot allow either an imamate or a caliphate to be established in the Islamic world. Consequently, it is recognized that the issue is not if we should openly move against the criminal-state known as the Islamic Republic of Iran but when. Nevertheless, the importance of success in this endeavor is such that we cannot approach it without the means to fully follow through. A possible compromise at present would be to only designate the Quds Force as terrorists per Executive Order 13224 at present while continuing to covertly exert pressure on Iran and the IRG behind the scenes.
#1
Since the U.S. is already in a global war with radical Sunni entities (e.g. the Al Qaeda network)do we really want to go hot and openly enter into a new global shooting war with radical Shia entities (e.g. the Ayatollahs, Hizballah, et. al.)? Prudence would suggest otherwise.
Prudence would suggest we pull our hands away from our eyes and our thumbs out of our rears (to suggest a biologically problematical metaphor). They are at war with us; whether we choose to defend ourselves is an open question.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
09/09/2007 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Prudence would suggest we pull our hands away from our eyes and our thumbs out of our rears (to suggest a biologically problematical metaphor).
That no conflict going on, or that there is no threat of a Caliphate, isn't what's argued in this article. I would suggest you read it. The authors are neither idiots or metaphysically blind or rectal-impaired.
The 'prudence' is whether at this point the U.S. has the assets, support base and stamina to engage Iran in a hot war. I have issues with their alternative proposal. But it is interesting that the topic and how to deal with it are being debated by the knowledgable and those concerned with fighting the Long War (meaning the usual suspects are either still in the parking lot trying to figure out how to spell 'Bush Sucks' on their cardboard signs, or how to gain political advantage/market share/funding from it all).
#6
Pappy, Either we're at war with Islamic terror or we aren't. If we are at war with Islamic terror does it not make sense that we fight on every possible level and with as much fierocity and ruthlessness as possible?
Pussy-footing around and trying to fight a clean and noble war in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't seem to have won us the hearts & minds we were looking for.
War is hell, as Sherman said. Let us make it so hellish upon our enemy that he will think not twice, but many, many times before attacking us again.
#7
"Are We Prematurely Designating IRGC as Criminal-Soldiers?"
No.
30 years too late is NOT "premature."
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/09/2007 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
War is hell, as Sherman said. Let us make it so hellish upon our enemy that he will think not twice, but many, many times before attacking us again.
Muslims around the world must learn to tremble in panicky fear whenever they hear of another terrorist attack. Our retaliations must be so brutal that Muslims finally hunt down and kill their jihadis for bringing so much destruction down upon them. If Muslims are given such "encouragement" and still refuse to clean house, then Islam must be burnt to the ground.
There is absolutely nothing about Islam that can be tolerated by free people.
#9
We must make it clear at every opportunity that we are ultimately targeting the IRGC and the Iranian leadership because this affects the calculations of their allies such as Syria and adversaries such as Saudi Arabia. This will also enable us to more easily direct political and economic resources (soft power) against the Iranian regime and may even affect their deteriorating domestic political/economic situation.
[Please understand all the font changes in my next post. They represent one of the only ways available of expressing the full philosophical context of what I wish to convey. These ideas merit increasing scrutiny, for good or bad, with each passing season.]
Offer only unconditional surrender.
These are the only valid terms of war with on Islam. Otherwise, extinction.
Anything less than UnconditionalSurrender means nothing in the face of taqiyya and kitman.
This is no joke. Taqiyya and kitman represent some of the deepest moral and ethical crimes an individual or group can commit against society. When performed in the name of violence, they are such deep offenses as to represent automatic: Crimes Against Humanity.
Please, let's not forget how practicalusefulappropriateimportant it was to ensure Japan's UnconditionalSurrender in exactly the way that we did. Manyif not allparallels apply in the war on Islam. To be blunt, Islam shallnot "will" or "should"again, SHALL consider itself fortunate if only two nuclear bombs are required for its pacification.
It is notcoincidental that both of us have everything to lose.
Only one of us demands such terms and by the Greatest Good Fortune imaginable we have the ability to reply with equal and greater force.
Finally:
This isn't a clash of civilizations. It's civilization clashing against babarism.
#12
If we are at war with Islamic terror does it not make sense that we fight on every possible level and with as much fierocity and ruthlessness as possible?
Ferocity and ruthlessness are fine. How long can ferocity and ruthlessness be sustained? With what does one wage war with, in addition to all that ferocity and ruthlessness? Is there agreement that there is a war with Islamic terror? Here at Rantburg, there's no doubt. But it isn't Rantburgers making the sole decision.
'Every possible level'? No doubt. What levels are available? Which levels would be more effective? All? Some? Can we sustain some levels more than others? What is the ultimate objective? Is there an agreement by all that there is one, and a willingness to sacrifice everything and all things to achieve it? Will we have to deal with other groups who might take advantage during that? Will we have the assets, will, and energy to deal with them simultaneously or sequentially?
Please, let's not forget how practical useful appropriate important it was to ensure Japan's Unconditional Surrender in exactly the way that we did. Manyif not allparallels apply in the war on Islam. To be blunt, Islam shallnot "will" or "should"again, SHALL consider itself fortunate if only two nuclear bombs are required for its pacification.
I'm sure Joe would also remember the costs leading up to the launch of the Fat Man and Little Boy and Japan's Unconditional Surrender (and I'm not talking R&D).
So why not jump to just launching nukes, as you advocate? No fuss, no muss. Lots of them around.
Well, there is Hesb'allah and Hamas, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, and Malaysia and Indonesia, and the Saudis. Nuking out the first two or four leaves a little problem of not turning Israel into collateral damage, and if there's Singapore to worry about if Malayasia gets it. Meaning conventional methods would have to be used to prevent 'sympathetic' attacks on the U.S., Israel, and Europe. I suppose mass-killing is the way to go, but I wonder how long before the bullets run out and the gag-factor kicks in.
But hey- leave those messy details to those of us who have to carry it out, right?
#13
There have been a great many groups/organizations who've been designated as terrorists, especially in recent years. We are not in a hot war with almost all of them, and some few others are enjoying the very close attention of units of our (and those of some of our allies, presumably) Special Forces.
On the contrary, if I understand correctly, we are employing measures short of war in almost every case to affect or even cripple the designated groups short of sending armies across borders. We treat Iran as a rogue nation, not only blocking trade and financial interactions on the part of American actors, but by direct warning to anyone else who might choose to do business with Iran that they must choose either Iran or the U.S. -- they don't get to deal with both, regardless of their own government's position on the matter. Iranians cannot enter the country without getting special permission, even the head of state; I've no doubt we bug and trace and track just about every person of even relative importance to the survival of the Mullahcracy, and all of their connections. Naming the Revolutionary Guard as terrorists ups the pressure without, it seems to me, committing us to any further action.
I agree, Pappy, we do not want to commit troops and materiel to something that will not be finished before January, 2009. I realize hard words have many implications -- and even requirements of action -- of which I am as unaware as you and so many others are forced to be aware. But truly, I don't see that this is one of those things.
#14
I don't agree with the authors' alternative, tw (and I did pose questions at my 'usual place').
I guess I am as frustrated with the 'strive and drive' crowd as I am with the 'peace at any price' ones. Neither one is grounded in reality.
We exacted unconditional surrender from Germany and Japan, but even with the fall of half of Europe and a good part of Asia, it was a long and uncertain time before the commitment to wage war was made and the slog to the war's conclusion was long and costly. We are in even more vague and uncertain circumstances now; the slog is going to be longer and costlier.
#3
Now if a 'white hate group' had engaged in such nonsense [creating a lie narrative] about, say, blacks, the individual involved would rightly be racist. What you call people who do the same against those who wear the uniform? Remember for the left there is no principle, only power.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/09/2007 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Interesting that the University of Tampa newspaper is called the Minaret. What with Sami al-Arian and the muslim brotherhood influence in Tampa and all.
Posted by: ed ||
09/09/2007 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Obviously another graduate of the Dan Rather school of journalism.
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.
