Article

2006-01-20 Terror Networks

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2006-01-20 00:09|| || Front Page|| [11136 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 bin Laden's not exactly offering a truce:

"We do not object to a long-term truce with you on the basis of fair conditions that we respect."

Sounds like he'll take one if it's offered. Such magnaminity.

Update: MEMRI's observation:

At the same time, bin Laden makes a plea to accept and uphold a long term truce under fair conditions [if America offers it to him], which will provide security and stability to both sides and will make it possible to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan. "We are a nation forbidden by Allah to betray and lie," promises bin Laden.

Contrary to mistranslations in the media, from Al-Jazeera for example,(1) bin Laden did not offer a truce, but made a plea to genuinely uphold one if America offers it to him.

Posted by Pappy 2006-01-20 00:59|| 2006-01-20 00:59|| Front Page Top

#2 I admire the VP, but he missed two opportunities to educate, clarify, and inform.

Firstly, he should have been told about the difference between the Islamic style truce "hudna", and the Western style. He could have pointed out indisputable history regarding the use of the word by Mohammed. In this way, the usage of the word "hudna" as a synonym for a one-sided truce entered into without the intent of following through to a peace treaty, would have come into general knowledge and usage.

Secondly, he could have followed through on the observation that people "have let down their guards". He should have at least noted that any carrying out of an attack on american soil would necessarily involve some sort of communication between the locals and foreign terrorists, and that THANKS TO THE TIMES, the compromise of the NSA monitoring program comes at a time when Bin Laden has threatened an attack against the United States.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-01-20 09:21|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-01-20 09:21|| Front Page Top

#3 Good observations Ptah. Worth emailing to the VP's office.

Posted by ed 2006-01-20 09:35|| 2006-01-20 09:35|| Front Page Top

#4 I'm soooooo impressed. This turd burglar commits the most heinous atrocity in American history, suddenly discovers that we're jamming rockets up his @ss at 0-dark-thirty every other week and decides to offer us a truce.

Piss up a rope you scumbag rectal cavity. If you aren't dead already, we'll be happy to make you that way real soon. You started this war and too f&%king bad if you don't have the testicular fortitude to see it through.

Your truce is worth less than used toilet paper.

Also, Ptah has it totally right. Once again, this administration has missed a vital opportunity to begin informing the American public about exactly what the Islamists hold in store for us.

"Hudna" should have featured prominently in Cheny's speech, along with a word-by-word translation from Arabic to English so that no doubts would be left.

Too bad Muslims are so blind to anything except their own cause to understand that bin Laden is effectively trying to cut a deal with "The Great Satan" whom no deals may be cut with, UNLESS ...

THE DEAL MEANS NOTHING BECAUSE THERE IS NO SINCERITY BEHIND IT.

In fact, I owe you an extra thank you, Ptah. This whole event moves me one degree closer to .com's "Fry 'em Up" stance.

IMPORTANT QUESTION:

If Islamist intransigence supposedly allows no quarter being given to the enemy, how is it possible for bin Laden to make this ~~truce~~ hudna offer to ~~America~~ The Great Satan without there being an uproar with in the extremist community?

As Ptah so brilliantly mentioned, "hudna" should have been exposed for the "one sided truce" that it is. The proof of this is as I said, the usual thundering silence from Islam as a whole at anything that seems to contradict its tenents.

These @ssholes strain on ~~mosquitoes~~ piggy banks and swallow ~~camels~~ atrocities whole.

How much longer is the West supposed to accept Islam's general unwillingness to criticize or clean its own house? As distasteful as I find reprisal mentality on the whole, at some point the world's Muslim population will have to be made to suffer in proportion to the atrocities their radicals inflict.

Islam's usual thundering silence, combined with their complete and total inaction in terms of actively estopping the spread of radicalism within their ranks (irony intended), continues to indicate that this is what they, as a collective faith, want from their religious leaders.

The time has come for Muslims to begin sharing our pain. Perhaps some other Rantburgers can help me come up with reprisals that are appropriate in scope for countering the predictable atrocities to come.

HERE'S A START:

A 10:1 deportation of newly arrived Muslims from any target country. Force ten times the number of recent Muslim arrivals to return to their country of origin. Make them waste all that plane fare and resettlement expense. Make it clear to them that this has happened due to yet another Islamist atrocity.

I am fed up to my teeth with this constant Islamic (not Islamist) perfidy. If we do not have the courage to take the shrines hostage or some other significant move, then we need to implement measures that begin to inflict hardship in proportion to the way that Islamists commit their atrocities.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-20 11:44|| 2006-01-20 11:44|| Front Page Top

#5 Hunt this murderer down (BL) and kill him. Let his duplicity go with him.

Posted by Flenter Slairong6789 2006-01-20 12:31|| 2006-01-20 12:31|| Front Page Top

#6 Response to #4

Now Zen, there you go again. And as I said a couple of weeks ago, despite your claims to the contrary, I don't think you've changed a bit. Your "solutions" to the Islamic threat are still firmly ensconced in the "nuke 'em all" mentality.

An analysis/critique of your statements:

"If we do not have the courage to take the shrines hostage or some other significant move, then we need to implement measures that begin to inflict hardship in proportion to the way that Islamists commit their atrocities."

Taking a shrine "hostage" is a really stupid idea. Here's why: every middle of the road Moslem will then join with the jihadiis to defend the shrine. Any trust or alliance with non-Moslems will be destroyed, thus polarizing the forces in this conflict. It's a hell of way to turn into a payback magnet, yes? Besides, although these groups get funding from lots of sources, as well as rip off the well-meaning (is in the Islamic charity organization scams), these groups are not under the control of their sources of funding. So, let's say we take Mecca/Medina hostage and yell, "Stop it, you guys . . . I mean it!" Who's gonna stop it. They'd like it, actually, because it would catapult large (and I mean large) segments of the Moslem world population to their doorstep--mission complete.

You advocate another solution that won't work:

" . . . deportation of newly arrived Muslims from any target country. Force ten times the number of recent Muslim arrivals to return to their country of origin. Make them waste all that plane fare and resettlement expense. Make it clear to them that this has happened due to yet another Islamist atrocity."

Same problem here. Many moderate Moslems are fleeing their sucky homelands in search of something better. The rest are acting as an arm of jihad--they plan to settle, build enclaves, be ready to act against the host countries at a later time. Those types are the real problem, but it's impossible to weed them out from the legitimate refuge-seekers. So, what to do? We've got to keep watch on the "settlers," but sending plane loads of Moslems back to Moslem countries might allow a somewhat bizarre outlet for the message you want the terrorists to hear, but the wrong people will get punished. And the terrorists will seize on the unfairness, and use it to their advantage: "those meanie Americans, etc. ad nauseum. Despite what you might think, Islam is not very organized. It's not like there are official spokespeople that the general Moslem public rallies around and affirms. Islam, aside from what might be termed "scholarly (as in academic) Islam" is a total mess. So there's not a central "group" to appeal to, and there exists no leader, country, or organization to respond to the message of "we're sending you all back because of the bad ones--so there" The "run-of-the-mill Moslems who stand up against the gangster Moslems get punished in various and sundry ways--none of them pleasant, which intimidates others from trying to speak out. When they sense they won't become targets they will speak out and demonstrate as you saw in Lebanon recently--tens of thousands demonstrating against the terrorist hotel attacks. Most Moslems simply remain quiet and anonymous, but not always--the Iraqis showed up to their polls in droves, despite death threats (and they've had plenty of time to see the truth of those threats) and tried to participate in self-governance--for the first time in the history of the country. They, essentially, told the terrorists to stuff it. People are still people, Zen, and you've simply have got to try and remember that. So, to deport people randomly and en masse, for crimes committed by the whack-jobs, is counterproductive.

"The time has come for Muslims to begin sharing our pain. Perhaps some other Rantburgers can help me come up with reprisals that are appropriate in scope for countering the predictable atrocities to come."

Which Moslems? If you mean the terrorists and governments that support them, okay, no argument here. But you make no distinction. Reprisals that are appropriate in scope is to make sure the leadership in this country is not liberal-leaning, and to continue to fight the terrorists on their turf. Conceivably, it could get to the point where large-scale terrorist attacks happen and the country they are residing in does and says nothing (Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia come to mind). That's a whole new ball game, and depending on about 3 million or more variables, military action greater than what's being exercised now, would come into play. But it would still be a targeted offensive, and not something against all Moslems. The fact remains that "all Moslems" should not have to share our pain, (and by "our pain" I think you mean 9-11). We can't just go wild, trying to "even the score." Can you see that using that approach would make us no different than they are, in respect to taking innocent lives? We lose the moral imperative that way.

"Islam's usual thundering silence, combined with their complete and total inaction in terms of actively estopping the spread of radicalism within their ranks (irony intended), continues to indicate that this is what they, as a collective faith, want from their religious leaders."

That's because there is no "Islam" per se. Again, it's nothing more than a loose-knit collective, of sorts. And again, many are quiet out of fear and confusion, not because they agree wholeheartedly with what's going on. They don't necessarily understand their leaders or their religion, and a lot of them want to be "good Moslems" so they just watch from the sidelines. Stupid, I know, but not as atrocious as it seems at first. Some have tried to hold leaders to accountability, and others have elected governors who are committed to finding and eliminating terrorists. But when so-and-so next door is a gun-wielding gangster idiot, it's tough for the average un-self-actualized Moslem to know what to do, or who to go to, and families can be divided. Some have been suckered into the rhetoric, others want a way out. Finally, the subjugation of women has a lot to do with the problem. Without the kind of healthy, life-oriented focus men can benefit from when women are held in esteem in a society, things can get really rotten really quickly. It's not everything, but it is an aspect of the problem. Interestingly, the little (Moslem) girl refugees are doing very well in school, are excelling socially, like school and their teachers and fellow students, whereas the boys aren't. Girls will tend toward order, societal structure, and freedom, in a way boys won't, given the givens of the Moslem culture. Another reason too, why the men start to feel so threatened by the change in the girls/women after they leave Moslem countries. In a very real way, there is a quiet revolution going on. Not disimilar to the Iranians boycotting the polls everytime there's an "election" run by and for the Iranian mullahs. Give it some time. There are, I wager, more for us in the Moslem world, than there are against us. The advent of the internet and access to information also will pan out. The terrorist/mini-dictators can't control the signal. This too, works in our favor.

"How much longer is the West supposed to accept Islam's general unwillingness to criticize or clean its own house? As distasteful as I find reprisal mentality on the whole, at some point the world's Muslim population will have to be made to suffer in proportion to the atrocities their radicals inflict.""

But there IS criticism. I read it here and elsewhere often. "Cleaning it's own house" is a little tricky, because you have to ask yourself, "who are the 'cleaners'?" Average citizens? Are they supposed to go and beat up the local imam? What would happen if they did? How would ignorant and uninformed people within their own communities react? Even so, in Iraq now, more and more information is finding its way into the hands of the American and Iraqi forces regarding terrorist weapons caches and people and plans.

Next, you say, "As distasteful as I find reprisal mentality on the whole, at some point the world's Muslim population will have to be made to suffer in proportion to the atrocities their radicals inflict." Honestly, I don't think you find reprisal mentality distasteful in the least. The very next thing you say is that the "world's Muslim population will have to be made to suffer . . . " Oh really? Which ones? Everyone? Everyone, even though the percentage of radicals is miniscule in comparison to the general population? Even though many Moslems disagree with the aims, agenda, and actions of the terrorists? Let me put it another way, in another context: Should all men who are practicing homosexuality be made to suffer and pay because a small number of them threaten and attack others who voluntarily cease practicing homosexuality and try to leave the lifestyle/community? Of course not. As much as we might not like homosexuality, per se, it would still be wrong to punish all homosexuals for the crimes of a few. And to follow, where, oh where, is the expressed outrage, where is the collective homosexual demonstrations against such homosexually-fomented violence? Are they just obeying and agreeing with their homosexual leaders? You see? Nobody wants to take blame for the actions of others. You can't make the whole Moslem world pay for the actions of the gangsters.

On a positive not, I found your comments at the beginning of your piece very funny, entertaining, and to the point. The utter impossibility of Bin Laden offering America a "truce" is so entirely absurd, that I think you put it best: "This turd burglar commits the most heinous atrocity in American history, suddenly discovers that we're jamming rockets up his @ss at 0-dark-thirty every other week and decides to offer us a truce."

Ha! LOL.

Now, regarding you and Ptah'criticism of Cheney, I have this to say. Sure, it would have been nice for him to unpack that (hudna), but only for educated, intellectual people who have more than a six-second attention span. People wouldn't get it. Mass tune-out. But he DID say the U.S. "does not negotiate with terrorists and dismissed any offer of a truce with al Qaeda."

"Well, based on what we've seen him (Bin Laden) do, based on what we've seen the organization do, I don't think it's possible to negotiate any kind of a settlement with terrorists like this," he said. "This is not an organization that's ever going to sit down and sign a truce. I think you have to destroy them. It's the only way to deal with them."

AND

"The fact of the matter is we have not been attacked in more than four years . . . That is not an accident. It's not just dumb luck."

Point made.

As far as appropriate reprisals now? Our measures are working. And also, one must never overlook the fact of an armed population in the U.S.(as opposed to Europe and the UK) being a formidable deterrent to terrorists. Afterall, the baddies KNOW their next-door neighbor might have one or more guns in his/her car/home, and if so, would more than likely know how to use them. Kinda rains on their parade, don't it? For now, the solution is straightforward, though somewhat unsatisfying: We have to keep hunting them down, just like we're doing. Stronger force and measure could be advanced in present targeted attack protocols, but it's an imprecise science at best. Mostly it's a test of nerves, courage, and the ability to both wait and maintain the moral ascendancy.

Zen, I understand your passion and fury. But I believe itâs misdirected. And really, despite your touting and spouting, I have to wonder if you would really shoot innocents, even if they were Moslem. I mean I don't think so, but we have to be careful with our rhetoric, because words are powerful things. Do this: Picture the Islamic bad boys lined up against a fence. Then sprinkle in Mom-and-Pop restaurant owner, Moslem scholar, a few teenagers, kids, college students--some have hajibs, some look like your average westerner--some are supermodels, some are film makers, some are dissidents against Islamic terrorism, but still maintain their Moslem identity, which they define for themselves. Now I give you an M16, and say "kill the terrorists and terrorsist sympathizers!" What would you do? Think about it. Would you just mow them all down? Now letâs separate them--put the baddies on one side, leave a space, and put the other average types on the other side. Would you still shoot everyone?

Take care.

~ ex-lib

Posted by ex-lib 2006-01-20 13:39|| 2006-01-20 13:39|| Front Page Top

#7 As a sidenote, re #2, I'm always surprized (and a bit worried, given that I'm affected by this too as a westerner) by the inability of the Bush's administrations to get its points in PR.

I mean, I'm mostly ok with what GWB has done so far (I'd like more, faster, but that's ok like that; also, no comment on the domestic political scenery, I can't judge), I think his two administrations have done a good job (especially given the circumstances, GWB was really a great leader right after 9/11 imho), both seen an unseen, but... they've let the other side impose their vision of the Iraq war, of Guantanomo, they're always on the defnesive, they didn't expose the Iran-AQ connection, they didn't expose the Saddam-terror connection, they trapped themselves with the wmd by using them as a rationale for going to war with un approval to suit Blair and Powell and not explaining what they have actually *found*, what were Saddam's contingency plans (preplanned guerilla, probably moving away/destroying his stash, as Ion Pacepa said was the soviet way), by not acknowledging Iran's acts of wars,...

I mean, it's like they shy away from confronting the msm, which are indeed very hostile. It's a lost cause in Europe, but I'm sure if they had done a better job of explaining what they were doing and why, the US public would be mature and wise enough to understand.
The Us people support their troops because they are patriotical, but they should also support the Wot & the "gamble" undertaken (draining the swamp), because it concerns their future.

Instead, it's a field day for the fifth column. Why don't they hit back, not with spin, but with simple facts?

Posted by anonymous5089 2006-01-20 14:24|| 2006-01-20 14:24|| Front Page Top

#8 The media carefully selects what it will and will not relay to the American public, and more often than not, their pick-and-choose is designed to fulfill their agendas--so even if the Bush Administration is saying it loud and clear, we'll never hear it. End of story, sorry to say.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-01-20 14:36|| 2006-01-20 14:36|| Front Page Top

#9 W to Binny: Nuts!

Posted by doc 2006-01-20 14:38|| 2006-01-20 14:38|| Front Page Top

#10 ex-lib: I disagree with your low estimation of the ability of the american public to grasp a new term, especially if it is carefully couched in simple and familiar terms. For instance, "It's like the losing football team asking the winning team's coach to call a time-out to break the momentum of the game when it has swung in his favor and against the losers. No coach that is winning is stupid enough to do THAT." I am sure that there are other metaphors that can be used.

Code words and phrases that abstract strategies is already accepted in the American language: i.e. the term "Munich", or the phrase "Peace in our time" as a code term/phrase for a failed strategy. Hell, I can see "Hudna" becoming one of the few Arabic words that come into common American English usage as the word that abstracts the concept of treachery put on the run posing as goodness and light to buy time for a comeback. Nobody is fussing over the language in the same way the French fusses over theirs.

I'd expect the LLL to fight like hell to OPPOSE it's adoption, mainly because they use a similar strategy all the time. It was used to sneak a tax increase locally in Vidalia several years ago.

Posted by Ptah">Ptah 2006-01-20 15:08|| http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org]">[http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2006-01-20 15:08|| Front Page Top

#11 Agree the admin could do better -- in live talk shows especially, where they better opportunity and are free of editing.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-01-20 15:25|| 2006-01-20 15:25|| Front Page Top

#12 ex-lib
So, if you sprinkle a few MSM lefties, some university profs, NOW founders, ACLU lawyers, Clintonistas, Hollywood elite, Bloods, and Crypts among them, I'm liable to start shooting before you get outta the way.

Posted by wxjames 2006-01-20 16:08|| 2006-01-20 16:08|| Front Page Top

#13 ex-lib, due to previous incivility upon your own part, I find it difficult to take much time responding to your albeit lengthy reply.

Your "solutions" to the Islamic threat are still firmly ensconced in the "nuke 'em all" mentality.

I can only suppose that youâve entirely missed the dozen or so times in the last month where Iâve adamantly opposed the first-use of nuclear weapons against Iran. When you and a few others hereabouts finally stop accusing me of a ânuke âem allâ stance, Iâll feel more obliged to give you serious consideration. If you want ânuke âem allâ, I refer you to .comâs âfry âem upâ position.

Taking a shrine "hostage" is a really stupid idea. Here's why: every middle of the road Moslem will then join with the jihadiis to defend the shrine.

I can only suppose you missed the âor some other significant moveâ part of my sentence. I have proposed taking the shrines hostage as a thought problem in order to get people thinking about what sort of solutions there may be. Nowhere do I tout my idea as the end all, be all solution. You, however, feel free to condemn the notion in absolute terms (i.e., âa stupid ideaâ) as though everyone agrees with you, which is most certainly not the case.

As to your justification, it has a few truck-sized holes in it as well. An increasing body of evidence points towards a significant portion of the Muslim populationâs unwillingness to disassociate themselves from the acts or ideas of jihadists and radical imams. Based on that observation, it strikes me as increasingly necessary to treat a large portion of Muslims as willing accessories to the terrorists atrocities being committed. Feel free to argue against it, but I am not alone in this perception.

Who's gonna stop it. They'd like it, actually, because it would catapult large (and I mean large) segments of the Moslem world population to their doorstep--mission complete.

And here, as usual, you miss the central point. My stance is not that taking the shrines hostage is the ultimate solution. It is that a significant demonstration of determination (and possibly even of force) will be needed to convince the Muslim world that their own inaction against the radicals in their midst comes with a price tag. Only when Islam as a whole finally realizes that there are repercussions for not cleaning house of radicals will there be any progress.

Do you actually advocate that Western forces are obliged to go in and clean up Islamâs mess? Are we to spill our own blood and spend the treasure to take care of something that Islam has bred up all by itself? Is this what you propose? I say that the ball must be placed in Islamâs court and that they must make some sort of genuine demonstration of good faith regarding the expulsion of radicals from within their ranks. This is something that is most definitely not happening.

Many moderate Moslems are fleeing their sucky homelands in search of something better. The rest are acting as an arm of jihad--they plan to settle, build enclaves, be ready to act against the host countries at a later time. Those types are the real problem, but it's impossible to weed them out from the legitimate refuge-seekers.

I can only suppose that one more time, you have missed the prefatory phrasing I put in place:

Perhaps some other Rantburgers can help me come up with reprisals that are appropriate in scope for countering the predictable atrocities to come.

Notice how I am seeking suggestions? Do you even care as you continue to lambaste me? I do not propose my deportation idea as the only solution. Again, it is a thought experiment designed to get people thinking about what might actually work. I can only note a complete and total lack of alternatives in the huge body of text you posted.

Iâll also wager that if newly arrived Muslims found themselves gently transported back to their countries of origin with the simple explanation that too many of their radical brethren have contaminated their reputation to the point where host countries are no longer willing to risk their arrival, that they might actually begin to consider the ramifications of remaining silent while all the jihadist atrocities happen.

â¦ but the wrong people will get punished.

And I maintain that so long as Islam, as a whole, remains thunderously silent regarding the atrocities being committed in their name that the wrong people arenât necessarily being punished. Itâs a rather simple message; âTake action or face consequences that may not involve results favorable to you.â

Or perhaps you propose that we continue to await each consecutive atrocity and simply gauge our response to each escalating outrage? The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have achieved important goals, but they are far too little in terms of truly averting a WMD attack upon American soil. Do you disagree with this? If so, state your reasons plainly.

I seek solutions that ignite a prompt backlash against jihadist Muslims. Nowhere have I claimed that my ideas are the one and only way to success. I just happen to feel that the threat we face is so significant that conventional diplomacy and traditional preliminary military response doctrines are now outmoded.

Despite what you might think, Islam is not very organized. It's not like there are official spokespeople that the general Moslem public rallies around and affirms.

Do you honestly think that I am unaware of Islamâs decentralized nature? Do you actually think I believe that they have something akin to a Pope? (Which they do not.) So, what do we have then? We have a huge majority of Wahabbist radicals financed by Saudi Arabia and we have the Al-Azhar University in Cairo, both of which are doing little short of throwing gasoline on the fire to put it out.

Contrary to what you maintain, there are some fairly central sources for the violent rhetoric being spewed against us. Large numers of Muslims do embrace what these sources espouse and we are doing very little to correct these outright lies and filth. More importantly, far too many Muslims are willingly adhering to these lies without questioning the incredible hatred and violence they instigate. Why on earth should we remain complacent in the face of this hideous vitriol?

The "run-of-the-mill Moslems who stand up against the gangster Moslems get punished in various and sundry ways--none of them pleasant, which intimidates others from trying to speak out.

Then the time has come for them to take back their religion by force. The German people did not sufficiently resist the cancerous spread of Nazism within their society and if Muslims do not adequately rise up against the genocidal preaching of their imams, then they silently consent to it.

All religions, including Islam, contain an equivalent of The Golden Rule. By that knowledge alone, practicing Muslims must surely know that vocally or tacitly supporting any sort of genocide, be it against Jews or infidels, is to ask for it to be brought upon themselves.

When they sense they won't become targets they will speak out and demonstrate as you saw in Lebanon recently--tens of thousands demonstrating against the terrorist hotel attacks.

And where are those âtens of thousandsâ in demonstrating against the slaughter in Darfur, the anti-Shiite al Qaeda killings in Iraq, Ahmadnejadâs repeated calls to âwipe Israel off of the mapâ? Why do they remain silent except when their own ox is being gored? SHORT ANSWER: Because they tacitly support all of the other atrocities except when it happens to them. My reply is that is not good enough.

People are still people, Zen, and you've simply have got to try and remember that. So, to deport people randomly and en masse, for crimes committed by the whack-jobs, is counterproductive.

And you blithely ignore that tacit approval of atrocities and terrorism is tantamount to abetting them. When Muslims finally realize that their inaction comes at a price, they will begin to act, AND NOT A MOMENT BEFORE. This is the pattern weâve seen to date and nothing has happened to change that impression.

Which Moslems? If you mean the terrorists and governments that support them, okay, no argument here. But you make no distinction. Reprisals that are appropriate in scope is to make sure the leadership in this country is not liberal-leaning, and to continue to fight the terrorists on their turf.

And do you see the âliberal-leaningâ Moslem leaders roundly condemning Ahmadnejadâs genocidal rantings? THEY ARE NOT. Barely any criticism is forthcoming from other Arab nations regarding Iranâs fomenting of genocide. This alone is sufficient reason to make sure a price tag gets attached to their nearly universal silence.

Conceivably, it could get to the point where large-scale terrorist attacks happen and the country they are residing in does and says nothing (Iran and Syria and Saudi Arabia come to mind). That's a whole new ball game, and depending on about 3 million or more variables, military action greater than what's being exercised now, would come into play.

And your sort of dilettantism will likely get a lot of us killed. You neglect to recognize how drastic this situation is now that WMDs have come into play. We no longer have time to play nice. Our doing so will result in one or more nuclear terrorist attacks against America. What will your response be then?

And again, many are quiet out of fear and confusion, not because they agree wholeheartedly with what's going on. They don't necessarily understand their leaders or their religion, and a lot of them want to be "good Moslems" so they just watch from the sidelines. Stupid, I know, but not as atrocious as it seems at first.

Wrong! It is atrocious to sit by silently while others propose genocide. Stupidity should be painful and we must decide whether it is our stupidity or theirs that will be.

Without the kind of healthy, life-oriented focus men can benefit from when women are held in esteem in a society, things can get really rotten really quickly.

Nice psychobabble, thatâs right up there with âun-self-actualized Moslemâ. Guess what? Misogynistic Arabic males are not going to relinquish their grip on the reins until they are pried out of their hands by force. I refer you to Afghanistan.

Give it some time. There are, I wager, more for us in the Moslem world, than there are against us.

If this were 50 years ago, I would agree. Guess what? Itâs not. We have lunatics actively seeking atomic bombs to detonate in American cities and your wait-and-see strategy could get a lot of us killed. If Moslems do not actively begin sorting out their own laundry, many of them will get hung out to dry when the action begins.

But there IS criticism. I read it here and elsewhere often. "Cleaning it's own house" is a little tricky, because you have to ask yourself, "who are the 'cleaners'?" Average citizens? Are they supposed to go and beat up the local imam?

The criticism is a whisper in the midst of a storm. The âcleanersâ are just like our revolutionary forefathers who saw governmental and religious abuse and put their lives on the line to fight it. Those who refuse to do so essentially agree to what is happening.

Next, you say, "As distasteful as I find reprisal mentality on the whole, at some point the world's Muslim population will have to be made to suffer in proportion to the atrocities their radicals inflict." Honestly, I don't think you find reprisal mentality distasteful in the least.

You are very deceitful in your arguments. I find reprisal mentality seriously questionable. I truly disliked much of the Israeliâs reprisal methods and yet, if you examine their own track record in dealing with terrorism, they are one of the few governments to make any progress.

My motherâs relatives died at the hands of Nazi reprisal. So, go ahead, and make your false-hearted accusations. If I truly did not find reprisal methods distasteful, I would certainly not have bothered qualifying them or sought out other suggestions. I simply would have put them forward as inarguably valid. Perhaps, now you see why I typically refuse to respond to any of your usual attacks upon myself. They are rarely even of this low caliber.

Zen, I understand your passion and fury. But I believe itâs misdirected. And really, despite your touting and spouting, I have to wonder if you would really shoot innocents, even if they were Moslem. I mean I don't think so, but we have to be careful with our rhetoric, because words are powerful things. Do this: Picture the Islamic bad boys lined up against a fence. Then sprinkle in Mom-and-Pop restaurant owner, Moslem scholar, a few teenagers, kids, college students--some have hajibs, some look like your average westerner--some are supermodels, some are film makers, some are dissidents against Islamic terrorism, but still maintain their Moslem identity, which they define for themselves. Now I give you an M16, and say "kill the terrorists and terrorsist sympathizers!" What would you do? Think about it. Would you just mow them all down? Now letâs separate them--put the baddies on one side, leave a space, and put the other average types on the other side. Would you still shoot everyone?

Itâs this sort of strawman garbage that I refuse to respond to. Where are your proposed solutions? You are so often bereft of them that I feel you lack the qualifications to attack others who honestly and actively seek them out. Others here display far more moral courage in trying to address what remains a complete and total peril to civilized society.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-20 16:35|| 2006-01-20 16:35|| Front Page Top

#14 The "shooting innocents' argument is the one used by the left to justify doing nothing. EX(?)-Lib? The West, and the USA in particular, had better develop a plan for meaningful retaliation, or the ultimate result WILL BE "fry 'em up."

At some point, the Islamists will commit an atrocity so heinous that the West will indiscriminately retaliate - unless Islam can clean itself up first. Zen is correct. The Muslim world must be made to see that atrocities will not be tolerated indefinitely.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-01-20 17:54|| 2006-01-20 17:54|| Front Page Top

#15 Certainly the Islamo-facists are in a war to dominate the world. I would like to think this is not true but I see no data to indicate other wise. Perhaps this notion goes beyond just Islamo-facists. Unless we want to be subjugated either physically oreconomically we have no alternative but to develop plans to deal with growing threats and plans for retaliation for any actions that might be mounted against us. Appeasement has never worked with a people dedicated to ruling the world. Negotiations don't work. A truce such as Bin Laden is suggesting in another post is no truce at all but a ploy to buy time for some other evil deed. Besides these are terrorists. They are supported by Muslim countrys but do not have a country of their own. We are in a war for the existence of the free world--no less.

Posted by Glolugum Thease1214 2006-01-20 18:17|| 2006-01-20 18:17|| Front Page Top

#16 Damn.

I was enjoying a day away, doing other things, pleasant things, thinking not about Muzzies and such. I dropped by early, did a quick scan, and boogied with a ladyfriend to pretend for a day that none of this exists, that there isn't a global conflict underway for the very existence of Freedom. I was enjoying some of that "Freedom" stuff.

Now I've screwed up. I couldn't resist have another peek. Shit. Damn. I'm not in the mood for this, today.

I suggest the following:

Islam is Nazism, only far less honest about it. It is an IDEOLOGY. One of Global Dominion (If you've read the qu'uran then you know.), slavery (at least in second-class "citizenship" for non-Muzzies and femalians), barbarity (Can you even imagine female castration and the other forms of terror imposed upon females? Can you really?), and hate (There's a Special Place reserved for the Jooos, of course.).

What would you do about 1.25 Billion Nazis? No, REALLY. What would you do about 1.25 billion Nazis that run more than 20 "countries", have nukes in at least one of them, and almost endless funding?

I suggested that we take away the funding mechanism. That kinda fell flat - at least on a wide scale. Seems we're more willing to kill 'em in small batches than seize the means behind the entire game. Go figure, eh?

I suggest that the Law Enforcement approach is gonna fall just a wee bit short - and that seems to be the only model, other than military invasion, that most folks are willing to entertain. Regards invasion, well, there just ain't enough heroes to go around - we're talking about 20%+ of the planet's critters, here. LE is a non-starter for another reason: it's only really good at after-the-event stuff. Yes, You're dead and we know who did it. Great. I'd feel better if I wasn't, like, dead n' stuff. The lethality of weapons today means I won't be alone in being dead, either. Lots of company.

I suggest that getting off the oil tit isn't sufficient, either. Simple - that solution would be 20 years away if we started today. Good idea. Sure thing, let's get started. But it won't solve what ails us here, now.

The 'fry 'em up" piece is here. Read it, if interested. If you do, please read it carefully, and the whole thread - it's not long. I spent some time on it and I deserve a fair hearing if it's gonna be bandied about.

Now the Real piece, the crux of the biscuit, is the one about Islam as Fatal Human Pathogen. I've posted it a few times already - but have no link. I'll repost it again, someday. Not today. I followed up on it with a short bit here not long ago.

Where do the activated Muzzies, the jihadis, come from? Reasonable question. From previously passive Muzzies, of course. Not many Seventh Day Adventists or wild-eyed Methodists, last time I checked. Who or what activates them? Imams, shitty dictatorship demographics with no hope of success in life (Thanks to Islam, too, of course), fantasy and romanticism (heroes of The Caliphate! Uh, huh.), lots of things. Many things which exist everywhere - but, without the presence of Islam, doesn't cause global strife, splodeydopes, or cutting off a woman's clitoris. What could be the "root cause", ya think?

So let's say they start out as the Mythical Moderate, heh. They are called upon to donate money, or more, to support the, um, Immoderate Muzzies. Gotta do it - everybody's watchin... Then some get tapped for activation - and they do it. The Mythical Moderate is a resource, a huge pool, waiting for the call. Sucks, yeah. But there it is. Fact is, they're not "moderate" at all. If they are practicing Islam, then they are ripe for the picking. Look at Flypaper Iraq. Tap 'n Go. The quickie-mart of Muzzy fodder. Even these "moderate" ones practice barbarity, slavery, and hate. Moderate? Innocent? Really? Just like Nazis who "only supported" the "bad" Nazis? Uh, huh. I see. Go have a nice lie-down.

Nazis. Only worse. Islam.

Honestly, what do we do about 'em?

You don't get to criticize without offering workable alternatives. If you do anyway, then I fart in your general direction.

I'm done for the day. Got a hottie making faces at me. I can't resist. Cuz she's looking over my shoulder, I'll close with Love & Kisses to you all. My take.

Posted by .com 2006-01-20 18:19|| 2006-01-20 18:19|| Front Page Top

#17 Thank you, SR-71, for such an incisive logical reduction. The European mode of "do nothing so that we remain blameless" no longer cuts any ice. In the face of WMDs, we must begin to take action that flatly discourages violent jihad.

I especially appreciate your seeing the connection between inaction and total devastation for Islam. For some time now, I have been predicting that Islam's refusal to discredit genocide will result in a Muslim holocaust. Similarly, our own inaction will eventually manifest in a gran mal spasm of retribution that will likely involve nuclear weapons.

Contrary to what spin artists like ex-lib try to impose upon my words, I am steadfastly attempting to AVOID a nuclear holocaust for Islam. That Muslims show so little awareness of this terrible consequence, or worse, simply ignore it is something that they must learn to do at their own peril.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-20 18:21|| 2006-01-20 18:21|| Front Page Top

#18 .com, thank you so much for weighing in. I could not agree more with the context of your "fry 'em up" policy. You advocate decapping and expropriation of oil resources before nuclear retaliation. I had never seen the entirety of your post and its context, and only now am I totally aware of its full aspect. I apologize if I have taken you out of context.

Now that I am aware of the phased nature of your plan, I am in major agreement with it. You do not advocate an outright nuclear attack on Islamic countries. What I see you seeking is distinct steps towards disconnecting jihad from its enabling elements. Should that meet with failure, you then see nuclear holocaust as one of the only alternatives.

As repulsed as I am by nuclear holocaust, at day's end I must concur with you. Given that the other attempts are unsuccessful, something will have to be done about eradicating such a virulent pathogen from our midst.

I'd love to see how ex-lib reconciles my constant attempts to find less violent and deadly solutions in the context of this continuing discussion.

I'll reiterate, .com, that if I have painted you as simply wanting nuclear holocaust without prior intervention, then I have wronged you. I now, even more strongly, believe that you and I seek active and functional solutions to this pressing issue.

The utter lack of realistic solutions posted by ex-lib make me all the more outraged at such trashy hit pieces being aimed my way. Believe it or not, I want peace. Whether that peace includes a single other living Muslim follower is another matter entirely. It is up to Islam to decide whether the future includes them. Should they crave the entire world to themselves, then our future will be one without Muslims. So be it.

Posted by Zenster 2006-01-20 18:45|| 2006-01-20 18:45|| Front Page Top

#19 25 words a minute with speeling errors.

keyboard Kommando not. another dream lost.

Posted by Sad SacK 2006-01-20 20:20|| 2006-01-20 20:20|| Front Page Top

#20 Glolugum is correct. Probably enough said, but for the sake of sponsoring critical thinking here, I will proceed.

"The "shooting innocents' argument is the one used by the left to justify doing nothing. EX(?)-Lib?"

Yeah SR--that's right--EX-LIB. Did I advocate for doing nothing? Did I? Listen, I was outing Islamofacist trolls here probably since before you were born, so unless you're one of Zenster's personal buddies, STFU until you find out more about who's who at the Burg. You're right about the libs using part of that argument to advocate inaction, but that's not what I was doing.

"The utter lack of realistic solutions posted by ex-lib."

Oh God, Zenster-- I said we should continue doing exactly what we're doing--hunt them down, kill them all, and that we should up the ante on hunting terrorists in terms of increased military support, which of course would include terrorist cells, and that things will change dramatically, in terms of the impact of our directives against terrorist-harboring countries as the plans of Iran and Syria (with the backing of Russia and China) come into focus.

And for an even more clear-cut bit of advice, may I suggest this link . Note: for honest, intelligent inquirers only. Just a quick look through the side bar excerpts is enough for starters.

Zenster always tries to butter people up when things aren't going his way, argument-wise. Like:

"Thank you, SR-71, for such an incisive logical reduction," says Zenster.

".com, thank you so much for weighing in, I could not agree more with . . ." says Zenster.

It's always the same. This is his pattern. Divide and (try to) conquer. But I and others who remember, are not so gullible.

Zenster says: "Notice how I am seeking suggestions? Do you even care as you continue to lambaste me?"

Lambaste you? You're paranoid. Remember, I said "Zen, I understand your passion and fury. But I believe itâs misdirected." Hardly a lambasting. I was looking at your arguments, not you. Yet you accuse me of being a spin artist. Cute, but no cigar.

Your suggestions:

"The time has come for Muslims to begin sharing our pain." What in the hell does that mean?

"At some point the world's Muslim population will have to be made to suffer in proportion to the atrocities their radicals inflict." What in the hell does that mean?

"Force ten times the number of recent Muslim arrivals to return to their country of origin." Oh right, that would work. Just indiscriminantly round 'em up and ship 'em out. Hey, you could start with all the Iranians in Los Angeles. And then they could be shot by the mullah government they came here to get away from, right?

"If we do not have the courage to take the shrines hostage or some other significant move, then we need to implement measures that begin to inflict hardship in proportion to the way that Islamists commit their atrocities. Again, what in the hell does that mean? Exactly what are you advocating for? Do we need to add up our war losses, along with the civililan casualites of 9-11 and then go kill that many Moslems. Hey--let's start in Iraq. Yeah, that'd work.

"ex-lib; due to previous incivility upon your own part, I find it difficult to take much time responding to your albeit lengthy reply." Well, you didn't find it too difficult, did you? As for my lack of civility? Want to cite some? If people think Zenster is that nice a guy, think twice. A couple of years ago, when he had not worked as hard at developing his mode of operation and facade, he said to me:

"You deserve every iota of the bile, vitriol and raw sewage floating in your veins. The sterile and intolerant vision of society that you stand for has already manifested in history many times. Sixty years ago countless thousands of American went abroad to fight it and many of them died doing so." Ain't that sweet? Which you can find at this link It was during the Beslan massacre. He was equating me with Nazis.

So, Zen, what do you propose in lieu of your above suggestions? And BTW, your accusation of my illustration of the outcome of YOUR ARGUMENT:

"Zen, I understand your passion and fury. But I believe itâs misdirected. And really, despite your touting and spouting, I have to wonder if you would really shoot innocents, even if they were Moslem. I mean I don't think so, but we have to be careful with our rhetoric, because words are powerful things. Do this: Picture the Islamic bad boys lined up against a fence. Then sprinkle in Mom-and-Pop restaurant owner, Moslem scholar, a few teenagers, kids, college students--some have hajibs, some look like your average westerner--some are supermodels, some are film makers, some are dissidents against Islamic terrorism, but still maintain their Moslem identity, which they define for themselves. Now I give you an M16, and say "kill the terrorists and terrorsist sympathizers!" What would you do? Think about it. Would you just mow them all down? Now letâs separate them--put the baddies on one side, leave a space, and put the other average types on the other side. Would you still shoot everyone?"

That is NOT strawman garbage. If you just go retaliating, it's an equivalent, albeit large-scale, enactment of the same.

You say Moslems are silent and never speak out (NOT true), thtat Moslems tacitly approve of the actions of the terrorists (Not true), and that they should pay for the actions of gangsters (NOT true).

I know you know it's not true. Here on Rantburg there are plenty of links to websites sponsored by Moslems who are against the whole Islamofacist jihad ideology and war.

So get real.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-01-20 20:43|| 2006-01-20 20:43|| Front Page Top

#21 Islamic Nazis.

Jesus, that's pure evil... squared.

And it fits the facts.

You just ruined my dinner, dotcom.

Posted by Elmese Jeart8908 2006-01-20 21:12|| 2006-01-20 21:12|| Front Page Top

#22 As .com says, radical Islam will not yield to our "messages" as in Afghanistan and Iraq, nor to a Hiroshima. Neither did the Nazis as we amassed a tremendous force and crossed the English Channel. And so we will ultimately exterminate radical Islam, just as we did the Nazis. At great cost and with lots of collateral damage. Iran and Syria are next. And probably then parts of Pakistan. Islam cannot be permitted to have WMDs any more than the Nazis.

The process will play out over the next decade. Iranians in Los Angeles will not likely be rounded up and put in camps or deported, but ultimately the words and symbols of radical Islam will have to be as forbidden as Nazi words and symbols are in Germany and Austria today.

Just as WWII left a bloody trail from the English Channel to Berlin, so too will there be a bloody trail across the Middle East. The difference is that we can now do a Dresden on a moment's notice. We can reach anywhere at any time and totally destroy it. We just have to be pushed -- and they ARE pushing. I'm not talking about Osama -- he's a joker in a mud hut with a cassette recorder. He's a low priority. But the hostile elements in Iran and Syria and Pakistan need to meet an end like that of Hitler and the SS.

Posted by Darrell 2006-01-20 21:32|| 2006-01-20 21:32|| Front Page Top

#23 Must have punched a button, ex-lib. I know who's who on the Burg. Been lurkin for a while. Wave those fists and shout all you want. I just call em like I see em. Won't STFU.

Posted by SR-71">SR-71 2006-01-20 21:45|| 2006-01-20 21:45|| Front Page Top

#24 Okay SR. You said, "The "shooting innocents' argument is the one used by the left to justify doing nothing." So, I assume you approve of shooting innocents, since you (falsely) claim I'm using the liberals' shooting innocents argument FOR doing nothing. If you call 'em like you see 'em, may I suggest you get some glasses, or better yet, reread the posts for accuracy. And if you had been around here, you would know me (not that I care if you know me), but what can I say on your behalf? Ooopsie? .com and I go back, so that's a starter. Back in the day I routed and outed Antiwar and Gentle as being in cahoots, Islamic, not Australian (as Antiwar claimed to be), male, and a group, not individuals. But, I guess you knew that, already, huh? If not, check the archives. I, too, call them like I see them, and while .com is frustrated with the situation (to put it mildly), Zen has always had an agenda based largely on his special interest group. That's my take.

Next time don't so easily accuse someone of holding to liberal arguments. It was completely offensive, and the button you hit was the fact that you insulted me.

Later.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-01-20 23:55|| 2006-01-20 23:55|| Front Page Top

17:43 CaziFarkus
23:55 ex-lib
23:54 Salman Rushdie
23:30 Bomb-a-rama
23:29 DMFD
23:25 JosephMendiola
23:20 gromgoru
23:15 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
23:12 ed
23:09 gromgoru
23:07 JosephMendiola
23:05 gromgoru
23:01 Frank G
23:00 gromgoru
22:58 JosephMendiola
22:42 Claiger Ulenter9779
22:40 Frank G
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:29 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:12 Al Aska Paul
22:12 Bobby
22:11 Bobby
22:09 Bobby
22:06 Bobby