The Second Wave of London Attacks
Details on the recent second wave of London attacks are sketchy. However, initial reports suggest the delivery of these attacks were less adept, that the bombs themselves were smaller than the first; and that consequently the British authorities were able to separate the crowd from the explosive devices and largely neutralize them. This time the bombers were not suiciders as this account from the BBC reports:
I was on the train at Oval. There was an automatic announcement between Stockwell and Oval that one of the passenger alarms had been activated. After a while standing at the platform at Oval, we were ordered off the train and out of the station. As we passed the second carriage, we could see an intact-looking medium sized dark rucksack that had been left on a seat. Emergency vehicles starting arriving quickly, then in huge numbers and variety. The roads outside were promptly closed to traffic, then a pedestrian exclusion area was extended increasingly far away and sniffer dogs deployed at street level. Kevin Beurle, London
The Economist compares the latest attacks with the ones two weeks previous. It notes that the bombs were smaller, that they inflicted few casualties and that, as the BBC report above details, the attackers were not prepared to take their own lives.
On Thursday July 21st the city’s transport system was reported to have been hit by explosions at four points around midday—three almost simultaneous blasts on the London Underground and a fourth on a bus, the same as last time. However, police are also talking of devices having failed to explode at the scenes of some of the attacks. What is clear is that the explosions were smaller this time and the results were far less devastating. The sight of bloodied commuters being brought out of Underground stations was mercifully absent. ... Armed police in body armour had entered the nearby University College Hospital, in pursuit of a man said to be carrying a bomb. Eye witnesses told of another suspected bomber seen running away from the blast at Oval. ...
if initial reports prove correct, the most important factor contributing to the lack of heavy casualties was that the explosions were very small—perhaps because only the detonators went off, not the devices’ main explosive charge. If so, only sheer good fortune prevented great loss of life.
Well, maybe sheer good fortune coupled with the absence of a competent bomb-maker and the absence of a second determined cell of suicide bombers. If the Economist is correct about the failure of the detonators to produce a high-order explosion two things can be inferred. First, the close-in defenses of London's public transportation system failed; after all the bombs were delivered to the trains and detonated, except that the detonations themselves were faulty. Second, the outer-ring of defenses, the anti-terrorist component that attacks the terrorist infrastructure, denies it havens, reduces its funding and makes it difficult to place competent bomb-makers in London has succeeded -- at least in this case. More details will clarify the situation as further news becomes available.
(Speculation alert) When faced with the suicide attack problem (Kamikazes) during the Second World War, US fleets adopted the concept of the layered defense around battlegroups, consisting of attacking enemy airfields, providing a radar picket on enemy lines of approach, creating a combat air patrol to intercept incoming Kamikazes and then presenting a succession of long, medium and short-range antiaircraft fire, before finally falling back on warship evasion, armor and damage control. Each component in the defense contributed its statistical share of the defense. The debate surrounding the prosecution of the war on terror can be conceptually split, though not very neatly, between those who advocate a layered defense with a forward-deployed component (coordination with 'friendly' Muslim countries, involvement in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Horn of Africa, etc), plus everything in between, and those who would rely primarily on terminal or close-in defenses (national IDs, CCTV cameras, border control, etc) in the homeland. A small percentage of policy advocates believe that a complete reliance on nearly passive close-in defenses ("support the troops, bring the boys home", build bridges to Muslim communities, etc) would be adequate to protect the public against terrorism. Over the coming years, the value of every aspect of the defense will be highlighted by different incidents. Some attacks will be stopped by an alert security guard, others will be pre-empted in a land so distant the public will never even know that the attacks were mounted. But they are all needed. If any lives were saved in London today, it probably means that a deep defense makes a difference.
posted by wretchardthecat at 7/21/2005 12:12:00 PM
210 Comments:
Peter UK,
But Scotland Yard won't use any inappropriate techniques to get information out of them, will it?
Speaking of Wretchard's "nearly passive close-in defenses" I am not encouraged. BBC/PRI program "The World" ran a report yesterday about how Muslims kids in Britain are talking about the London train bombings. Out of seven or eight young people interviewed none flat-out condemned the bombings; most in fact, offered up self-pitying apologetics, e.g., remember that Timothy McVeigh was a Christian curch going man (you'd better believe that if a cult of Murderers for Jesus started up that I would elect myself president of Stomp Out Mrderers for Jesus Society). One girl, however, did raise the specter of Jihad recruiters on college campuses in northern Britain (she would not name the campuses). She was concerned that they urged young men - young men that she knew - to travel to Egypt, to grow beards and become zealots. A radio commentator quickly insisted that there is nothing wrong with foreign study or growing a beard, etc.
I do not know if these kids are typical but it was a very discouraging report for those of us who hope that moderate Muslims will strangle this beast in its lair.
Are you ruling out the possibility that this was a "test run" to sound out the new defenses?
Also today, a Palestinian rocket aimed at an Israeli settlement in Gaza hit a house in a Gaza refugee camp instead, killing a boy, 10, and seriously wounding another child, 12, both form the Abu Ubada family, Palestinian medical officials said.
Is this a pattern? will we now see more and more failed terrorists killing themselves as the "pool" of talent is dried up? drain the swamp.....
ops, story was from NYtimes...
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/21/international/middleeast/21cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1122004800&en=925cd93764ad6757&ei=5094&partner=homepage
What would be particularly gratifying, and helpful, would be if the suicide bombers were to "accidentally" (with our secret service assistance) blow up their own bomb factories - with the big wigs standing around gloating before it happens... how sweet that would be. Another thought from yesterday comes to mind: why would we not wish to encourage the "resistance cells" in Iraq (and elsewhere) to take out the source of our troubles - the Imams themselves? The bad ones, of course, but one by one within in the space of a month, what if they all happenned to "accidentally" get blown up one way or the other? And when a new radical pervert monster evil creton moron terrorist Imam steps up to the plate to take over, woopsie - kaboom. Bye. Enjoy your 72 raisins in hell, buddy. Just a thought.
Perhaps these were intended to be suicide attacks, but when the bombs did not detonate the "suicide" bombers abandoned their packs and fled. Evidence of this may be seen in the reports that one suspect was seen fleeing with wires coming out of his shirt. Why would he have wires coming out of his shirt if the bomb was to be detonated remotely or on a timer?
My own gut feeling is that this attack is not a "copycat" event. It's not as if a bunch of guys sitting in a pub got drunk and said 'let's attack exactly the same stations in a fortnight on a dare' then went on to find explosives, personnel, etc in that time frame. This operation came out of some kind of pre-existing clandestine cell. So it's probably the British AQ bench subbing for the now-dead first team. But the bombmaker presumably didn't go up in the first attack. So where is he? The British authorities always acted as if some of the original cell, or their support organization had survived.
Right after the first London attack there were immediate counterterrorist arrests in Cairo, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Those are the ones that made the news but maybe there were others. The tempo of the response and its global scope, I think it is fair to say, could not have happened four years ago. The world has become a harder place for the AQ and similar organizations to mount an attack precisely because of the layered and forward defenses now available. This is guesswork, its true. Maybe the second attack failed purely due to luck, but you make your own luck sometimes.
Cruiser,
This is wild speculation, and as I have not seen the report to which you refer it is even more so, but it is possible that the "gentleman" seen running with wires coming out of his shirt ran away with the explosives still attached to him, leaving the detonator behind. Hmm? Second thoughts about whether those virgins were really waiting for him perhaps?
As to the apparent lack of success this time around, I tend to go with the view that the quick and effective response by New Scotland Yard and British intelligence agencies have either captured the "talented" bomb makers or at the very least forced them to run and/or hide. It is also possible that the cache of explosive found in the boot of the rental found in the car park was intended to be used in this attack, indicating that perhaps supplies are limited.
But again, this is speculation. I think NSY and the intelligence agencies are running down all of these possibilities as well as some we haven't even thought of yet.
The “war on drugs” offers an analog to the layered defense doctrine. We attempt to work with nations that produce drugs to eliminate the problem at the source. We interdict shipments along the way. We try to prevent entry into the country at our borders. Eventually we bust the users and try to work our way up the supply chain to bigger fish. How well has this worked? Follow the money. Drug money is capable of corrupting all but the most steadfast, ¿plomo o plata? But who would have expected that terror operations inspired by Wahhabis could drive oil prices as high as they are? An economist?
The fact that all of the devices appear to have malfunctioned tends to indicate the following to me:
1. The same guy made them at the same time. Explosives devices are manufactured, qual tested if a new design, then lot sampled as required to ensure quality. Given the increased secuity since the last attacks, qual testing probably was impossible and lot sampling certainly was impossible. Given this, failure of all of the devices is quite beliveable.
2. The builder did not do a good job. This may have been due to either lack of expertise or lack of materials. It is possible that the material deteriorated due to age; if so this would indicate a homemade high explosive. In any case this would imply local manufacture of the devices if not the explosive itself rather than complete packages smuggled in from a more professiuonal factory, where qual testing and lot sampling would be the norm.
Wretchard,
You would expect the best and most committed to go first, since that offers the best chance of success. The second group of planes to attack Pearl Harbor had more losses, since the defenders had been alerted by the first attack.
There is a diminishing returns aspect to terrorism. Once the citizens of the various cities under attack by the "terror" bombings in WWII got used to what was going on, it just became a fact of life to be faced. Living in cities is dangerous, some more than others, yet people flock to them.
It is interesting to note that in the 30's they thought bombers would quickly terrorize civilians, while there was some at the start in each campaign, i.e. Spain, Poland, Belgium, people quickly adjusted. In Israel, life goes on. In Baghdad, life goes on. No one wants terror, but what cannot be changed must be endured.(Always excluding the French)
Early in the day here I speculated this latest bombing might have been diversionary. My gut feeling was it doesn't fit at all with a real attack. I had a hard time believing all four bombs malfunctioned.
However, nothing else has happened (at least nothing we know about, perhaps it failed to divert and something else was nipped) so I have come to believe today's bombers are not ready for terminal time players.
I can not remember where it was stated. Britain is said to be very uncooperative in general when it comes to rooting out the radicals in their midst but very cooperative with Iraq. OTOH, we have France which is said to be almost ruthless with its radicals but completely the opposite when it comes to Iraq.
Anyway to the main point of the blog. The left insists we (by we I mean us in the USA) are diverting resources in Iraq; resources that could be better spent on increasing port security or other such homeland defense concerns. While, it is important we work to a more secure homeland if we concentrate solely on that all we do is to build our own Maginot Line. Those defenses can and will be circumvented.
Cheers
FWIW, I have heard the reports that Cruizer relates many times today.
Initial reports.
I can't share your careful optimism, Wretchard. This mistake humiliated the bombmakers, and we can expect a follow-up attack shortly. It may not be the same perps as today, but to deliver these items all you need are a pair of legs, and there are plenty British Muslims willing to take that walk.
The British Muslim communities might as well be the border towns of Pakistan. The youth claim no allegiance to the state in which they reside, their posture is decidedly anti-West, and their Imams preach hate and murder. As the London bombings have focused our attention, so too have they sharpened the contrast. But not just for us; 7/7 was a clarion call for the faithful. If just 10% answer, it is without a doubt that London will continue to be hit, and hit hard.
My first thought today, when I heard the explosives were small and the damage light, was fear: fear that the terrorists used an aerosol and the pop was the dispersal. Now I fear the need to fix a failure.
I do, however, agree with the analysis that a tiered defense will hold down their capability. Won't do much if the Kamikaze turns out to be your cook, but at least he won't be flying a plane.
If we're presuming the detonators exploded, but not the explosives, then perhaps we are talking about a bad homebrew mixture. If that is the case, however, why would we assume that these bombers were not suicide bombers? They may have fully intended to blow themselves up and were quite surprised to find themselves in a quite embrassing living condition... being that there were no stygian whores to greet the bombers after the pop, only a shocked angry crowd.
My own gut feeling is that this attack is not a "copycat" event.
Agreed. If so, and if carried out successfully, it would have been a tour de force - an act of bravura demonstrating that the Jihadis can strike at will deep inside the infidel's homeland. The "botching" of the action by the terrorists raises an interesting (to me) question. What effect will the failed attempt have on efforts to rally additional Leftists, Democrats, naysayers, "moderate Muslims", etc. to the anti-Islamic Jihad cause? Had they succeeded as well as on 7/7, I expect there would be a large increase in anti-terrorist/anti-Islamist feelings among these groups. Since no-one was killed, I fear there may be no increase in the support for the anti-Jihad effort, and perhaps even an increased tendency to view the terrorists as pitiful incompetents who are not so dangerous and who need to be understood not destroyed.
Aristides,
I don't want to be overconfident or convey any feeling of complacency. The enemy has a lot of tricks left up his sleeve. But it's important to recognize what we're doing right and build on that because, as you say, it could be an aerosol next time.
The enemy inevitably experiences humiliation when he is thwarted, but there's nothing for it but to thwart him and if he gets mad it's par for the course. Because his intent will never change though lot of the sincere advocates of appeasement believe that making nice will alter intent. Not with a fanatic like Osama Bin Laden; not likely at least. But if intent is fixed, the enemy's capability can be downgraded. The London event might be a case in point. The spirit of murder was willing but the explosive was weak.
The Directorate,
I fully agree that intelligence, like the old radar pickets, is a key element. It was intellgence and the old combat information center that made battle management possible. But where does intelligence come from? One major source is contact with the enemy. When the US stood off from the centers of terrorism, operating behind embassies and such in countries where the Jihadis had a big presence, intelligence was collected more indirectly or by technical means. That was good, but it had limits.
By being in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon etc on an open or clandestine basis a lot of the intelligence you rightly point out as necessary is gathered. In a way, the outer defense picket of every schoolbus in America is some SEAL snooping around the Pakistani border.
Again in London, anglospheres most secure city, bombs were planted and detonated in the heart of the city, but at secondary targets.
If the Brits cannot secure the transit system of central London, well, we can learn that Close In defense against "citizen" bombers is bound to fail, anywhere.
Forward defense.
I think we must return once more to the question of "why?", not Why in the overall snse but why London? By all accounts, London was the center of Islamic radicalism in Europe. I think that the 7/7/05 attacks were, as both I and Wretchard postulated, attempts to shore up the Islamic base rather than a genuine attempt to knock GB out of the GWOT. Evidence is that they had somewhat of the opposite effect in GB; there were statements of condemnation from numerous Islanmic leaders, although one might doubt their sincerity. So were the attacks of today yet another warning to the British Islamic community that the long arm of Bin Laden remains capable? Or were the attacks today a case of the radical Islamic equivalent of the Boston Red Socks showing that they can play ball as well as their brothers and rivals, the radical Islamic equivalent of the New York Yankees, that struck two weeks ago? I think the competing teams analogy is the most likely explanation, and that is rather chilling to consider.
Some have speculated that this could be some kind of diversion. The idea being that it would call up emergency response personnel while the bad guys could run around elsewhere. I doubt it. It seems real, working bombs would have provided just as much, if not more, of a diversion.
It's important to consider that the UK is a fairly small, tight place. I'm guessing the bad guys don't have the capability of going out and doing extensive tests on their designs and equipment. Although failure on all the devices certainly is curious.
As to this failure perhaps upping the tempo for another attack in order for the people behind it to save face, well, I think there is something else to consider. If this event is what it appears to be, I'd imagine the fact that all the devices failed could create large amounts of division, skepticism, or distrust within the organization. In Boydian terms, this would be an ideal catalyst to an opponent turning in on himself.
Mass transit remains a serious vulnerability in many places. It's interesting to note that the US's extensive use of private vehicles is apparently a strategic asset, except for the irony of it increasing oil consumption. Taking a subway or train out of commission appears significantly easier than taking out a super-highway or a major bridge.
At the very least, the imams and congregations who practice sedition and treason must suffer the full force of the law. That they don't is the malignant effect of liberalism, and the assumption of innocence in even the most extreme circumstances. (Free Jose Padilla!)
In war time, ignoring sedition itself is a fatal weakness. Defense in depth requires defense in toto.
During World War II, Great Britain was remarkably resistant to agents provacateurs and spies. Only multi-culti liberalism stands in the way of a much more thorough defense in toto.
How long will it take to wake up?
james
as you say all four of the bombs failed. I heard NPR reports of 'Champaign pops', most likely the blasting caps. The explosive failed. Symtec, C4 or other military type demo would have ignited. As noted earlier by rwe, this could well be a 'home brew' that failed to ignite.
Luck, not Security saved dozens of Londoners today.
That is if you count Opfor incompetence as 'Luck'
All this talk of War
read the Constitution some time
This is a conflict, police action, name it what YOU will
Only the Congress can name it War
to date they have failed to do so.
Nameless foes in an endless struggle, in the twilight,
short of War.
Cedar,
Why the word "evildoers" in quotes?
I see what you're getting at with suggestion #1, but I also fear that it could be a bit vague or amorphous. There are a lot of lefties out there who realize what we're up against. My guess is that the Ward Churchills of the world are perhaps a bit less representative of the left than many people think.
As to #2, that's ideal. I wonder if there will be a return to the sedition laws?
4: excellent idea.
5: Not at all sure that any settlement we could impose would make anyone (let alone everyone) happy. Increasingly I'm beginning to think the Palestinian issue is a red-herring, anyhow. By that I mean that I don't think there is any solution that we could impose that would cause AQ to stand down. Considering the nature of palestinian society, it's quite likely that some fringe group would be unhappy with the settlement, demand more power, and start blowing stuff up again.
It may be something we should be concerned about, but I think it is something that shows very little promise of success. Secondly, if we rush to give the palestinians everything they want out of fear of being bombed... we give the terrorists a huge victory, one which could be pointed to by future grievance demagogues as an example of progress obtained via the slaughter of the innocents.
I'd have much more interest in the Palestinian issue if Palestinian groups unanimously rejected AQ.
Cedarford,
Something like the politico-cultural resolution you describing is happening right now, but in a messy way. One reason for the mess is that, unlike the Soviet Union, there is no unitary 'they' the West can make a deal with. Hell, there's not even a unitary West to make a deal on our side. Questions of a final settlement presume a consensus and commitment on both sides. Ideological resolution also requires a kind of change of consciousness that must dawn upon millions, not just a few.
So I guess it's all happening in some way, but I'll be damned if I can say what parts are on track.
Here is my own speculation that I posted on my blog.
Might be a little Bondish, hopeful thinking but who knows? (plus it makes me feel better)
It seems details of today's London bombings are coming out much more slowly than those of 2 weeks ago. From what I can gather there were 4 explosions, three trains and one bus, just like the 7/7 attacks. However, this time around the damage was minimal. Apparently the explosive devices malfunctioned. Here's my conjecture: British intelligence was loosely on to these guys (terrorists) so, using an undercover agent they sold them a pile of play-doh disguised as some sort of plastic explosives. Not very sophisticated terrorists attach the detonators to the play-doh, drop it in their backpacks, get in position, yell "72 virgins here I come!" but only a firecracker like blasting cap goes off, essentially 'marking' the would-be bombers. The bombers are still alive and can be questioned, as well all the evidence that would have been blown up is still in one piece.
Thoughts? Is that really as plausible as I make it sound?
One thing for sure. The bombers BONKED in a very public and visible way. Lets hope this makes people realize they are not invincibles.
I know I have been harping on this quite a bit, but I do it again. Yes, this is no war on terror. This is a war on radical utopianism Islam. But, if our leaders use that language many Muslims who might be on our side are going to hear only: war on blah-blah-blah Islam.
I penned this song for my band to record next month in the studio. I wrote it after 7/7 and its even more poignant now. We will be finishing up the music this weekend...bombers be damned.
Cry Freedom
(Dodge/Haithwaite)
Doncha run, just cry freedom
Don’t let the bastards grind you down
Doncha run, just cry freedom
They’ll never take that from this town
Don’t let fear get in the way
Courage will be there
Tellin’ you to stay
When things are too much to bear
They want us to be afraid
To live life all scared
Freedom is to be paid
Coming to those who dared
Band together in the face of fear
Rally round and be counted
Stand up for what is dear
We will not be routed
Doncha run, just cry freedom
Don’t let the bastards grind you down
Doncha run, just cry freedom
They’ll never take that from this town
Doncha run, just cry freedom
Don’t let the bastards grind you down
Doncha run, just cry freedom
They’ll never take that from this town
By the way, the attacks in London, both 2 weeks ago and today, could not have been timed better to ensure the renewal of the Patriot Act.
When you have enemies like these...
You don't need friends.
Imams who praise terrorism to face deportation
"An inspiration for terrorists both here and abroad,AND, he's Cute!"
"That sort of thinking is local thinking. The sort local residents would think up to retaliate against their neighbors. In many ways it's similar to the school kid who goes to his local school on a suicidal rampage. It's a petty mindset. "
---
It is also a mindset encouraged and provoked by PC Pandering and Mollycoddling.
Marcus Aurelius,
We could take a lesson from Hollywood and call them radical skinhead terrorists.
...just to keep things straight.
<
a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/..."
> YOUR CAPTION HERE <
/a>
Just remove the spaces between the
>< thingies.
Hannah's Dad,
Then clik "preview" and any typos etc will be pointed out.
Tony says,
"In war time, ignoring sedition itself is a fatal weakness. Defense in depth requires defense in toto."
BUT
We are sworn never to be JudgeMENTAL:
THAT suggestion is Highly JudgeMENTAL and should never be suggested, much less implemented.
---
Bags in NY are to be randomly searched:
NO PROFILING!
Searching 80 year old Chinese Ladies in wheelchairs proves we are not JudgeMENTAL, and therefore pure and right.
In WWII, some Germans and Italians were interned along with some Japanese:
Then we were wrong and weak, and only won by pure luck
Now we won't even intern Muslim Aliens:
Now we are right and strong and could only lose by bad luck. (Who could have known in advance?)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
das said,
"I do not know if these kids are typical but it was a very discouraging report for those of us who hope that moderate Muslims will strangle this beast in its lair. "
---
If we just start calling their kids little angels, they will listen:
Whatever we do, we can't call them what they ARE!!!
(and if you MUST, be sure to call them *moderate* Muslims!)
Doug,
Doug wrote:
"If we just start calling their kids little angels, they will listen: Whatever we do, we can't call them what they ARE!!! (and if you MUST, be sure to call them *moderate* Muslims!)"
Take a deep breath, say a prayer - I was just trying to keep the conversation civilized - something we can do that our enemies can't. Fact is I don't know what to call Muslim kids who won't come out and condemn their Jihad-killing brethren: lazy Muslims? Apathetic Muslims? Blind Muslims? Terrorist enabling Muslims? I don't have enough contact with them to know what they really are - and I was only reflecting on a 5 minute radio broadcast. What I heard - or rather what I DIDN'T hear condemnation of terror - disturbed me. To repeat: I am baffled that a parallel militant anti - anti - Western Islamic movement has not started up somewheres.
das,
why should they?
Surliness is rewarded by the girlymen "leaders" of the West.
Lileks on Tancredo, et al, Hat Tip Hewitt:
"Sorry. Bombing Mecca to revenge the acts of maniacs is like nuking the Vatican to protest the pedophilia scandal in Boston. The idea appeals to those whose nuanced study of Islam makes them conclude it’s better to alienate one billion people than defeat a fraction of the same group. It appeals to those who believe that Islam is a metal shard that cannot be absorbed and must be removed, preferably by blowing up the body. And burying the remains in pig skins! That’ll learn ‘em! It’s the mirror image of the PC conceit that holds Islam blameless for the terrorists who act in its name, as if there’s nothing in the Qu’ran but sweetness and light towards the infidel. Both groups are wrong; both groups’ misapprehension of the situation will get the rest of us killed."
"What would be particularly gratifying, and helpful, would be if the suicide bombers were to "accidentally" (with our secret service assistance) blow up their own bomb factories - with the big wigs standing around gloating before it happens..."
Paging the Weathermen [oops, too sexist, "Weather Underground"...]...
Did Tancredo elicit this?
"Today, I happened to drive by the local Islamic Center, not the mosque of Imam Kazerooni, who is Shiite, but a Suuni mosque. They've added some very welcome decoration:
US Flag - "Islam Values Human Life"
This is good. For one thing, it's the first time I've seen an American flag anywhere near a mosque since September 11. For another thing, they really do say all the right things. The more this becomes the message from Islam, the better. (They could use a better proofreader, but it's no worse than a whole lot of Israeli menus I've seen in LA.)."
.View from the Height.
Hat tip, Hewitt.
(SAME in PC NEA/USA, I might add.)
Stuttaford has more at the corner:
SELF-LOATHING [Andrew Stuttaford]
Given today’s deeply disturbing news out of Britain, _____this_____ article in the latest London Spectator is very timely. It’s overstated, and its central thesis goes too far, but there is something to be said for the idea that the ceaseless denigration of Britain, its history and its institutions, by the country's liberal elite has done a great deal to hold back the assimilation of the country’s more recent ethnic communities. Here's an extract:
"No, the real answer to why Britain spawned people fuelled with maniacal hate for their country is that Britain hates itself.
In hating Britain, these British suicide bombers were as British as a police warning for flying the union flag. Britain’s self-loathing is deep, pervasive and lethally dangerous.
We get bombed, and we say it’s all our own fault. Schools refuse to teach history that risks making pupils proud, and use it instead as a means of instilling liberal guilt.
The government and the BBC gush over ‘the other’, but recoil at the merest hint of British culture.
The only thing we are licensed to be proud of is London’s internationalism — in other words, that there is little British left about it.
It wasn’t always like this.
Unless there's some compounds very different from the run-of-the-mill stuff, this attack wasn't from the same group that carried out the previous explosions. Or the group's run out of material and moderately competent people.
According to one witness, the backpack had "gooey lard coming out of it.... and there was a strong smell of vinegar". It'd be hard to mistake an ammonia or nitrate smell for acetic acid.
For all we know, it could have been a baking powder and vinegar "bomb"; but not likely. Equally improbable is a decomposed or rancid commercial blasting agent. If the odor was acetic, it's suspiciously like a homebrew attempt at a binary shell (binary backpacks?) poison gas.
Assuming this, the 'inner defense ring' isn't indicted too much. Sensors and even dogs simply can't detect the infinite number of chemicals that, in combination, are poisonous. The attackers got through, which is a weak spot in the human analysis. The packs wouldn't be detectable except through profiling or personal interviews.
Wretchard's point about a second ring of defense is correct: The planning and execution of this attempted attack was stupendously incompetent. Even it's core idea is juvenile. The splodey-dopes are running out of brains.
Al-Q's typical MO says they won't claim responsibility. They always wait for a reaction and make the claim or denial after they've analyzed the effect (whether or not they had anything to do with it). These examples of incompetence are simply embarrassing to them.
It's coming down to Shock-n-Awe versus Fizzle-n-pop.
¯
Ohhhhhh. Humiliated Muslims.
Very bad mojo when Muslims get humiliated.
Now how can they blame it on Israel and/or America, since Muslims never become humiliated because of their own ineptitude.
Cleric predicted more attacks:
JUST hours before the latest attacks on London's transport system, one of Britain's most radical Muslim clerics predicted more violence against the country, The New York Times reported today.
"Unless British foreign policy is changed and they withdraw forces from Iraq, I'm afraid there's going to be a lot of attacks, just the way it happened in Madrid and the way it happened in London," Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed told the paper in a telephone interview from London late on Wednesday.
http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,16013371%255E1702,00.html
c4 spews: Israelis pioneered broad brushing any Palestinian who defied Occupation - be it cutting comm wires, attacking a soldiers outpost, or blowing up a restaurant - indiscriminately - as "evil terrorists".
Actually, long before there was an "occupation" Israel discribed the murder of school kids, attacks on it's water carrier, the shooting of rockets at it's villages, the shooting of mortars as "evil terrorism"...
c4 lists 3 types of attacks as "so called terrorism"
let's see...blowing up a resturant? terrorism
attacking a solder? terrorism...
and the final example? "cutting a comm wire".. yep usually when palestinians seek to slit israeli's throats they cut the phone wires 1st... thank g-d for cell phones, now we can't label palestinians cutting those wires anymore as "terror"
those poor palestinian freedom fighters, cutting comm wires from the tip of israel to the ass....
After reading most of the comments, I deem them cogent given the fluid news. I have little to add. But, I will agree with Wretchard's basic theme that defense and deterrence play a major role. Also, I would point out that state sponsors and/or proxy fighters were probably responsible.
Look, we don't really know what MI5 and other intelligence agencies know. But, on the face of it, these were identical follow-on bombing attempts (which probably failed because of technical factors making the bombs a dud - basically, the starter TATP explosive failed because of old shelf-life or poor quality - but they were triggered by men and the caps went off).
That is not to understate the seriousness of the semi-successful operation (said operation had the men; the materials and the timing correct - and if bombs exploded, the frame work would have been proven - it could be applied anywhere in the West with devastating effects).
It's well known that the UK has one of the modern security systems in the world - yet during a high profile investigation said perps managed to essentially recreated a second bombing. This is quite troubling. Thus, said perps should be quickly dealt with.
Sure, the UK has relative large numbers of Islamic followers - and sure they exploit the legal system. But, that does not bode well for the USA with the same type of legal system. I would continue to suggest my pervious deterrents.
There is a historical chain of events that should not be dismissed:
1) The UK 7/7 Suicide attacks were well timed and highly effective given the low amount of explosives used.
2) During that day undercover police killed 2 suicide bombers at Canary Wharf (some levels of anti-terrorists elements worked well).
3) Approximately, a week later UK police announce armed officers in the field prepared to neutralize any suicide bombers before they could self-explode. This would indicate the UK authorities had an idea that a follow-on attack was probable.
4) The Ambassador to from Saudi Arabia resigns (meaning the US and Saudi Arabia have some conflict - ghostly similar to the Pear Harbor attacks).
5) Now, 4 blasts shake London in chilling replay.
6) "Conjecture 3.01." What happens next. Is the UK different from the USA? And, what happens when a terrorist spills his beans to the authorities? Below are some notes and some tangential thoughts:
A) British authorities told their U.S. counterparts that the backpacks used in Thursday's planned attacks and the explosives found in the backpacks are identical to those used in the July 7 attacks... NBC sources say that witnesses' accounts of the bombers indicate that they expected to die. Blair said: "Clearly, the intention must have been to kill... You don't do this with any other intention." ... information derived from police sources who have collected eyewitness accounts suggests that the attackers, who once again targeted three subway stations and a bus, intended to carry out suicide bombings and cause the kind of mayhem seen two weeks earlier, but failed because their detonators failed [Some speculate the explosive TATP, either used as a starter or as the actual explosive, has a very limited shelf life and did not function]... The attacks, which targeted trains near the Warren Street, Oval and Shepherd's Bush stations... The double-decker bus had its windows blown out on Hackney Road in east London.
See: Officials say backpacks, explosives identical to those of July 7 bombers
[and]
"Four blasts shake London in chilling replay... Preliminary studies by the FBI indicate Reid's black suede basketball shoes contained between 8 and 10 ounces of the explosive triacetone triperoxide, or TATP -- called "The Mother of Satan" by Palestinian militants, because its inherent instability makes it dangerous to both the victims and bomb maker.
"The TATP in Reid's shoes was "blended" with an explosive called PETN, or pentaerythritol tetranitrate... PETN is a key ingredient of Semtex, the Czech-made military explosive used to down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988. "These bombs are sophisticated devices," said the British intelligence official. "They would have been difficult and dangerous to produce. Reid could not have done this himself -- he would have trouble tying his own shoelaces. It seems we may have an expert bomb maker on the loose in Europe."
See: Ried
[Mixture of TATP and plastic explosive]
FBI laboratory experts who dissected Richard Reid's black suede sneakers were horrified by what they found in the soles: bombs that were, as one agent says, "the first of their kind and extraordinarily well concealed." Each shoe contained about 4 oz. of PETN (pentaerythritol tetranitrate), a powerful explosive produced by the ton for military.... Some was mixed with a plasticizer to produce a substance that resembled putty. More was in short lengths of detonation cord... Packed around the PETN was a whitish powder that turned out to be homemade TATP, or triacetone triperoxide. If Reid had succeeded in lighting the fuses sticking out of his soles, the TATP would have blown instantly, setting off the less combustible but more destructive PETN main charge [if Reid had punctured the main fuel tank the airplane would have disintegrated].
See: Bomber
[Information connecting Reid to Islamic extremists via web log]:
…Reid received training in Pakistan and Afghanistan during extended visits there between 1998 and 2001; …Reid visited Israel and the Gaza Strip last July; and that the TATP (triacetone triperoxide) explosive embedded in Reid's trainers is the signature brand of Hamas, whose master bomb-makers developed it in Gaza for use in suicide attacks. To the Palestinians, the explosive is known as "the Mother of Satan,"so called because of its two characteristics (in addition to its lethality): it is fairly easy to make and it is highly unstable. Some 40 Palestinians are estimated to have been killed when the explosive detonated spontaneously and prematurely while been handled.
Despite this risk, TATP is used almost exclusively by Palestinian terrorists, recalling that it was the explosive of choice for the Palestinian car-bombers who devastated the Israeli Embassy and damaged a building housing several Jewish community organizations during a 12-hour reign of terror in London eight years ago. Two Palestinians Samar Alami, a chemical engineer who had studied at London University's Imperial College, and her accomplice, Jawad Botmeh, who had studied engineering at Leicester University – are currently serving 20-year terms for their role in the attacks. Both were found in possession of TATP. What is really so alarming is that hundreds, possibly thousands, of young British Muslims have received some form of military training abroad from Islamic militants.
see: Reid 50% down
Oddly similar to Imperal Japan with drawing its diplomats.
[NYT]:
'Saudi envoy, renowned as insider, quits Washington'
The prince was instrumental in working with the two Bush administrations to plan both Iraq wars. There have been rumors of Bandar's retirement for years... But the rumors had accelerated in the last few weeks, amid suggestions among some experts that he had tired of the job and among others that he wanted to get back to Saudi Arabia to get into line for a higher position. Turki, who like Bandar is Western-educated, is a controversial figure who was removed from his job as intelligence chief in August 2001. American officials say that in that job he maintained close ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban but that after Sept. 11, 2001, those ties do not seem to have remained. People close to the situation speculate that Bandar decided to retire because he had not developed the rapport with Crown Prince Abdullah... Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who in 22 years as the Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States has operated as an insider's insider and wielded enormous influence in Washington and with successive American administrations, is resigning for "private reasons," Saudi Arabia announced Wednesday. Bandar, whose father is the Saudi defense minister, is to be replaced by another royal family member, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who is the brother of the Saudi foreign minister and a former Saudi intelligence chief and current ambassador to London. There was no immediate indication of why Bandar had decided to retire as dean of the Washington diplomatic corps, but friends say that the prince has struggled with back problems and exhaustion. In the last two years, since the beginning of the second Iraq war, he has spent very little time in Washington. The prince was instrumental in working with the two Bush administrations to plan both Iraq wars. "In troubled times, U.S. presidents past and present have relied upon Ambassador Bandar's advice," said Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman. "In good times they have enjoyed his wit, charm and humor. The president bids Ambassador Bandar and his family a fond farewell and wishes them all the best on their return to the kingdom." There have been rumors of Bandar's retirement for years, in part because he spends so much time in vacation homes in Colorado, England and elsewhere. But the rumors had accelerated in the last few weeks, amid suggestions among some experts that he had tired of the job and among others that he wanted to get back to Saudi Arabia to get into line for a higher position. Turki, who like Bandar is Western-educated, is a controversial figure who was removed from his job as intelligence chief in August 2001. American officials say that in that job he maintained close ties with Al Qaeda and the Taliban but that after Sept. 11, 2001
See: departing prince
A Terrorist talks under interrogation and names the financiers - who all die.
[Time]:
...terrorist called Abu Zubaydah... A leading member of Osama bin Laden's brain trust... the U.S. finally grabbed Zubaydah in Pakistan [approximately March 2002]... U.S. interrogators used drugs—an unnamed "quick-on, quick-off" painkiller and Sodium Pentothal, the old movie truth serum—in a chemical version of reward and punishment to make Zubaydah talk. When questioning stalled, according to Posner [a Berkeley lawyer and writer of a book described hear in], CIA men flew Zubaydah to an Afghan complex fitted out as a fake Saudi jail chamber, where "two Arab-Americans, now with Special Forces," pretending to be Saudi inquisitors, used drugs and threats to scare him into more confessions... when Zubaydah was confronted by the false Saudis, writes Posner, "his reaction was not fear, but utter relief." Happy to see them, he reeled off telephone numbers for a senior member of the royal family who would, said Zubaydah, "tell you what to do." The man at the other end would be Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul Aziz, a Westernized nephew of King Fahd's [and 2 other Saudi princes and a Pakistani air commander]... To the amazement of the U.S., the numbers proved valid. [all met natural deaths] ...Those three Saudi princes all perished within days of one another. On July 22, 2002, Prince Ahmed was felled by a heart attack at age 43. One day later Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, 41, was killed in what was called a high-speed car accident. The last member of the trio, Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, officially "died of thirst" while traveling east of Riyadh one week later. And seven months after that, Mushaf Ali Mir, by then Pakistan's Air Marshal, perished in a plane crash...
see: Time
[Explosive chemistry via Wikipedia]:
Acetone peroxide (triacetone triperoxide, peroxyacetone, TATP) is an organic peroxide. It is a high explosive that can be made from common household items: sulfuric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and acetone. Other strong acids such as hydrochloric acid may also be used to catalyze the reaction... often for detonators, and is sometimes used in terrorist attacks, for example in the West Bank area. Also perhaps at the 7 July 2005 London bombings.
...people have been killed or permanently injured by accidents with acetone peroxide. There is a common myth that the only "safe" acetone peroxide is the trimer, made at low temperatures: "If one is making tricycloacetone peroxide, the temperature must be less than 10 °C at all times, otherwise the product formed will be dicycloacetone peroxide, which is so unstable and sensitive that it has no uses in the field of explosives: dicycloacetone peroxide has been known to explode spontaneously." In reality, the acid-catalyzed peroxidation of acetone always produces a mixture of dimeric and trimeric forms. The trimer is the more stable form, but not greatly more so than the dimer. All forms of acetone peroxide are very sensitive to initiation and degrade in long-term storage, so they are used as explosives only by unconventional forces (e.g. guerrillas, freedom fighters, terrorists ) and curious amateurs...
See: TATP
[Ledgers suggestions]
It's clear that Blair and MI6 (or the current internal security apparatus) needs to do a great deal of house cleaning. This house cleaning would encompass the actual application of a UK version of the Patriot Act, interrogating this one eye'd hooked "Cleric" for additional information in the recent terror killings, freezing terrorist's funds, adjusting the deportation rules for mass killers, enabling UK special agents to liquidate terrorists before they detonate the bombs, and the realization that certain organizations or states that sponsor terrorism must be neutralized by military action.
Further, Blair must start using the alley fight set of rules. He must use agents and/or proxy fighters to eliminate certain "clerics" and financiers of said terror "clerics." He must also get the message out that "either you are with us or against us." The George Galloway's of the political world must feel Blair's wrath. And, in the final analysis, if it comes down to UK survival, the "Dresden Option" must be considered.
In addition, Bush Administration must be willing to let the UK fully defend it self (i.e.: if the Syrians, Saudis, or Pakistanis are the root of the problem then let the British extract justice). This goes from top to bottom, all the terror sponsors are targets, information sharing and operational sharing are a must do.
The British came to America's aid in the Iraq and Afghan war. We must be prepared to do the same.
And, we must realize that if the war requires utter destruction of certain terrorists strongholds - then so be it. Let's get it done quickly.
See:30% down comments
{excuse all of the mistakes and extra material - ledger tried to submit a compact version but Blogger failed - hence the long version will be posted}
Nahncee,
Continue to sneer at will:
I would feel humiliated if fellow Americans were cowed into following directions from foreigners.
ledger said...
the starter TATP explosive failed because of old shelf-life or poor quality
Studies by the FBI indicate Reid's shoes contained the explosive triacetone triperoxide, or TATP -- called "The Mother of Satan" by Palestinian militants
Reid visited Israel and the Gaza Strip last July; and that the TATP (triacetone triperoxide) explosive embedded in Reid's trainers is the signature brand of Hamas, whose master bomb-makers developed it in Gaza for use in suicide attacks
TATP is used almost exclusively by Palestinian terrorists, Two Palestinians Samar Alami & Jawad Botmeh, who had studied engineering at Leicester University – are currently serving 20-year terms for their role in the attacks. Both were found in possession of TATP
ah yes... the palestinian connection... those fun loving "non-terrorists" that simply want self determination, to grow trees, plant flowers, raise boy and girl scouts, learn little league, help the elderly....
RIGHTS: Yes to Miss Tibet, No to Miss Tibet-China .
IPS Inter Press Service
DHARAMSALA, India, Jul 22 (IPS) - Tibetan youths, in this Indian Himalayan town, are furious that Miss Tibet has been barred from participating in a beauty pageant in Malaysia after China lodged an official complaint with the organisers. Beijing, in turn, wants Miss Tibet Tashi Yangchen to compete as Miss Tibet-China instead.
"raise boy and girl scouts"
Rinds, yes:
To be ruthlessly exploited by you know whos (rhymes with) as scout cookie vendor/suppliers for the little money grubbers in training.
Radical cleric attacks Muslim 'hypocrites'
"These are part-time Muslims or chocolate Muslims."
THE radical cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed inflamed tensions further yesterday with an attack on Muslims who took part in inter-faith services after the bombings.
He branded any Muslims who attended the Trafalgar Square vigil last week as "hypocrites and apostates".
In an interview, Bakri said: "God forbids us from praying with Jews and Christians side by side. These are part-time Muslims or chocolate Muslims.
"I cannot be British. I cannot be English. "Even if I change my colour, like Michael Jackson, I could not be English."
Newsflash...
just in from London...
British Islamic groups plan protest over GOVERNMENT crackdown on "militants" since 7/7...
Funny, they aint PROTESTING islamic MURDER....
New Newsflash...
Super secret EU/British agreement has allowed French SFFP to work in Britian with shoot to kill orders..
The SFFP has been notorious in France where it has struck fear in many citizens...
The infamous Special French Fashion Police have been allowed to shoot suspected heavey coat wearers in summer simply for offending our senses of fashion....
Be warned, if you choose to wear "down jackets" in summer, it can be fatal.....
Sorry folks, couldnt help myself....
Jessika said...
Informative post. It's hard to fathom what is going on in a terrorists mind--how can they just kill innocent people?
Cause they sincerely believe they are on Allah's side..
just like pediophiles sincerely believe they love kids..
Just like rapists sincerely believe the women want it...
and me? I sincerely believe they all are nuts....
Jessika
Out side of Mr porker's reason.
It's is fun and exciting to be a member of the "Fraternity"
Youthful belief in their own immortality
A willingness to sacrifice your self for the greater good.
The victims are sub human and also deserve to be injured or killed.
Most military groups use each of these facets of human nature in the indoctrination phase of training.
Concerning your statement:
"Over the coming years, the value of every aspect of the defense will be highlighted by different incidents."
...may I recommend this column by Victor Davis Hanson, which urges us to start acting like we are at war.
It was a message - you can't stop us. Other homicide bombers are being prepped/trained/handled. There are much softer targets than the tubes and buses of London
Re: the meme that Iraq has increased the anger of Jihadists and the vulnerability of the West.
This is used as an argument against the Iraq war by many Lefty and Islamist groups in Britain and the US.
This assertion is meaningful only if the point of the Iraq war was to assuage the feelings of the Jihadists. If we went to Iraq to make Muslims less mad at us, if OIF was conceived as a parlay with terrorists, then yes, the Left is correct that it is a failure and we should leave.
But who in their right mind thought that invading Iraq would make the terrorists more agreeable? Who could possibly have considered OIF as a bouquet of flowers meant to win the collective heart of the fanatic, a valentine to call back a jilted lover?
This is where we can see most clearly the conceptual frozen tundra of the Left. If we are to take them at their word, if we are to dismiss politically hackery as the reason behind the words and really take them seriously, then their belated surprise that OIF would upset jihadists is the most astounding example of shallow thinking that I think I have ever seen. In the pantheon of idiocy, it is the 10,000 lbs elephant in the living room.
This proves, more than any other folly or ill chosen words, that the Left is the retarded little brother in the West Family tree. You tolerate his mistakes because you realize he doesn't know better, you protect him because he is incapable of self-defence, and every once in a while you take him to the store to buy him some Ice Cream.
But you never, ever, let him drive.
Mr Pape was on Fox News this morning. His study indicates that having the target at hand is what creates the atmosphere that revs up the attacks.
As in Iraq, if we lessen our presence, the footprint, we would lessen the cultural pressure that encourages the bombers.
While this makes some sense, it does not explain the London attackers mentality or motivations. They are operating on an International Grievance level or on one that is even more local, like Columbine.
Seems to me that a humiliated Muslim is an enraged Muslim. Police training tells them that the Bad Guys won't be thinking straight because of adrenaline rushes, and therefore the police will have an edge if they remain cool and calm.
Which leads me to think that any time we can humiliate a Muslim and push him into doing something he's not quite ready to do -- i.e., yesterday's bombings -- that would be a Good Thing.
Motto for next week: Humiliate a Muslim ... especially if it's a male Muslim, ages 16-35.
If that is the path to be taken, nahncee, the vocabulary changes from muslim or islamist to
Mohammedan
that is a noun that is disapproved of in the Mohammedan world, it is insulting to them to be referred to by the word
Mohammedan
I'd enjoy seeing the Palistinians and the Israelis find an agreed on border. I'd like to see increased freedom and an improved life style for all concerned, but as VD Hanson illustrates in his Wash Times article
"... Speaking of Israel, shortly after the London attacks, a suicide bomber in Netanya, perhaps in sympathy with his kindred spirits in Britain, walked over to a group of women and blew them up.
He killed five persons, including two 16-year-old girls. This slaughter, in Israel proper, not the West Bank, took place during a mutually agreed "cease-fire" -- and on the eve of Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
The supposedly more "moderate" Hamas refused to condemn the attack by Islamic Jihad. That was logical given the recent statement of a senior Hamas official. Mahmoud al-Zahar said he would "definitely not" settle for co-existence with Israel -- even if it withdrew to it 1967 borders. As he put it, "[I]n the end, Palestine must return to become Muslim, and in the long term Israel will disappear from the face of the Earth." ..."
peace opponent
Makes the idea of some kind of a compromise solution difficult at best.
Who would enforce an 'imposed' settlement?
Would it be accurate to say
'As goes Israel, so goes the West'
An analyst on Fox News says that "the presence of foreign troops on Muslim territory" creates the suicide bomber/terrorist mentality. Therefore, we should remove our troops from Iraq, Israel should quit Palestine, etc.
What he thinks about the attempted cleansing of Buddhists in Thailand, he didn't say. Probably would advise that Thailand is now in Dar al'Islam, better to give it up. Wouldn't want to incite violence, after all.
Aristides
That was the ever famous Mr Pape
did a study, wrote a book
Profiled the 400+ suiciders over last ? years.
Found them mostly motivated by foregin (to them) occupation.
he referenced Tamil Tigers as being leading in suicide attacks.
Have not read the book, but have seen him a number of times
Mr Pape advocates returning to an 'off coast' presence. As exemplified by our policies in the 70's & 80's.
There are elements of truth in what he says. In Iraq the handoff to the Iraqis and the draw down of our troop strength WOULD lessen the level of violence in the long run.
Aristide wrote:
“But who in their right mind thought that invading Iraq would make the terrorists more agreeable?”
Well, no one really, but many have stated that invading Iraq would help in the fight on terrorism, that it would reduce terrorism. To date it hasn’t.
Cedarford wrote as part of his (mostly) good suggestions:
“1. Removal of the Western Left (that apologizes and rationalizes the actions of the Religion of Head-choppers) from positions of power and influence. The Left still holds power over Courts, Hollywood, the media, and academia. They must be reduced in ranks by ensuring the hiring is done not by like-minded Lefty colleagues job committees - but by people holding mainstream values..”
How do you propose to ensure that these varied institutions hire people whom possess the correct ideology? Some form of government ministry?
This second round of bombings in London so closely resembling the first round except for their failure to detonate could simply demonstrate how disconnected these terror cells are, how diffuse is their command and control. In other words, some other group associated only by ideology thought it would a powerful statement if they 'copied' the success of the first round of attacks. Of course the forensic info on types of explosives used, construction of the bombs ect. would shed light on my speculation.
re: Pape.
There is perhaps an element of truth in that our presence in the Middle East may lead more young men to suicide terrorism.
But the amount of people willing to blow themselves up is but a small metric by which to judge the current war. Disengagement may address it, it may not; I'll even give Mr. Pape a nod and assume it does. However, it seems to me that what we should be worried about is the conceptual paradigm that proclaims it is justified to blow yourself up as protest against a pseudo-occupation. Disengagement does not address this mentality.
This is a difference between efficient causes and final causes, and only engagement will eliminate the final causes of terrorism. The obverse of our mission in Iraq leads down a much more dangerous road. If we allow the Muslim world to remain backwards, bigoted, and unsuccessful, the audience for Bin Ladenism will grow exponentially as failure becomes prima facie evidence of repression and evil design. Right now we are contending with groups and cells. Let's engage before we are dealing with nations.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Aristide, one can 'engage' in many ways. One can engage with Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding as opposed to Military boots on the ground.
ash
our boots on the groumd engagement has led to all the engagements you prefer.
We could not begin to supply
"...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..."
when we did "Oil for Food" the program was rife with corruption.
Now that there is a moderate and representitive government being formed we will be able to provide even more "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..."
Cefart said: Begin some sit downs in the USA, Europe, and inside the Ummah with Muslims and infidels and make those sitdowns honest dialogue, not conditioned by diplomatic niceties. Blunt talk time.
Ha!
Yes, more talk..
It seems to me we already have an example in history as to how to deal with these jihadis. Andalusia. What's needed is the will to implement it.
Desert Rat, unfortunately all those other engagements are vastly overshadowed and subservient to the military engagement.
Oil for Food was a fiasco on so many levels. On unintended consequence was that it solidified Saddam's hold over individual Iraqi's lives.
Exactly, as long as Saddam remained in control, he and his tribal and religious cohorts would have continued to repress the delivery of "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." to those that needed it.
Your desire to deliver "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." is one of the reasons Saddam' position was improved vis a vie Oil for Food and also a factor in having the Baathists removed from power.
There was no practical means to deliver "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." while the Baathists remained in control.
Besides ash, why would we fund schools that instructed it's pupils in either the infallibility of Saadam and/ or hatred of 'Western Civilization' the Anglosphere in particular.
That would seem counter productive. All schools are not created equal and all 'education and schooling' not fit for subsidy.
Ash: the same goes for your comment. Only somebody not thinking very hard could believe OIF would make terrorists less likely to want to hurt us, which is why the Iraq war was never justified in this way.
What we are doing in Iraq is called s-t-r-a-t-e-g-y. At the risk of making fanatics more fanatical, we are trying to change the equation in the Middle East, trying to buy with blood and treasure a better future and a better world. Yes, we are even sacrificing peace--and our illusion of safety--in this noble cause, so that maybe, just maybe, our children will not have to deal with this horror.
Those that clamor for "peace in our time" do a most grave injustice to the cause of righteousness and justice. Nobody ever said this was going to be easy or that OIF would be the magic bullet, that once the tanks rolled into Baghdad the terrorists would lay down their arms in agreement or in despair. To protest OIF by shouting "Danger is upon us!" is the kind of myopic pacifism that frog-marched history right into World War II. We know where pre-OIF led us. You might have seen it on TV right around the beginning of September, 2001. It was in all the papers.
Now is the time to change the balance, to get rid of the old cliches. Osama had already proved himself pretty savvy working with the old reality, let's see how successful he can be with the new material we are building.
As for mollifying terrorists with good works and public spending, that is not a strategy. That is THE classic Leftist cop out. Osama doesn't want schools and sewage treatment plants any more than Yassir "Dollar Bill" Arafat did. The problem is not that the Arabs don't have the fruits of success, it is that they don't have the means. It is easy to mail a charity check, but it is humiliating to be the one who has to cash it. We don't need more spoiled dependants in the world. We need partners.
If you think OIF is primarily a military operation, you just made the same mistake the Administration originally did. Ask our soldiers over in Iraq exactly how "military" our efforts really our. We are building (not fixing, because it was never there) an entire country's infrastructure from the ground up; sewage systems, schools, hospitals, water plants, electricity: we are "donating" all of it. It is one giant public works project wrapped in tough love. How can you refuse to acknowledge what's in the box when it is our country who packaged it?
kevin: I'm relatively new to the 'sphere, and very quickly gravitated to this site because of Wretchard's excellent and erudite analysis. If I see a large enough hole in the hull I may consider setting up shop. But for now I'm content carrying water.
But thanks for the compliment.
ash
The UN Sanctions reportedly led to the deaths of tens of thousands
"... The World Health Organization believes at least 5,000 children under the age of 5 die each month from lack of access to food, medicine and clean water. Malnutrition, disease, poverty and premature death now ravage a once relatively prosperous society whose public health system was the envy of the Middle East. I went to Iraq in September 1997 to oversee the U.N.'s "oil for food" program. I quickly realized that this humanitarian program was a Band-Aid for a U.N. sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people. ..."
http://www.geocities.com/iraqinfo/sanctions/sanctions.html
The UN Sanctions were responsible for killing 60,000 children a year according to the WHO. If that is anywhere near accurate, we have saved 120,000 children during the years 2003 & 2004. So far in 2005 45,000 children have been saved from a UN death sentence. One that would have been imposed by the UN's inability to run a competent Oil for Fun Program.
Just think of it, ash, 185,000 children, by the WHO's numbers, have been saved from death by US intervention in Iraq.
I read just two days ago that Iraqi civilian casualties for OIF are in the 25,000 range.
That is a positive swing of 160,000 lives saved from the projected civilian losses since OIF was initiated.
What a wonderful country we live in
What we wouldn't do to save a child, even an Iraqi Mohammedan child.
Desert Rat, lets not conflate OIF with GWoT. I was not, nor am, referring to humanitarian efforts as a means to have rid Iraq of Saddam but rather as a means to combat terror in general. In a sense it is simply taking a page out the Hamas playbook; engage people at the grassroots level. It should also not be our only method of combating terror, but rather another tool in the box helping us ‘change Islam’ and improving their perception of 'us'.
Aristide, again we are back to Justice and again I maintain that the US cannot alone administer Justice for the World due to its inherent conflicts with self interest. Not only must Justice be done, it must be seen to be done.
Speaking of perceptions, don’t ask the military what we are building in Iraq, but rather ask the Iraqi’s. I think their perceptions will be decidedly different from the US military.
On the History Channel's "Shootout: The Battle For Falluja" it was revealed that a great many, if not all, of the terrorist fighters in Falluja were hopped up on drugs. I wonder how common this is among terrorists? It could explain quite a lot. Has anyone else out there heard anything about this aspect?
Maybe we should blast Greatful Dead music across the battlefield and they will all just mellow out.
Desert Rat, you won't get any argument from me regarding the problems with the Oil for Food program. Let us not forget how complicit we (the US) were in the whole mess.
But ash, Iraq is now Terror Central according to your sentiments. To save those 185,000 children's lifes (year to date) from UN malfeasence and Saddams cruelty we had to act. The UN's management of the worlds attempt to help those children led to a strengthening of his tyranical grip on Iraq. It increased his ability to fund International terrorist groups like Hamas as well as fund an explosion bonus of $25,000US for the families of Palistinian Homicide Bombers, operating in Israel.
As we discussed the other day, the US had every legal right in International Law to take action against Baathist Iraq.
The UN's active mismanagement of the Sanctions Program encouraged Saddam's deviant ways and helped lead to the conflict.
The Iranians believe they are a civilized and advanced people, capable of funding their own "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..."
Perhaps we should increase the monies we send to Eygpt and Jordon, the billions we have delivered in the past not delivering "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." in large enough quanities.
The Sudanese will not allow US to deliver "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." in the Dafur area.
Should we force them to?
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, they need our aid?
Heck ash
During the Iranian earth quakes, when tens of thousand died and even more left homeless and destitute, the Mullahs would not accept our aid. They turned away the American Red Cross, our charitable International Disaster Relief Orginization.
Most of the countries on the Opfor list refuse to allow our involvement in their countries, in any form other than check writing.
Ash regarding the problems with the Oil for Food program. Let us not forget how complicit we (the US) were in the whole mess.
I do forget how complicit we were Ash, please refresh us with the facts.
I have not read of many Americans on the Oil for Fun management team.
Enlighten US with their names. I'd love to see an indictment. All the out country managers recieve UN immunity, I believe.
ash: "I maintain that the US cannot alone administer Justice for the World due to its inherent conflicts with self interest."
We "cannot"? Don't have the means, simply not possible for the US to be just, what do you mean? Self interest like defeating Japan and building democracy? Self interest like the Marshall Plan? Self interest like free trade? Are justice and self-interest forever conflicting?
Is it not in our self interest to help all peoples be free so they can freely do business with us? Is this something you find discomfiting?
You write: "Speaking of perceptions, don’t ask the military what we are building in Iraq, but rather ask the Iraqi’s."
We did ask the Iraqis, and in January over 8 million of them answered. You do believe that there is something called empirical reality, yes? If I see a video of a school being built, is it somehow not "real" because it is an American Soldier doing the narrating?
Over 75% of Iraqis are optimistic about the future. It seems to me the only ones with a perception problem are those who read the New York Times.
the only country open to the US delivering "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." where the Opfor are operating is Iraq. We do not control access to those other locales.
Are you advocating we force feed "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." to the people in countries where their Governments reject our offers of "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..."?
In Dafur, Sudan, the Mohammedan Government is systematically killing non Mohammedan people.
The US has called it Genocide and your ICC is investigating.
If the US were to demand the right to provide "...Health Clinics, food distribution, school funding ..." to the people in Dafur, and the Sudanese Government said NO! What course of action would you recommend?
tony,
"Both the United States and the United Kingdom, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, and principal proponents of sanctions against the Iraqi ruler, voted for the creation of the program and for its expansion in 1998."
http://www.oilforfoodfacts.org/history.aspx
Weren't drugs and hopped-up mujahadeen reported in the two or three Sadr seiges and shoot-outs in Sadr City? I'm trying to remember details or where I read that but I distinctly remember the connection being made between Sadr's guerilla's and something like a speed-high to keep them awake and defiant.
Ash said,
"Speaking of perceptions, don’t ask the military what we are building in Iraq, but rather ask the Iraqi’s. I think their perceptions will be decidedly different from the US military."
I just can't wait to find out what you think the Iraqi commmon man/woman thinks about what we are building in Iraq.
I have no doubt that you will be able to create several paragraphs of thoughts, broken down cleanly into arguments.
I can't stand this whole strategy of 'channeling' with an imaginary Iraqi in order to try to make a point in a political argument.
However, it does have its humorous moments. I can't count the number of times I heard someone 'channeling' on NPR in an effort to explain why Iraqis would not vote in the upcoming election. Of course, I'm refering to the last election. The one where younger men carried older infirmed family members on their backs to get to the polling places.
nathan is right again ash,
We helped to set up, with the Brits, French, Russians, etc the Oil for Fun program. It was the administration of that program that failed. The intent of the program was to stop just what did occur, according to the WHO. Hundreds of thousands of DEAD Children under the UN's control, guidance and administration.
To blame those that supported delivery of Humanitarian Aid when the inept or criminal acts of the deliverers caused the failure of the program, is absurd.
The US was working in cooperation with the World Community.
Name those Americans that committed criminal acts in regards this program.
The TV show explained that it was a kind of a "speed" drug, describing it as "artifical adrenilein." I don't know if that is just a name used as an analogy or that is really what it is.
Whether it was designed to cloud judgement, is offered as a form of payment, or intended to enhance their performance, or all of the above, it would appear to offer us a new method of attack. I doubt such drugs were part of the Soviet-supplied stockpile of weapons, so they are getting them from somewhere. If we could inject a little something into that supply chain, the possibilities are endless.
But in any case, it seems to be almost certain that at least some of the surviving terrorists are seriously addicted to some pretty nasty stuff. The long term implications of that for the societies that produced them could be very serious. They are not just drug addicts but very violent drug addicts on a "holy" mission.
rwe (and others)
RE: Drugs
In his latest pulitzer prize worthy reporting Michael Yon makes a reference to suicide bombers, etc being hopped up on drugs (and laying with hookers). There is even a picture.
Have been a reader for about 2 years, just want to compliment both Wretchard's great analysis and the generally thoughtful discussion... And man, Aristides - I read very few blogs, but if you had one, I'd be there!
By the way, if you get to see that "Shootout" program on Falluja, I recommend it. In terms of the strategic and tactical over view of the battle, Wretchard has them beat hands down. But the description of the indvidual firefights - reenacted with our half of the original cast and supplemented with video-game style animation - are fascinating. And thrilling.
It did leave me wondering why they did not use tanks, chppers, and aircraft to blow away every house that was any source of opposition -because they did do that quite frequently.
The only answer I came up with is that the Marines just like to fight.
Aristides, you do understand that if you have a conflict of interest it impugns any justice you may render? From this link
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc/sc.nsf/pages/sp_091099
“… it is not merely of some importance but is of fundamental importance, that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.” 1
Lord Hewart was encapsulating a principle that had been long known and often expressed 2. Another pithy articulation of part of the scope of the principle is that of Lord Bowen:
“… Judges, like Caesar’s wife, should be above suspicion …”. 3
Re: Oil for Food, c’mon guys, we were talking about how the Oil For Food scandal helped Saddam solidify his hold over individual Iraqi’s corruption was not the problem here but rather how the money was distributed within Iraq. Saddam controlled the flow, Iraqi rations were administered through his government the US was complicit in establishing that regime.
Desert Rat, humanitarian assistance, I repeat, is but one tool that may be used.
Abakan, I really can’t say what the mythical average Iraqi thinks. I’m merely suggesting that the Iraqi’s perceptions differ (a lot) from the US military’s.
Okay, very interesting. I will look at the dope on the terrorist dope.
Now, does anyone know if this drug use is also happening in terrorist attacks in the West? I have heard no mention of it.
Would that not be ironic? In the decadent West the terrorists keep themselves pure while in their own holy lands of the middle east they behave like Western rockstars with automatic weapons?
Trish said,
"abakan,
We certainly don't need imaginary Iraqis to tell us what we're helping to build in Iraq - or imaginary soldiers. All we have to do is read the draft of the Iraqi constitution."
Sorry, but your response just shows another layer in the same strategy.
The Iraqi Constitution will serve as a rough generalization of the thoughts of an Iraqi common man only after it has been ratified.
This doesn't really have anything to do with the idea that you should never use your perceptions based on your exposure to data as a framework to describe the thoughts of another.
Also, it is alarming how many people use this tactic to create political arguments designed to further their own agenda.
right ash
but when denied the ability to deliver that relief, in Dafur, Sudan,wger the Mohammedan Government is systematically killing non Mohammedan people.
Does there exist a right if not a duty to deliver it to those in need?
If not US who? If not now, when?
What course of action would you recommend today on the Dafur Genocide commited by Mohammedans?
Our operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world (thanks for your info, ledger) HAVE reduced terrorism.
IN AMERICA.
Their leaders, well schooled in our politics, are relying on time, the left, and the electoral process to carry them through these hard times with the ONE nation on earth that has responded with EFFECTIVE force against them in their camps and countries of comfort.
Meanwhile, they continue their activities in countries that have yet to prove they have regained a spine sufficient for survival..
I'll add the Aussies, making a list of 2.
Hmmm, Desert Rat, tough questions and no easy answers. I will attempt a quick answer, tentatively, since my knowledge of the situation is limited, as is my knowledge in general ;) , and I’ve got to run.
The most pressing problem appears to be how to stop the genocide. The Security Council, after much bickering, has referred it to the ICC. I believe much of the arguing turned on whether the ICC was to be involved and what form of troops should be sent (regional – African vs. UN…I think). Anyway, isn’t there some form of coalition government now being formed in Sudan? Is the genocide continuing? The ICC should make its report and the US should work with the international community to stop the genocide and brings its perpetrators to justice. Force of arms may indeed be needed. The key is to get a form of dispassionate judicial/international face on the intervention. Why does the US not choose to act in Sudan as it chose to in Iraq?
I mean let's get real ash, suicide bombings in Baghdad or London pale in comparison to Genocide in the Sudan.
If this were truly a "War" against 'Radical Islam' or 'Terror' we would be fighting where the most blood was flowing and worst terror was being committed. But the Mohammedans kill by the tens of thousands and rape thousands without consequence. The best response from the west is to have 55 names under sealed indictment at ash's ICC.
There is no call from members of the Club to save the innocent and at the same time strike a Mohammedan terror state.
Multicult West: Breeding Grounds for Terrorists. .
I have always maintained that the vocabulary for today's terrorists is hatched here in the west, largely at Universities, Hollywood, the MSM, and the Democrat party.
...and of course all other parties of the left.
No mr bennet, if the death toll amongst Iraqi children was continueing at 5,000 deaths per month we would know it, that detail would not remain hidden to the world.
It may well be that there never was such a death toll, and that the entire story of tens of thousands of Iraqi children dying is an Urban myrh concocted by the WHO and other groups of similar stature.
I myself never believed so many children were dying, but the World Community saw it different. They must have been right, right?
"In an interview published Sunday by The Sun, Ms. Lewthwaite, who is eight months pregnant and in protective custody, said she could not believe that her husband was involved. "I won't believe it until they show me the proof," she said. "I'm not going to accept it until they have his DNA."
---
OK
It seems to me that a layered defense is essential, and that we are on the right track. That said, I think our efforts are still inadequate and under resourced. As noted up thread, it's time to mobilize behind the war effort.
I think also that the invasion of Iraq is at least partially misunderstood. Certainly the intent, in part, was to find and kill terrorists (the "fly paper" strategy), but let's be realistic. The main strategic thrust was to depose Saddam Hussein, radically destabilize the region, establish a strong military/ intelligence presence, and to warn neighboring regimes of what happens to those who support terror.
I argue for a large troop build up in Iraq, but not for the typical reasons. We might need more boots on the ground to secure the country. I don't know. But we definitely need more boots on the ground to effect regime change in Syria and Iran. Moreover, it would make sense to me to base a strike force strong enough to take the Saudi oil fields somewhere in the region.
Desert Rat, the Bush admin has been a big heel dragger in this issue. They opposed at the Security Council any action in Sudan until France maneuvered them into having to veto the ICC deal. The US abstained and it passed.
Yes, the blood flowing in Sudan demands action. Why, I ask again, has the US chosen not to act either unilaterally or multilaterally?
Rat,
Children cannot survive w/o weekly visits to socialist clinics.
I've asked that question myself, ash.
what would you do?
We can't do anything 'Rat:
We're overstretched, remember?
Desert Rat, in short, I would urge other nations to add troops to ours to back the ICC. I would say to the government of Sudan that the killing must stop and the perpetrators brought to trial or the troops move in.
doug
with half of Iraq'stabilized, that being the Shia south and the Gurdish north, I do not think children are dying of malnutrition and lack of medical services in those areas. That means that in spite of all the children that concregate for 'sweets' many of their cousins are hidden away, at homes and Mosques, starving. Those evil Sunni, treating their children like that.
whose troops ash?
The ICC is NEVER going to be approved by the US. Read it sometime, if you understand the US Constitution you'll understand why.
The UN has no troops
The ICC has no troops
The troops of the 'West' are our troops. A few Brits and Aussies.
The French have not won a campaign in decades. Who will you deploy ash, in the World Policeman role?
Who backs up the UN & ICC with force of arms?
Didn't Kipling write about "amok" fighters that the Brits had to deal with in their colonial empire period? Or "beserkers"? And the reason they were beserk was something they had imbibed -- smoked, drank or ate. I'm pretty sure they didn't have syringes at that point in history. Wretchard's a Kipling expert. He may have details.
The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It .
Indeed, ''Perfect Soldiers'' replaces the caricatures of outsize ''evil geniuses'' and ''wild-eyed fanatics'' with portraits of the 9/11 plotters as surpassingly mundane people, people who might easily be our neighbors or airplane seatmates. It gives us pictures of Jarrah signing his notes to Ms. Sengün ''with a long drawn-out goodbyeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, followed by multiple exclamation points,'' of Mohamed el-Amir (aka Mohamed Atta) as a slight young man padding about his student apartment in blue flip-flops, of Ramzi bin al-Shibh going on dates with a modern-dance student and subsisting on frozen pizzas with tuna.
The reason for reading ''Perfect Soldiers'' has to do with the chilling portraits the book draws of the ordinary men who executed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, resulting in the deaths of almost 3,000 people -- a portrait that gives new meaning to the phrase ''the banality of evil.''
Cefard said: Pok Rinds for Yahweh writes that in his opinion, anyone who attacks Israeli Occupation troops, armed Settlers, or defenseless civilians are - evil terrorists - as the Israeli regime claims, with no distinctions.
1/ They ARE evil terrorists. Unless you're trying to imply that jihad is a good thing™.
2/ Jihadi terror cells are not a military unit make. Therefore cannot be considered such. Jihadi terror is meant compel the population to jihadi values by killing the arrogant dhimmi (Jew) that wishes his freedom from Islamic subjugation.
3/ Yours is an Islamist narrative of history. That these terror cells are resisting Israeli "occupation" is a complete joke. If anything, it is Israelis that are suffering the taste of jihadi occupation.
Donald Trump predicts UN Renovation will balloon to over 3 Billion in 3 years!
Says they have no idea what dealing with NY City Construction is all about:
They will take them to lunch!
Real cost should be 700 million.
They think they can rent temp space for 1 or 2 years!
(estimate $98 million for temp space: actual cost will be hundreds and hundreds of millions)
Ash, on Sudan: "Why, I ask again, has the US chosen not to act either unilaterally or multilaterally?"
There are many reasons why we haven't acted unilaterally, and one giant reason why we haven't acted multilaterally.
The amount of animosity engendered by unilateral exercises of American power have the unintended effect of making our foreign actions even more singularly focused, more, as Ash would deride, self-interested. Therefore, because of a world affliction of power envy, and because of the existential struggle we are in with Radical Islam, we must choose our battles carefully.
Another reason would be that we really do want, despite the assertions of the chattering classes, to allow the rest of the world an equal say in what happens, and an equal responsibility in the results. Creating unrealistic expectations of America as the Universal Fireman is not in our interest.
Another reason is that, contrary to the flattering rumors, America is not omnipotent and, even though we have gi-normous reserves of resources, they are not infinite. Because of this, see reason one.
The primary reason for the multilateral stall is not the US. As far as I know, Ms. Rice's recent statements to Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir using the word "genocide"--to his face--are the first of its kind. Europe, if you'll remember, had a debate last year on just what "genocide" meant and if it could be applied to Sudan, and they adjourned unanimously convinced that they should talk about something else. They didn't want to say something that America would have to back up.
But even European weakness is not the primary "multilateral" reason for the inattention. Nope, for that you would have to look to China and her unquenchable thirst for Sudanese oil. While our moral betters on this side of the Atlantic are horrified about wars for oil, our Chinese friends are not as sophisticated and urbane. With a Chinese veto on the Security Council and the inevitability of its use, why waste time and political capital on an impossibility. Plus, if any sanctions were actually applied on Sudan's only major export, it is without a doubt that Omar el-Bashir and his regime would suddenly be awash in Chinese made weapons and cash, and the horror in Darfur would accelerate until the very reasons for the sanctions were...quieted.
How, then, would that solve the humanitarian crisis?
Trumps CLASSIC presentation will be available at Radioblogger.com.
Yoni will be making more updates on Hewitt on Egyptian Hotel Blast.
Why blogs focused on the Plame game are one-fourth as relevant as The Belmont Club, FroggyRuminations, and Winds of Change.
HH: Last question, Howard Fineman, thanks for the time today, if you had to rank on a scale of 1 to 10 in terms of importance the Plame memo, the Roberts confirmation and the war on terror, where would you put those three, the Plame memo first, one being insignificant, 10 being life or death?
HF: Well I'd put the Plame memo at maybe 2 or 3, I'd put the Roberts nomination at 5, and I'd put the war on terror at 10.
HH: We, agree Howard Fineman. Have a great weekend.
Radioblogger will also have the transcript of Donald Trump's very entertaining testimony before a Senate committee on the projected cost of renovating the U.N.
Aristides: I would argue against our intervention in Sudan due to the Oath taken by all members of the U.S. military: "support and defend the Constitution..." The GWOT fits that definition in my mind, as did WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm, etc. The Balkans intervention did not; neither would going into Sudan. This is paricularly important in combat missions, as opposed to hurricane and tsunami relief, which are in the same category as being the unit Savings Bond Drive representative or organizing the office Christmas party. If you can explain in one sentence or less how a combat mission relates to the Oath, then it is worth considering. Otherwise it is not. Maybe this is not nice for some people, but the alternative is incorporating places that need our military assistance into the Union, or at least declaring them a possession. Or... force the military to recognize that the oath really just means "Perform duties as assigned" with the disasterous consequnces that would follow.
As for Cederford: there he goes again. Say you don't like commie guerillas or Islamic terrorists and that means you hate the Swamp Fox and the Heroes of Telemark...
Cefart said:Bummer for the Filipinos, Greeks, Danes, Yugoslav, Chinese, American Indians, Polish partisans, and dozens of other nationalities,
Did they all belong to the Ummah?
Btw cefard,
made your hajj to Makkah yet?
old dad said,
"...we definitely need more boots on the ground to effect regime change in Syria and Iran. Moreover, it would make sense to me to base a strike force strong enough to take the Saudi oil fields somewhere in the region"
---
Is Kuwait still a suitable staging area?
'Rat,
After a great deal of thought and deliberation, I have come up with a solution to your plumbing problem in the previous thread.
You're Welcome.
old dad said,
"...we definitely need more boots on the ground to effect regime change in Syria and Iran. Moreover, it would make sense to me to base a strike force strong enough to take the Saudi oil fields somewhere in the region"
That's the upside of Iraq.
Just like we converted the bloody battlefield of Okinawa to the strategic Kadena air base. Only in this case, we get the extra bennie of a strategic base for ground troops, like Western Germany.
There's nothing new under the sun.
rwe: I agree with you that the US military should not be a global constabulary. During Clinton's years in office it seemed the litmus test for action was the absolute selflessness of the mission, and I disagreed with it strongly then.
However, I would submit that "interests" can be narrowly and broadly defined. Who would have thought that the bad governance, the bigotry, and the failure of the Arab world would be a national security issue for the United States?
In a very specific sense, we are safer when the world is less chaotic; we are more powerful when the world is free. Because of our singular characteristics as a global hegemon, there is a very real argument to be had in favor of humanitarian intervention.
Once you make that step, the dispositive terms are "cost" and "benefit", a coarse and bothersome way to weigh human life, but in the end a more humane approach than proscribing any humanitarian interventions altogether.
rwe
I would think that if the US were engaged in a conflict of National Survival against Mohammedan Jihadists and those Mohammaden rule a country and were systematicly destroying nonMohammedan people there, the US could have an interest there, as justifiable as the Federal Regulation of instate medical pot in CA. The Mohammedan Government, by their very existance as such a Terrorist sancturay, could pose a threat to US. If the Congress were convinced and declared War, well that WOULD be something.
Operations, a word that does not carry the same gravity as WAR
doug
yeah I could do that, already am, kind of. Was looking for a technique that did not require handling the bag.
re: definition of terrorism.
The simple definition is the deliberate targeting of civilians, with the purpose of inflicting massive psychological suffering, in the furtherance of a political or religious goal.
The rejoinder is, of course, Dresden and Hiroshima are terrorism!
The answer to this objection is not simple. To me it comes down to honor and circumstance. The context of Dresden and Hiroshima were total war, where the justifications for each grew out of and indeed rested upon a militaristic consideration. Both Dresden and Hiroshima were contemplated, planned, and implemented to severely attack the enemy's war fighting spirit in the interest of protecting as many lives as we could. The goal, then, was the cessation of conflict, not its furtherance.
But in the end, I believe a metaphysically-solid definition of terrorism will continue to elude us. Therefore, I use Honor as my North star when I get lost in the gray areas. When arguing about means and ends, about freedom fighters and insurgents, terrorists or minutemen, it is sometimes helpful to simply step back and reduce the debate.
When weighing methods of fighting, the fundamental metric is honor. And there is nothing honorable about terrorism.
Yoni says at least 43 dead in Egypt, expects more:
Two Hotels, rumor is lots of British tourists.
No Israelis so far.
Check hewitt and radioblogger.
Aristides,
Ledger had some great posts earlier on Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaign across Japan:
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were dramatic, but paled in comparison in terms of damage and loss of life.
The last raid consisted of 823 B-29's, and not a single loss!
I think he said 225,000 lives lost in Tokyo...
The Belmont Club: June 2005.
He was replaced by Curtis Lemay after it became clear that his methods were notyielding results. Lemay embarked on a campaign of attacks on Japanese cities ...fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/ 2005_06_01_fallbackbelmont_archive.html - 256k -
PC Mandates that it REMAIN a Western Problem.
Eygpt oh no!
Call Gordon Pasha!
Mohammedan Terror strikes at the Union Jack once more -
the Mahdi Army marches Koran in hand!
Leaving British blood a soakin' the sand
Remember the River War!
The Opfor ain't never read Kipling
Where is Iron Pants Thatcher when ya need 'er
Rat,
You should take up model Helicopters.
You'd be the talk of the roundup.
Kind of a High Tech Blazing Saddles Campfire Scene, only this would be blazing s....
Done it that way as well, doug, I've been to Korea. There we used a diesel fuel and mogas to flame it up.
Sweet smell of success
You'll like this from Wretch's piece on LeMay, rat:
"Ledeen's boilerplate closing 'Faster. Please.' is less a demand for reckless adventure than a warning against stasis..."
Weren't those honeypot reservoirs fragrent?
The sweet smell of service on a mandatory march through the paddies.
Aristides: I agree with you in regards to the Clinton Litmus Test. That is just what I would call it. As a serving officer at the time, I would have followed orders to deploy to Bosnia or Kosovo but I would not have agreed with the policy for the reasons I gave. No one could explain to me why someone shooting his next door neighbor in a foreign country related to the Oath. Too much of that and you rip the guts out of the military. And on a normal day to day basis we have almost too much of it already, just due to the bureacracy (E.G. Lieutenant don't focus on getting those F-111's ready to go to Korea to stop a war; you first have to find out what happened to that Airman's $27 flight jacket). As a matter of fact, I recall that in 1999 Bill Clinton was asked by a reporter how he thought that members of the U.S. Military felt about being sent to war in Kosovo by someome who had never served, had expressed a loathing of the military, and who was being impeached. Clinton replied that the military were professionals and knew how to take orders, and they would. Now, that is the second part of the Oath; he dared not address the first part.
But if it takes a rather tortured explanation of why we are going into combat, everyone knows what that really means.
The other reason I would oppose such interventions is that their very nature prevents the military from being the military. If the mission was exterminate the Serbian Army, okay. Same thing in Africa. Break things and kill people. But it will not be that, because those who support such uses of armed force are invaribly very squeemish about using it. Which brings us to the third major reason: Since the objective is not to win, you will never ever be done and there will be those who will never be satisfied, no matter how successful you are. And those will almost certainly be the people who supported the intervention most strongly.
We are not the world's policeman. We are frequently the world's SWAT Team, by default. You don't use a SWAT Team to hand out parking tickets, not if you want to keep it.
Actually I was going to have the model Heli deliver the bag to the monument's helipad.
Boys and Toys.
Then there was the Clinton Cli.... Test...
Speaking of honor, this struck me as an incredibly powerful statement by Iraqi Prime Minister Al'Jafaari:
“We will not sway from our path and we will not kneel to those who commit these crimes.” He added, ”We are confident that all nations of this world stand beside us, because today terrorism does not only affect us Iraqis but the whole world. We Iraqis have the honor of being in the front line in the fight against terrorism."
Iraq lost 32 of its children last week in a terrorist attack, yet they still proudly proclaim the honor of the front line.
An amazing people, and deserving of our support.
Mao had it right
"The enemy advances, we retreat.
The enemy camps, we harass.
The enemy tires, we attack.
The enemy retreats, we pursue."
a. Afghanistan
b. London
c. Iraq
d. you tell me
aQ strategy, written by a master
An architect emailer to hewitt on hearing that an Italian architect (now dismissed) was paid 44 million (!) by the UN:
"I am frightened beyond belief to know they are where they are, controlling aspects of world socio - politics . You say this is a reality show in itself. I am astounded by the fact that i t is a scene replayed right out of Atlas Shrugged: A Capitalist dealing with Marxist on the level of parent mentoring infants. Could there be any more profound example of why Socialism does not work? I submit to you, that what you are playing illustrates the supremacy of America on the global stage like no other document in this century."
d. US under Democrat Leadership.
The documentary on Robert S. McNamara, "The Fog of War", has an excellent story about LeMay.
During bombing raids, LeMay noticed that a large percentage of the bombers never made it to the target. On inquiry, he found out that fear was leading these men to abandon the run before reaching target.
To fix this, he issued a statement saying that he would ride in the lead bomber on EVERY MISSION henceforth until the metrics of success matched up with the desired goal. Anybody who started the mission and did not make it to the target he would see to it personally that they were court-martialed.
After that, in 61 missions, not one man turned back before he reached the target.
As McNamara said, "That is how you lead men."
Hey, we lost Westmoreland, but I forgot to go back and finish the article.
to much trouble I think, rigging the bag for pick up and flight.
How many mirrors will I need? It is sunny most of the time, except when it's cloudy or dark, at night.
Westy was famous as a Colonel for leading from the front.
you do know the difference between the Boy Scouts and Westmoreland's Army, doug?
Maybe a metal washer at the top of the bag, and an electromagnet below the heli:
Heli Hovers over pad as mirrors (4) train on top of bag gathered below washer, bag melts, Heli returns to base next to your lawn chair.
uh, no.
mbarr
I am all for the Mohammedan world learning the "Duck and Cover"
Give 'em something new to think about
rwe: "No one could explain to me why someone shooting his next door neighbor in a foreign country related to the Oath. Too much of that and you rip the guts out of the military."
This I agree with wholeheartedly. It was not our business, and it was not our fight. America is exceptional because of the heroic sons and daughters she is able to produce. They are our most valuable resource, and Clinton's misty-eyed internationalism was not deserving of their sacrifice.
Boy Scouts had adult leadership
mbarr,
Think we may have discussed that here before:
Consensus was would never be done, would not work, etc.
Wretch cautions that if we don't take things more seriously now, worse things such as that are eventually inevitable.
Westmoreland was the original target of new age CBS campaign of fraudulent terror on all things American.
Think he eventually won in Court?
I thank him for that service.
The question then boils down to this:
Is Mohammedism a Global Movement that is a threat to the National Security of the US?
If the answer is YES, then intervention on some level in Bosnia, Sudan, Philipines, Iraq, Iran, Syrian, KSA, etc. could be justified.
If the answer is NO, than we should come home.
If the answer resides in some grey area then it should be better defined by our Government. Soon
Seems like when KSA and the rest of the area are no longer funding/manning global terror at such high levels, nature of GWOT changes somewhat.
Wretchard wrote, in the link Doug provided: "Only a small fraction of America's strength consists of direct military power and only a small fraction of that military power has been employed against the enemy. By any accounting, the US is still only fighting the War on Terror with its little finger. But it will require creative strategic thinking to mobilize and employ the untapped wellsprings of the nation's strength. US troops in Iraq are doing well. But the nation owes them better than use them to attrit the enemy."
I think this falls directly into line with 'Rat's analysis, and I agree. OIF is, and should, come to a close.
Dan,
My ideas about your question are at my 1:12 PM post.
The Opfor strikes or threatens to strike at all allied nation states, big and small, that do not fall in line. We allow terrorist Mohammedan states to wage war on defenseless women unmolested and claim to uphold the "honor" of the West and Liberal thought. Acquiescence to Evil holds no honor, whatever the reason for inaction.
C4: said... PoRk Rinds for Yahweh writes that in his opinion, anyone who attacks Israeli Occupation troops, armed Settlers, or defenseless civilians are - evil terrorists - as the Israeli regime claims, with no distinctions.
No, not quite, but I will say this: the arabs view all israeli's as someday solders so they believe that even a 6 month old is a "settler" worthy of a military kill...
I do say the arab world is in a state of war with israel, and if arab fighters attack israel then you can call them "resistance fighters" and according to the geneva convention if they hide among civilians they are committing a war crime and ISRAEL is allowed by international law to bomb them as such, without regard to civilian deaths...
c4:I put out my belief that American Indians attacking Forts, wagon trains, and Settlements were not necessarily evil terrorists, but people resisting Occupation and loss of their lands. Extending that, were the French, Norweigan, Polish, Yugoslavian, and Russian partisans resisting Nazi Occupation and Lebensraum policies - "evil terrorists"??? The Chinese or Filipino partisan resisting Japanese Occupation?
Nice point, with one small exception, the JEWS are the original owners of the land, just look at the q'ran, the torah or the new test... the jews are the owners of Jerusalem. the Jews have the ownership of hebron, nazerith or bethlehem, the Arabs are the most recent theives of the middle east, coming into the "middle east" from arabia they have stolen the lands of the kurds, the berbers, the coptics the Wayilah of Arabia to name a few...
last time i checked the disputed temple MOUNT, is the place where the 2 JEWISH temples stood... face facts, the arabs are the "invading occupation troops" the Jews are the "american indian" that refused to be murdered and driven off thier historic lands..
Dont it just bite your shorts to think the JEWS actually were in Historic "palestine" for THOUSANDS of years BEFORE Mohammed had his 1st erection for under age girls? Dont it bite your shorts to know that the arabs STOLE jewish lands of Medina? Dont it just bite your shorts that jews lived in iraq LONGER than Islam has existed? Dont it bite your shorts that the arab hoards are just nothing but modern day pirates of the middle east?
Who are the Berbers, the Coptics, the Kurds, the Wayilah? the JEWS? and why should thier legit rights to their historic lands be crushed by arab greed and historic distortion?
c4: That is why I believe you need narrower definitions of who a terrorist is or the descriptor becomes meaningless or worse, diluted so that no moral distinction (by Israelis and Palestinians for example) is seen between attacking an Army post and a school....
ok, i can dig that, no more labels, when the palestinians/new arrived arabs choose to attack in any way shape or form, israel should call it war and simple start fighting back like a war.. if the "palestinian resistance" shoots rockets at "settlements" the israel's should just shoot back, and carelessly fire back at the general direction of where the rockets/mortars came from..
c4: If it is all "evil terrorism," either nothing goes in resisting Occupation, or everything goes.
to compare the israeli occupation of disputed lands to nazi germany's occupation of lands is funny, tell ya what, the german's murdered 12 MILLION people in camps plus had roving bands of death squards, when Israel matches the number of dead palestinians by 10% i could see fairness in the comparision, so by my count since they have "killed" about 5 thousand in the last 2 "unofficial" uprisings, i figure israel needs to kill another 1,195,000 palestinians to meet my 10% goal, then they would be 10% nazis... As it stands now, the arabs, since they in fact supported the nazis in ww2 (arafat's uncle the grand mufti of jerusalem, was a good buddy of HITLER) are actually still fasicts. Bernard Lewis makes it clear, in last month's Foreign Affairs that the Arabs never had to give up thier love affair with "evil" death cults.
Group Claims Attacks; Experts Doubtful 22 Jul 2005 21:44 GMT... CAIRO, Egypt - The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, which ... cast doubt on the claims by the al-Qaida linked group, noting most are unsubstantiated and ...
"No one could explain to me why someone shooting his next door neighbor in a foreign country related to the Oath. Too much of that and you rip the guts out of the military."
Aristeds & rwe - you don't think Bush's goal of bringing democracy to the world whether they like it or not is a worthy use of the military?
Oops that link requires registration.
Peter: yes, the bloody border phenomenon.
The complicity of the MSM in justifiying aggression is nothing new. Churchill noticed the same thing when the MSM tried to tackle the German problem:
"The simple English were taught by the simple press to comfort themselves with the reflection: 'After all, the Germans are only going back to their own country. How should we feel if we had been kept out of, say, Yorkshire for ten or fifteen years?'"
And now it repeats, first as farce, but ultimately as tragedy.
desert rat said...
Again and again
"Ali el Babba is an Al Qaida". Oh no he is not, he is Taliban.
"Ali el Tikriti is Al Qaida". Oh no he is an Iraqi Insurgent
"Ali el Londoni is Al Qaida" Oh no he is a home grown loner.
Granted I have argued that for each different group there are different tactics and skill sets required in this war. There is, however, a overlay that encompasses them all. Islamic Radicalism.
My understanding was that Al Qaida is / was an umbrella group that was more an intellectual force than an active combat force. In Somalia they employed the local warlords, In Afghanistan the utilized the Taliban, in Egypt they are fronted by the Muslim Brotherhood, etc, etc, etc.
To a degree iotm is correct, the majority of the insurgents in Iraq are not imported fighters. Those that come incountry are the suiciders and kidnappers. If we can shut the Syrian border or in some other way discourage the Syrians from allowing the transit of these combatants the suicide bombing would drop off. The Sunni insurgency will be solved either politically or by blood. US prefers political solutions, I'm not sure that either the Sunni or Shia agree.
mbarr,
Yes, but I am a Paleo non PC type.
I also have little respect for those that profess great love for Mexicans as a good reason to allow the status quo wrt our borders/immigration policy, when what really is driving the status quo is corruption, decadence, and lawlessness.
Nahncee: no, Iraq war is much different, and, to my mind, completely justified. I was speaking specifically of Clinton's ill-advised excursions.
Bush never said he would bring democracy to the world militarily whether it wants it or not. Wretchard's analysis is pertinent to my point: "Only a small fraction of America's strength consists of direct military power and only a small fraction of that military power has been employed against the enemy."
Bush is defining posture, not a war plan. The distinction is enormous.
At least I'm consistent
Here is another people of the middle east screwed by the aof, (arab occupation forces)
http://www.aina.org/books/lpotme/lpotme.htm
The Lost Peoples Of The Middle East Documents of the Struggle for Survival and Independence of the Kurds,
Assyrians, and other Minority Races in the Middle East.
My Gaawd!
Rat's a Moti Supporter!
I think C4 is right, the AOF (arab occupation forces) are a legit military target, all peoples that are "occupied by them have the right to expel them! thank you C4 for teaching me that rightness of fighting the pirate hoards of "arabs"... I can see clearly now...
this from stratfor:
Egyptian Red Sea Bombings
Egypt: Red Sea Resort Bombings
At least two car bombs exploded in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh and nearby Naama Bay hotels resort area at around 1 a.m. local time July 23. Initial reports indicate at least 20 dead and more than 100 wounded.
The bombings come close on the heels of the July 7 and 21 London bombings and the July 22 Beirut bombing. Taken individually, each operation has local characteristics that appear separate from one another. Stepping back, however, it becomes clear that there is a global offensive under way by militant forces -- whether specifically arranged by a single core leadership or not.
We can no longer ignore a global upsurge of operations by al Qaeda and like-minded militants. The U.S. and international offensive against al Qaeda and other Islamist militants is now facing a widespread counterattack; further attacks will follow.
Egypt: Al Qaeda Prime Red Sea Bombing Suspect
Five -- perhaps as many as seven -- explosions rocked the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh on July 22. So far, reports indicate that at least 30 people have died and more than 110 have been wounded.
The large-scale coordination of the attacks and the targeting of resorts where a large number of Westerners -- particularly Israelis, Europeans and Arabs -- vacation signals the work of al Qaeda prime supported by a local jihadist group in Egypt. Local affiliated groups have not struck in such a significant attack since the Luxor attacks of 1997. Sunny weather, clear blue water and coral reefs draw European and Israeli tourists to resorts in the Sharm el-Sheikh area. The area, on the tip of the Sinai Peninsula, is one of the few parts of the Egyptian tourist industry that did not suffer from the effects of the November 1997 Luxor attack, which killed 34 people and injured more than 100. Although it was not hit hard by the Luxor attacks, it certainly will suffer a good degree of economic backlash following the bombings. The most likely suspect is a revived Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which has been affiliated with al Qaeda since 1998 and has been headed by al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.
The bombings are the bloodiest such incident since 34 people, including several Israeli tourists, were killed in triple bombings against Taba and two other Sinai resorts last October. Although al Qaeda has succeeded in inciting a decent degree of backlash from Islamist circles for the recent crackdowns in Europe since the July 7 London bombings, the level of coordination required for this attack indicates this was planned far in advance.
Sharm al-Sheikh is seen as the place where the Arab leaders are viewed by radical Islamists as conspiring against the Arab/Muslim countries with the West and Israel, as it is a location of many high-level summits, some of which have focused primarily on counter-terrorism efforts.
Send questions or comments on this article to
analysis@stratfor.com.
C4: "I put out my belief that American Indians attacking Forts, wagon trains, and Settlements were not necessarily evil terrorists, but people resisting Occupation and loss of their lands."
At the risk of being pulled into an interminable and unrewarding discussion, I do not think this statement is accurate, and I do not think it does justice to reality.
Indians were barbarians, they lived barbaric lives, and they fought in barbaric ways. To say that they were "people resisting an occupation" is to equate civilization and barbarism, something I could never do. The easy test is to ask yourself if anything about the Indian way leads you to believe that this particular culture would have created antiseptics, antibiotics, and anesthesia.
If not, it deserved to go, and good riddance.
. There is an ancient tradition in the Mahommedan world telling of a mysterious being, the last in succession of the twelve holy Imams, who, untouched by death and withdrawn into the recesses of a mountain, was destined, at the appointed hour, to come forth again among men. His title was the Mahdi, the guide; some believed that he would be the forerunner of the Messiah; others that he would be Christ himself.
---
Rat's link: Wonder what Carridine would say about this?
exactly right Aristides, we are in a conflict of great consequence but little seriousness. Initially I had thought we were engaged in a 'Global War' a 'Clash of Civilizations' or call it what you will. I thought that a military campaign would be short and decisive. That the Opfor, Baathist Terror States would be taken down, but no. We stopped at the border and created a 21st Century Parrots's Beak.
We could be mobilizing Kurdish allies in Iran and Syria, but no.
We could be cracking down on wahabbi instruction in US prisons, but no. We are creating our own home grown 'citizen' terrorists in US prisons as we write and read.
There is no serious Global War on Terror and there is definately no War against Mohammedism. If there was we would be on a different course.
We seem to be trying to influence the Middle East with a maximum of rhetoric and a minimum of blood.
I hope we are successful, if not the War we keep talking about could find it's way to the party.
That is not a thing to be hoped for. It is to be feared, by all concerned.
doug
even a broken clock is right twice a day
Not a 24 hour clock.
C4: once one Palestinian is labeled a terrorist, all must be labeled so Bolshevik-style, and of course, any negotiation with terorists would be Munich-style appeasement. How convenient a way to avoid addressing the grievances of the people of an Occupied Land!
interesting:
one father, two sons, ishmael, isaac
one son has: 6,145,389 square miles (22 nations)
one son has: 0,008,463 square miles ( 1 nation)
the USA has: 3,787,318 square miles
one son has: 300,000,000 family members
one son has 006,500,000 family members
the son who has 6,145,380 square miles wants the 2,270 miles of the west bank & the 140 square miles of the gaza...
just who is greedy?
c4: you are most definitely correct that terrorism is poorly defined, and that the Marxist inversion of language is alive and well in the jihadist movement.
However, war is more than just politics by other means. It is an evolutionary struggle between organizing principles, a power play for those who wish to control the environment.
Our organizing principles are superior to all others so far. However, terrorism is the Tonya Harding school of competitive advantage. Instead of the work, and the effort, and the superior organization that it takes to compete in a globalized, resource-centric world, terrorism tries to bypass the rules of evolution by hiring a shadowy figure to take out your kneecaps.
The United States is superior only because of her excellent organizing principles: life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness. Terrorism is a virus, a common cold. It is an attack of weakness on power, of failure on success. That is your international standard.
Unfortunately, that particular pill seems to be too sour for the West to swallow. It seems we will have to wait for the IV.
opps, I almost forgot the nubians and the kushites... both people under the heavy boot of the aof (arab occupation forces).. darn what was i thinking!!!
mbarr,
Some are faking it, and some, like me, can't even pull that off.
Atta's dad's prediction was correct, and he got to see it as he wished, ...in his own country.
WhAtta Guy.
Atta Senior must also have been radicalized by our presence in Iraq:
Right after 9-11, he said his angelic son was not involved.
c4: I agree, there is no guarantee that any of the cultures--European, Asian, or Indian--had to be first, but I am sure you agree that the thoughts behind scientific progress, the idea of empirical study and falsification, had to precede any discovery of the sort I mentioned.
It then becomes, not a racial thing, but a cultural thing. Anthony Lister, a Scotsman, discovered antiseptic. Alexander Fleming, a Scotsman, discovered antibiotics. James Young Simpson, a Scotsman, discovered the surgical use of anesthesia.
You even imply the answer: "The Spanish were brutal. The English could be but were at times accomodating and legalistic. The French did best as they wanted a trading network that used tribes as the procurers of goods for trade." Spanish were brutal, French opportunistic, English accomodating and legalistic.
You must understand that it is the cultural relics of Whiggism that has steered America, with all of her racial diversity, towards success and preeminence. Britain became powerful because of her scepticism, but her class snobbery led her astray. America improved and eliminated the class struggle and now sits astride the world.
Evolution is our power. Others compete on those terms, or they perish.
Cefart,
You seem to think that only one party has territorial grievances here. Why would that be?
c4: "But if you look at it objectively, in the absence of a treaty, any people will resist an occupier."
This is true and I can't argue with it. All mammals guard their territory.
But to what effect? I know I am going out into the hinterlands of political correctness, but would you trade the air-conditioned, scheduled, pacified existence you have now for a more authentic Viking, Nordic, Gaulic, Teutonic (or whatever race you hail from) existence?
Hobbes wrote that violent death was the worst of all fears. This fear is the driving force behind civilization and cooperation, the foundation of morality (the art of living together). If you follow this foward, you will see that civilization become a very precise form of memetic evolution where humans progressively accept stock illusions in order to avoid the ever-present Hobbsian natural death.
Compared to Western Civ., other civilizations just don't measure up.
As a side note, this simple assertion is what makes the heroes of the American military, who willingly put their lives on the line for an ideal, so deserving of our praise, and our honor.
FrontPageMag.com has posted Wretchard's 'The Second Wave of London Attacks' on its War Blog.
The amazing thing is that Cedarford's comments are also posted.
"Given that the Palestinians don't have jet fighters, they only have their bodies to use as weapons. In that unfair balance, that's what people use. When talking about the imbalance of forces, I will gladly welcome leading members of the Israeli government if they come here even though they have done horrendous things which border on crimes against humanity in a way they have indiscriminately slaughtered men, women and children in the West Bank and Gaza for decades.
I think the Israeli hardliners around Likud and Hamas are two sides of the same coin, they need each other to drum up support."
Oh wait. Sorry those aren't Cedarford's comments. They were made by London Mayor Ken Livingstone. Oh well, one good anti-Semite deserves another.
Cedarford would like us to force a negotiated settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Perhaps he would like to handle the details of rapproachment vis-a-vis article 11 of the Hamas Charter.
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have the right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations , be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection.
Who can presume to speak for all Islamic generations to the Day of Resurrection? This is the status (of the land) in Islamic Shari'a, and it is similar to all lands conquered by Islam by force, and made thereby Waqf lands upon their conquest, for all generations of Muslims until the Day of Resurrection. This (norm) has prevailed since the commander of the Muslim armies completed the conquest of Syria and Iraq , and they asked the Caliph of Muslims, Umar Ibn al-Khattab, for his view of the conquered land, whether it should be partitioned between the troops or left in the possession of its population, or otherwise.
Article 2 is also of interest as it states Hamas' relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood.
Article Two - THE LINK BETWEEN HAMAS AND THE ASSOCIATION OF MUSLIM BROTHERS
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine...
Perhaps C4 could get some suggestions for negotiating from the Muslim Brotherhood. After all, they've been here in the US for quite some time, working hard to enlarge the Dar al-Islam.
In any case he'd better hurry. It looks like the good will established at Sharm el-Sheik is wearing thin.
From FoxNews.com
"CAIRO, Egypt — As many as seven blasts ripped through the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheik (search) in the early hours of Saturday morning, killing at least 45 people and injuring 200 more, security officials said...The dead in the Sharm blasts included British, Russian, Dutch, Kuwaitis, Saudis, Qataris and Egyptians, a security official said."
Post a Comment
<< Home