Sunday, July 24, 2005

Who Goes There?

The reactions of Stephen Hadley and Frances Townsend to the London bombings in a New York Times signed article entitled "What We Saw in London" (hat tip: DL) emphasizes the ideological aspect of the War on Terror to such a degree that it is doubtful whether the traditional meaning of the word "war" can cover the case.

Muslims are the prize the terrorists hope to claim. They are also the victims of the terrorists, for suicide attacks have likely killed and wounded more Muslims than people of any other faith. ...

We have waged such wars before, and we know how to win them. Of course, every ideological war is different, and each presents new challenges. ...

First and most important, we must have a clear understanding of the ideology espoused by the enemy. ... The second important lesson flows directly from the first. An ideological contest can be a long and difficult one. Even bankrupt ideas have attracted followers for a time. And in making our case, we must overcome America's mixed record on supporting freedom in the Middle East. For too long we accepted a false bargain that promised stability if we looked the other way when democracy was denied. ... The third lesson is that the struggle against terrorism requires force of arms, but will not be won through force of arms alone. The victory in World War II was not complete until the Marshall Plan secured Germany's democratic political future. In the fight against Communism, our armed forces deterred the enemy. ...

Of course, Hadley and Townsend don't think so -- "we have waged such wars before, and we know how to win them". They are certainly correct about the Civil War, the Great War and the Second War being ideological struggles in historical hindsight. But only in hindsight. The issues of those wars were presented to their participants in stark racial or national terms; it was helpful but not absolutely essential to "have a clear understanding of the ideology espoused by the enemy" to fight Hitler. The Second World War soldier donned a uniform expecting to fight the enemy and counted on being sent home after he had done it. Only the Cold War required the ambiguity inherent in the present struggle against terror. When Douglas MacArthur declared "In war there is no substitute for victory" after being sacked by Truman, who feared he would too aggressively fight the Red Chinese, it was a cry of astonishment rather than a statement of fact. His chiefs had found a substitute for victory and it was called stability. When William Westmoreland died on July 18, newspaper obituaries remarked that he "never admitted the US military had lost the longest war in its history", probably because he never understood that his concept of war, as well as defeat and victory, had been altered by the political culture of the 50s and 60s. You were not allowed to win but you were allowed to lose. Ronald Reagan's achievement was that he reintroduced the concept of victory into the Cold War, from which, or so the Left believes, all the present evils of the world descend, including Islamism.

But OK. Hadley and Townsend are correct: America has waged ideological war before, and courtesy of Ronald Reagan, learned how to win them. This time things may be a little harder. One of the "new challenges" facing the Global War on Terror is asserting it exists. The Daily Telegraph describes how:

British diplomats are putting heavy pressure on the United Nations finally to make good its promise to devise an unequivocal definition and condemnation of terrorism. ... International efforts to write a global anti-terror treaty have been at an impasse since 1996, bogged down in the UN's legal committee as member states wrangle over the definition of terrorism. The legal committee will hold a fresh round of informal negotiations this week to move the pact forward.

Even though Mr Annan had pledged that the reforms, due to emerge from a UN summit this autumn, would include a "no-excuses" definition of terrorism, new doubts arose after delegates from Middle Eastern and Islamic countries began to demand compromises. ... recent debate has stalled on the classification of Palestinian suicide bombers and Israeli action in the West Bank and Gaza, with some countries questioning whether the definition would apply to the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. ... Mr Annan said that he had "not given up hope" that the UN would be able to define terrorism. "I think a clear, simple definition that gets across the message that the killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants, regardless of one's cause, is terrorism pure and simple, will suffice," he said.

If MacArthur and Westmoreland had difficulty getting authorization to "win" in some military sense, current commanders face a more basic problem: getting recognition that their nation and much of the world is at war against an enemy which cannot -- witness Mr. Annan's difficulties -- actually be named. If the key to winning the Cold War proved to be Reagan's willingness to entertain the hope of victory, the key to winning the Global War on Terror may simply be a willingness to identify the foe. It's a start anyway.


Blogger John said...

Here's the problem:

"I think a clear, simple definition that gets across the message that the killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants, regardless of one's cause, is terrorism pure and simple, will suffice," he said.

Under this definition, lots of military action would be considered terrorism.

7/24/2005 06:03:00 AM  
Blogger NooYawkah said...

I think it's a matter of intent. Not to excuse any loss of civilian life, my thought is that the "intentional killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants..." defines terrorism.

7/24/2005 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Kofi left out that one's main goal is the killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants for the purpose of creating terror.
Don't be too harsh on the poor guy, he's got a remodel in NY City on his mind.

7/24/2005 06:46:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

According to The Laura Ingraham Show, within an hour after the latest unpleasantness in London, the "T" word had been completely replaced by *bombers*, and there was not ONE mention of Islamic Terrorists Or Islamic Bombers, throughout the day.
Later, CNN began to follow suit.
I fully expect a resurgence in Irish Terror to occur since the feelings of the Irish are REGULARLY inflamed by the indiscriminate use of terms like Irish Republican Army, and etc.
The blood will be on the hands of the unfeeling, uncaring, INCORRECT media when this occurs.

7/24/2005 06:53:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

It isn't terrorism that needs defining,it is the enemy,so far there have been wishy washy euphemisms such as WoT or an unsatisfactorially all encompassing al Qaeda.
What is never mentioned is that we are in conflict with a creed that requires its adherents to take up arms against the other.To what extent this affects all the believers and can be triggered at any time is the main problem,we simply don't know.
Defining terror is not to our advantage since it it is obvious from the outset that the legal definition wil be so loose or so narrow as to be useless.

7/24/2005 06:54:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Annan: Egypt Blasts Violate Kyoto Protocols
by Scott Ott
(2005-07-23) -- Although the United Nations lacks a consensus definition of 'terrorism' and has no substantive anti-terror program, Secretary-General Kofi Annan today said that yesterday's bombings in Sharm El Sheik, Egypt, that killed more than 85 people, may violate the Kyoto protocols on climate change.
"The global concept of terrorism is hazy and subjective," said Mr. Annan, "but almost everyone agrees that blowing such a quantity of smoke, debris and blood-borne pathogens into our atmosphere is an unmitigated evil."
. Scrappleface

7/24/2005 06:58:00 AM  
Blogger oldefogey said...

Well, nine years trying to define “terrorism” and still counting. Maybe we ought to ask the UN to define “torture” while they’re at it. Who bets that it doesn’t include requiring prisoners to wear underwear on their heads.

Isn’t it amazing that media types can not use the word “terrorist” so as to not inflame the “insurgents” but can label any action by the administration as “fascism” or “torture” or “inhuman”?

7/24/2005 07:01:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Peter says,
"What is never mentioned is that we are in conflict with a creed that requires its adherents to take up arms against the other.To what extent this affects all the believers and can be triggered at any time is the main problem,we simply don't know."
It is never mentioned for a reason: (and you should not have made that post)
All believers have hair triggers and all our focus and effort must be devoted to not wiggling that trigger with anything that MIGHT be offensive to them.
Although anyone living through WWII would "know" this is pure HogWash, we now know better, and know that this is a very special religion that requires very special treatment.
(it has nothing to do with OUR new Religion of PC NonThink, ...Trust Me.)
...Please delete your offensive post:
It could cause Mass Casualties.

7/24/2005 07:08:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Please delete YOUR post also:
The administration, as everyone knows, is a bunch of BARBARIANS.
We obviously have different standards for them than for our oh so sensitive Enemy.

7/24/2005 07:12:00 AM  
Blogger niall said...

Like everything else produced by the UN, a definition of terrorism will be useless at best because that august body is a manifestation of the multicultural ideal that weighs all views, well except for those of the US and Israel, as equal. Therefore any definition will reflect not a desire to identify a particular behavior as vile and intolerable but rather a particular political stance which reflects the current interests of the dictatorships and thugocracies which compose the majority of its members.

7/24/2005 07:13:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Peter and oldefogey are perfect examples of how inSENSITIVE we have become toward our enemies.
This is a result of a deliberate plan by our leaders to desensitize us to the humanity of the "other," so as to enable them to carry out their evil plans.
Don't fall for it!
Just follow Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi's instructions and feel the love.

7/24/2005 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

I never once mentioned the Democrats.

There is some interesting information via Dan Darling at Winds of Change about the al Qaeda connection

7/24/2005 07:28:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"...a clear sign that Osama bin Laden and his deputies remain in control of the network, according to interviews with counterterrorism analysts and government officials in Europe and the Middle East."
Boy, Peter's link provides the PROOF that Cowboy George has horsewhipped the media into SUBMISSION!
Sure glad our enemies aren't so mean.

7/24/2005 07:36:00 AM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

One of the causes of the failure of our political culture to define radical Islam as the enemy is their success at devaluing western culture,Judeo Christian values,capitalism and our democratic traditions.
In the fever swamp minds of the post modern leftists Islamic fundamentalism can't be condemned because that would imply superiority in our core western values.We can't have that as we've known since the hallowed 1960's that America is the root of all evil in the world.To fail to understand and sympathize with Arab rage smacks of colonialism.

7/24/2005 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger Red River said...


Reagan faced Communism in a smaller theater during his younger years - in Hollywood. The stakes were personal and shots were fired near him, yet he stood up and went into Union politics in order to stop the Communists. After his victory - and it was one - he had time to think and to clarify his views. He then was governor of California and learned how to get things done in conventional American politics. The stage was set ofr his vicotry over Global Communism.

TO win the GWOT, a man or woman must have the same trajectory - either professionally or morally. The internal compass must be trued before it can be used.

I think that first we must face the internal contradictions in our own beliefs.

I dont think its right to shout Jihad in a crowded theater. The imams who promote this should be shot on sight - they must suffer the same fate as the foot soldiers. Freedom os speech only applies to the sane.

Second, we need to stop believing in redemption. It will not occur in most cases. The West needs to stop being co-dependent on the rest of the world. If someone is a killer, then they need to die - there is no redemption possible.

7/24/2005 07:40:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Very loving of you to bring up the hallowed 60's, Trang.
We have been delivered from Evil thanks to the sacrifices of the Heroic Protestors of that Era.

7/24/2005 07:42:00 AM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

doug, peter -- isn't the entire perspective proffered by this WaPo agitprop piece (i.e "we're all doomed!") balanced on the head of a pin in the shape of the opinion of a single Saudi ambassador? i know you guys have a low opinion of lawyers, but the journalistic art would sure benefit from application of legal analytical method -- such as the need to provide a proper foundation, admissible evidence, and rational non-overreaching conclusions therefrom.

7/24/2005 07:45:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Red River:
Have you read Reagan's War?
I love this:
" Second, we need to stop believing in redemption. It will not occur in most cases. The West needs to stop being co-dependent on the rest of the world. If someone is a killer, then they need to die - there is no redemption possible."
...we've trusted and verified, and they have repeatedly come up short.

7/24/2005 07:47:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hugh Hewitt and his friends are rapidly changing my opinion of legal minds.
That guy is a WMD in terms of consuming and analysing data!

7/24/2005 07:49:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

...and Roberts just may cause the final meltdown of the Dems:
The PERFECT Weapon.

7/24/2005 07:50:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

part of the problem is the allowing of the islamic world to simply put, be rasict...

in iraq, the new iraqi bill of rights states that anyone can become an iraqi, except an israeli

if we allow this to go forward, without protest, they are simply setting up the "NEW" iraq to demonize "israelis" as subhumans, thus nothing would have changed....

it's the canary in the mines folks, unless "jews" and "israelis" are treated with the same civil rights in the arab world, you will never have civil rights for all minorities, in iraq:

Jews Not the Right Kind of Minority to Get Protection

There's a dispute going on in Iraq as to whether Jews should be defined as a minority or not. The group of Iraqi lawmakers that don't want to extend legal protections to Jews have a powerful argument on their side: there aren't enough Jews for them to be a minority. Jews apparently don't qualify as a minority because they're too much of a minority:

"There have been suggestions that when it comes to minority rights, we specify who are the minorities," Saad Jawad Qindeel, a Shi'ite member said in a phone call from Baghdad. "They [the Iraqi Jews] should not be included as a minority because their number is too small."
Qindeel [is] also the head of the political bureau of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq...

"According to the UN international convention defining minorities, there must be a minimum number," said Qindeel. "The Jews are fewer than that number. I think there are only 60."
There are in fact fewer than 20 Jews remaining in Iraq, all of them in Baghdad.

The reason that there are no more Jews in Iraq is because about 100,000 of them got expelled during the 1940s for being Jewish.


I guess those 100,000 refugees whose families had been in iraq for over 2200 yrs dont count as victims to C4

7/24/2005 07:56:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

There you go again, focused on C4.
In doing so, you left out that women, who had been there prior to the Jews, also got the shaft of Sharia - local style.

7/24/2005 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Jews are a "special" minority:
...Like WASP Males in the USA.

7/24/2005 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

Doug said...
Pork, There you go again, focused on C4.
In doing so, you left out that women, who had been there prior to the Jews, also got the shaft of Sharia - local style.

Doug, i thought that women had the right to vote and were in actual % of population not a minority..

however islamic treatment of women is not what I would call fun....

7/24/2005 08:02:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

We no longer meet the numerical requirements either,
...since most of us have been deballed.

7/24/2005 08:03:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Yeah, what I heard is they are Subject To "Local Tribal Customs" or some such.
(Think I'd take my chances as a Jew heading for the hills over being buried to my waist awaiting the (Perfectly Sized) rocks.)

7/24/2005 08:06:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

...meanwhile half the WASPS here have forgotten what it's like to HAVE rocks!

7/24/2005 08:07:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

This is probably better read in the context of Darling's piece here
I would agree that all of this stuff needs analysing,the problem being that it is the only information freely available.
My view is that the seeds of Jihad are already there and that some only need the call,entities such as al Qaeda know this which is why operations like the London bombing
can be set up undetected.

7/24/2005 08:13:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

Yeah, what I heard is they are Subject To "Local Tribal Customs" or some such.
(Think I'd take my chances as a Jew heading for the hills over being buried to my waist awaiting the (Perfectly Sized) rocks.)

very amazing, i bet most people dont know how large and successful it's population in bavel was and how long it enjoyed great human rights... only after islam came to bavel did it slide to what we have now... it took 1300 years to get here, i wonder will it take them 1300 yrs to pull thier heads out?

7/24/2005 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

And Steve Emerson documented on scene in the mosques here, on videotape, in 1994, that that is the case here also.
...but since then most of us, and almost all of our "leaders" have acted like the 3 monkeys at the Gates of Vienna.

7/24/2005 08:17:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Is there a Bavel for Dummies, or equivalent?

7/24/2005 08:19:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

An ideological contest can be a long and difficult one. Even bankrupt ideas have attracted followers for a time. And in making our case, we must overcome America's mixed record on supporting freedom in the Middle East. For too long we accepted a false bargain that promised stability if we looked the other way when democracy was denied. ...

Friday Sermon By Leading Saudi Imam Al-Sudayyis in Mecca: "Oh Allah, Liberate Our Al-Aqsa Mosque... Punish the Occupying Zionists and Their Supporters Among The Corrupt Infidels... Oh Allah, Scatter and Disperse Them"

the more that changes the more that stays the same..

the islamic world speaks from both sides of it's mouths...

7/24/2005 08:22:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

The New Order of the Forked Tongue.
The PC Primitives.

7/24/2005 08:24:00 AM  
Blogger StoutFellow said...

I see that no one has yet offered a name for the enemy which Wretchard says would be a start toward winning the Global War on Terror. In the previous thread, I argued that those who fight for the establishment of the Global Caliphate constitute a Distributed Nation. A nation that lives insided many different nation states and whose allegiance is to the religious ideology created by Mohammed and not to the states in which they reside.

"In point of fact they are all from the same Nation, namely the Nation of Islam. The Nation of Islam is a distributed nation, whose population congregates in many different nation states. Many become citizens of the those nation states, but it is citizenship in name only. Their true allegiance remains with the totalitarian Nation that was founded by the prophet Mohammed who mandated world domination by force."

I must now come up with a different name for the distributed nation that longs and fights for the Global Caliphate, because the name Nation of Islam is probably copyrighted and refers a group of Muslims in the US. Whether or not some members of this organization support the goal of the Global Caliphate, I do not know.

Many of us use the name Islamo-fascism for the ideology of the head-whacking, suicide-bombing, childen-killing Muslims who fight for the Global Caliphate. The problem with this name is that it lumps all Muslims into a single category and leaves no room for the reformation of Islam from within. A better name might be Radical-Islam (also used by many here). This implies that there is a non-radical form of Islam which could constitute the reformed version of the religion. The reformation must include abandonment of a number a features of the religion ( which of course is more than a religion, namely a totalitarian theocratic society, one of whose norms requires the export of its totalitarian ideology by force of arms). The reformation will require losing, among other things, the mandate for global domination, the concept of the Waqf, the prescribed subjugation of people belonging to other religions (Jews, Christians), and many other medieval practices of Shar'ria e.g the stoning and mutilation of women.

The bottom line is the West must state that the problem is with Islam, not just with generic terror. That latter is the method of waging war (not the ideology), which is also used by other ideologies e.g. the FARC in South America (who I believe are Marxists?). However, our leaders must state clearly that the big war we face is with Radical-Islam.

7/24/2005 08:28:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

the arab world doesnt like to include "resistance to occupation" as terrorism, i e palestinian suicide bombers are not terrorists since they are attacking "settlers" (regardless that the settler is a 6 month old or a pregnant mother to be) we should embrace the islamic version of the proported terrorism definition..

resistance to occupation forces are not terrorism...

resisitance to occupation by the ARABS is not terrorism

it's time to arm the kurds, the berbers, the coptics, the indignous peoples of arabia, and yes the "arab - jews" and teach them to murder as the islamic world does and remind them that according to the UN it's not a crime...

7/24/2005 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

"They [the Iraqi Jews] should not be included as a minority because their number is too small."

Huh? Is it really permissable (logically or otherwise?) to argue that a minority should not be protected because it is too much of a minority? Is that not just another way of saying some people don't count? The Iraqis should carefully consider where such a philosophy will eventually lead them.

The may wish to consider Martin Neimoller's immortal words:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

7/24/2005 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

Many note the 'political' alliance between main-stream-media and the terrorists, but the revenue generating relationship generally goes unnoticed. In return for staging exciting 'news events' that sell vast amounts of advertising, the terrorists get a host of payoffs, in particular, free global broadcast of their blackmail demands. Just think of al-Qaeda as a low budget 'reality TV show'. Hollywood doesn't have to carry the production costs, al-Qaeda gets their payoff in terms of blackmail paid directly by governments.

The 'you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' relationship between terrorist and media executive is well established. Consider international competition (Hollywood makes more money offshore than in the US), and it's obvious that the MSM must appeal to the lowest common denominator, and that is 'hate authority' (currently playing as 'hate Bush'). That's the default view of a majority of non-Americans and about 30% of Americans. The market must be honored. If Hollywood doesn't sell to this market, al-Jazeera and the BBC will happily collect the revenues.

Additionally, when the terrorists stage their media events and murder vast numbers of their neighbors, the demand to attract eyeballs encourages TV producers to generalize the slaughter. It isn't the terrorist's nieces and nephews getting burnt alive, it is YOUR niece and nephew. The raw terror is air-brushed to sell more ads.

To complete the circle, growing up on this diet of murder-for-fame produces a rich harvest of recruits willing to stage the next media-event and mass-murder.

If we can ignore the adrenaline rush kicked off by watching tonight's 'murder for TV' event, we would see the name of the game is really blackmail. Resurrecting the caliphate is just a media front for the media smart gangster. You don't think al-Qaeda controls the opium trade out of Afghanistan?

If we want to win the war on terror, we must break this viscous alliance between murders and the media.

7/24/2005 08:44:00 AM  
Blogger sirius_sir said...

Wretchard said, "the key to winning the Cold War proved to be Reagan's willingness to entertain the hope of victory..."

We should of course remember that Reagan did much more than just 'hope' for victory. He actively sought it and disregarded the naysayers who insisted all along the way that he was a dangerous know-nothing fool and imbecile. (So if that criticism sounds familiar, there it is.)

7/24/2005 09:04:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

re: naming the war.

First, we assume (know?) that the war we are in is primarily ideological. What, then, is ideology?

Robert Young writes:

"The concept of ideology refers to legitimation and to the intrusion of values into putative facts. At a deeper level, it refers to how frameworks get constituted and how criteria for acceptable conclusions get established on the basis of value systems or world views. There are two particular concepts at work here. One is social location or interest group; the other is power. Ideologies reflect social locations and serve established or aspiring powers."

The framework for ideology itself permeates our existence; the scientific revolution, for instance, was awash in "sub rosa" themes that were "pervasive but often implicit." One of the most significant ideological shifts during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the replacement of Aristotelian "final causes" with Newtonian mechanical philosophy. Until this revolution in ideology, the idea of "a teleological cosmos in which all things had a final purpose, (namely, to realise their implicit perfection) [wikipedia def. final cause]" was simply assumed as fact. We no longer see the cosmos as moving towards a set point, no longer believe in a predetermined narrative, and this fundamental shift played a large part in mid-wifing Western Civilization.

If we stop here, we might register a question pertinent to our original task: was the shift towards mechanical philosophy contingent or non-contingent on the pre-existence of a teleological framework of the mind? In this equation, does A have to come before we can get to B? The answer to this question poses vast implications to the ideological war we are expecting to win.

And it is here where most of our questions will lie. Did Christianity have to come before Enlightenment? Did England have to come before Locke? Is there something special, and exclusive, about the geneology of our ideals that cannot be transmuted to another geneology?

And furthermore, if we are to accept an organic paradigm for ideological evolution, we most certainly must accept a Darwinian selective paradigm for ideological interaction. This assumption also poses questions, and problems.

Dawkins believes that evolution favors strategies that allow an organism's genes to survive and propagate. Starting at the level of the gene, evolution can be thought of primarily as an "arms race" between "gene vehicles", with the goal the continued existence of those genes.

Therefore, ideology can be thought of as the memetic evolutionary strategy as opposed to the biological. Humans won the evolutionary arms race by substituting thought and ideology for biological weakness. A great example of this is the helplessness of the human baby relative to other mammalian newborns. Most of the development of the child, that which allows it to survive, takes place oustide the realm of biology.

Therefore, the history of culture is the history of ideology writ large. Culture has an evolutionary value insofar as it encourages the progagation of our genes, and the presence of more than one culture makes the evolutionary value of one culture co-dependant on the values of all others. When one culture or another becomes parasitic or predatory on the others, endangering the health of the cultural ecosystem and thereby the propagation of gene vehicles, the response is an immunological one. The co-dependant cultures swarm the invader, and to the victor goes the spoils.

This history of warfare then becomes the history of ideological evolution and in a very real sense a history of Dawkinian arms races. The ideology that allows, that tolerates, the greatest amount of gene vehicles and can organize them for its own defense will win the evolutionary battle. The strategy that maximizes cooperation and organization will take the field and win the war.

So, when trying to figure out what to call this war, is it not paramount to discover under what banner the largest number will fight? The difficulty lies in rallying all free, cooperative and tolerant ideologies under one slogan, one war-cry.

We might as well accept that Islam will have to be incorporated under this banner. We also might as well accept that the Left will have to be incorporated as well. What we cannot do is artificially limit our allies for the sake of our tepid sensibilities. For all those who wish to live and let live are in a battle to the death with murderous intolerance. Even if they do not know it, it is their fight, too.

So, what do we call it? What would be a clarion call for action across the broad spectrum of life-affirming individuals?

It is not easy, is it?

7/24/2005 10:03:00 AM  
Blogger Unknown said...

George, why did you chop down the cherry tree?

Father, I cannot tell a lie. Yes, I chopped down the tree. The meme made me do it.

7/24/2005 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Wretchard ends his piece, "...a willingness to identify the foe." But the reader instantly notes that Wretchard has tap-danced through the whole essay without ever identifying the ideology he (and everyone else) is talking about.

"Muslims are the prize the terrorists hope to claim ..."
It seems to me that if 1 in 4 British Muslims actively support the bombings, and by their mute and supportive sympathy, the majority of other Muslims are doing *nothing* except issuing mildly-worded condemnations, then we should get down to brass-tacks and identify the ideology is Islam itself.

Not Islamo-fascists, nor jihadists, nor mujahadeen, nor radical-Islam -- but Islam in and of itself. And, therefore, all Muslims.

The Islam that has come down from the dawn of time, that is strictly memorized from the Koran and even more strictly enforced from the imams' pulpits, and by religious police in places like Saudi Arabia. We keep being told that Islam is a "religion of peace", and that "Muslims don't commit suicide", and that "terrorism is not a part of Islam"

And, demonstrably, all of this is false. And has been false for quite a long time, now. Until we draw in a long breath, gird our loins and look it straight in its murderous eyes to identify the "ideology" we are fighting as Islam as it is currently constituted around the globe, we will be fighting a blinkered war, ignoring the gyrating gesticulating demons dancing their mad murderous reality in our peripheral vision.

And, if we *did* say the "ideology is Islam and all Muslims are our enemies if they buy into that thinking" ... what's the worst that could happen? They'll get angry and start blowing us up?

7/24/2005 10:23:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...

Under this definition, lots of military action would be considered terrorism.

6:03 AM

Right you are, john.

If we look (and I think we should) at the present search for a mutually agreeable definition of terrorism as part of the centuries-old effort in the West to proscribe the conduct of belligerents, then we need keep in mind the potential for this to further weaken or confuse our own efforts, or to foreclose future options.

"(W)hat we might might term a uniform moral code in warfare is going to be disadvantageous to the weak only if they refuse to exploit the opportunities it gives to them to limit the conduct of the strong."

Arthur C. Danto,
On Moral Codes and Modern War

And it cannot be said often enough: Mass-casualty terrorism is not the enemy. It is merely one of the tools the enemy has chosen to employ in his war against us.

7/24/2005 10:29:00 AM  
Blogger Adam Sullivan said...

Reagan also identified the enemy in stark terms - fundamental to pushing the idea of victory.

The term "Evil Empire" made the western press gasp and then condemn the simpleton cowboy in the White House. Reagan pushed past this and got the American people on board.

The first line that one must battle through in order to win an ideological war is that of the media. The media were unprepared to take down the charismatic and affable Reagan under Mike Deaver's staging and direction.

The media are much more adept these days, and I doubt Bush will ever get past them and will not have the opportunity to pull of a stark identification of the enemy as Islamofascist.

Meanwhile, the media continues with a mantra of "If it bleeds, it leads" and provides the ideal promotion and tacit endorsement vehicle for an Islamofascist enemy and his faux grievances.

7/24/2005 10:30:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Re: incorporating Islam.

What I mean here is incorporating those Muslims who want to live and let live. Can we bring them under the banner before it really is us versus them?

If we are to avert the 20th century iteration of ideological conflict, we will have to.

The need to bring under one banner all types of cultures is what makes Bush's post 9/11 strategy so far-seeing. The hiccup was in the name. And, contra Shakespeare, there is much in a name.

7/24/2005 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger Mike H. said...

Wahhabism is a subset of Salafism. Islam is the dictionary.

7/24/2005 10:39:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

The note that "no excuses" definitions of terrorism in the UN legal commission keep foundering on Muslim representatives' concern for their view of the Palestinian question forces the question as to when the non-Muslim and almost per se more reasonable nations of the world will finally drop the charade and just call HAMAS and the whole rotten "project" a miserable relic of an ancient and and ossified crapfest that calls all adults, in the fullness of time, to name a thing what it is: terrorism. It is mere will to power, through crime, given a justification which borrows the aesthetic of political philosophy and governmental decreein order to confuse the gullible, satisfy the complicit, and above all distract the predictable idiots from calling it what it is: murder and bloodlust. The purpose is killing; the ultimate purpose is dominion. The ideology is irrelevant, except to the extent that it names a particular enemy--but even the stability of that reason is undermined by the fact that such enemies generally multiply out of any proportion or discretion into a general eschatology. Enough: if HAMAS's adherents should rally in Ramallah, they should be bombed from the air. If a target presents itself, it ought to have its head blown off. Whether or not these are reasonable men seduced by circumstance and miseducation is exactly besides the point: that they seek bandit-style razza justice which consists of nothing but brazen barbarian effrontery against an even amorphous order is merely the mirror-image in all respects of the farse and homicide in the mind of the terrorist. There is no basis for toleration or compromise. This intellectual and moral softball which the militaries of the world everywhere were developed and maintained from the neolithic period onward to destroy. At this point, this is a no-brainer. Kill the bastards where we find them. All this talk is cowardice, complicity and opportunism of the most lethal and most base variety.

Hopefully we can be begin things with Bush's (I hope) recess appointment of John Bolton at the UN.

7/24/2005 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

As Wretchard points out, the Cold War had its own problem of moral ambiguity and its own problem of being recognized as an actual conflict by our side. By the mid-70's the Left was promoting the idea that the Cold War did not in reality exist, that it was simply a morally equivalent competition between two competing socioeconomic systems. As for the captive nations of Eastern Europe, well, they really were not captive and besides, the Soviets won them fair and square at Yalta.
But while Ronald Reagan articulated that there was indeed a real war, that it was winnable, and called evil by its name, I think it was James Michener who described our overall strategy. In film "The Bridges at Toko Ri" the admiral explains why the bridges must be destroyed; it is less to do with the tactical situation than with grand strategy. "One day there will be a meeting of the Politburo in Moscow. A runner will come in and announce that the Americans have even dropped the bridges at Toko Ri. At that point the communists will realize that they can never win, and they will give up." Maybe it would not be the bridges at Toko Ri that finally broke their backs, but it would be something.
Simplistic, certainly, but that describes our approach to the Cold War. Beat them at every turn, at every game, from the barren mountains of Korea to the jungles of Vietnam to the depths of the ocean, to the fringes of space and eventually to the eternally arid seas of the Moon.
Simplistic. Costly. At times brutal. And every single U.S. administration signed up to the grand strategy, in one form or another.
And it worked.
So what is our overarching grand strategy in this war?
We need a Reagan, but we also need a Michener who will put our real thoughts into simple words.
Any volunteers?

7/24/2005 10:43:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

rwe: "By the mid-70's the Left was promoting the idea that the Cold War did not in reality exist, that it was simply a morally equivalent competition between two competing socioeconomic systems."

Again, if we take Richard Dawkin's argument that evolution strategy is built around the continuance of genes, it becomes simple to place the ideological value of Soviet Russia as a protector of gene vehicles, and we can be comfortable calling it evil. The blindness of the Left in general can be attributed to the idea that ideology trumps biology, instead of being subordinate to the well-being of the gene vehicle. In this perverted understanding, the person is a tool used for the survival of an ideology, instead of an ideology being a tool used for the survival of the person.

There is a story related by Stephen Hawkings about an eminent physicist giving a lecture on the nature of the universe. At the end of the lecture, a person raises their hand and says, "I'm sorry, you're wrong. The world is supported on the back of a tortoise."

The physicist responds, "Then what supports the tortoise?"

The questioner was not phased in the least. He looks at the physicist and proclaims, "It's tortoises all the way down."

Well, Dawkins, in a sense, gives us a workable paradigm for our ideological struggle: life all the way down.

It may come to pass that Islam in general is incompatible with the West, but if that is the case we will soon need Virgil as a guide. The inferno is all that lies down that road.

Until then, I will put my hope in the "selfish gene", the desire to survive and reproduce, overcoming the inherent intolerance in the Islamic faith.

7/24/2005 11:10:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...

And if mass-casualty terrorism is not the enemy, neither are Islam or Islamists. Were these latter the enemy, we would not financially, militarily, and diplomatically support them in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

7/24/2005 11:11:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

keep it simple stupid...


I have 2 theories...

I respect all ethical people (basic 7 laws of noah) inspite of thier stupid, childish beliefs.... including my own...

"the swim club theory" I go to a public community pool, i see white, black, yellow peoples, all playing, i see fun, friendly peoples of the world... all faiths or lack thereof getting alone for the common party, some drink, some smoke, some show skin, some are modest, some have tattoos, some have piercings, noone wants to kill anyone...

Now look at islam-o-facists? they would want to murder...

types of people in the world, those that want to swim at the club and those that would seek to bulldoze it (with the people)....

7/24/2005 11:12:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

With Radical Islam, the question is: are we dealing with Mad Cow or Influenza?

If we cannot innoculate Islam against this murderous disease, then yes, we will have to put down the entire herd.

7/24/2005 11:21:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

The moral relativism of the Cold War was propogated by the same people denying the existance of terror.This might be changing though according to Mark Steyn

7/24/2005 11:31:00 AM  
Blogger jakita said...

nahncee (10:23)--

"And, if we *did* say the "ideology is Islam and all Muslims are our enemies if they buy into that thinking" ... what's the worst that could happen? They'll get angry and start blowing us up?"

The problem with naming "Muslims" as the enemy (or, rather, "Islam," since there are probably many fine Muslims) is that the Coalition would then be at war with many countries which now help us, i.e. Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, etc. Even today, the U.A.E. has been warned to expel all kufrs or suffer a terrorist bombing.

So, we should just call it "Radical Islam" or whatever, take action against imams who call for murder (clap 'em in jail, for G*d's sake), and carry on as best we can.

I hope that Christian missionaries will also do some major recruiting. Let's hope Bahai's and Buddhists can win some converts too.

7/24/2005 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...

What about identifying the enemy as Islamofascism?

Fascism is a form of socialism that, rather than abolishing private property, gives the government final authority over its use and disposal - including the property of one's own life, one's own existence.

Islamofascism is merely some combination of material collectivism and Islam as a governing structure. And this describes just about every Muslim nation in existence - without touching at all upon the threat of anti-American Islamist insurgency.

7/24/2005 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Word, Trish!

7/24/2005 12:06:00 PM  
Blogger husker_met said...


Nope. It's gotta be the deeds that define terrorism.

If you simply refer to Islamofascism, you give countries like Iran (a nominal democracy) and Saudi Arabia (a nominal constitutional monarchy) an out.

Terrorism has to be defined as groups, and or countries supporting those groups, who advocate or use the tactic of killing civilians to affect a political or ideological change.

7/24/2005 12:08:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

Something to chew on:

"The battle with al Qaeda is plain old war...We face a foe more dangerous than a traditional nation-state because it has a traditional nation-states goals and resources, draws manpower from a 1.3 billion-person pool, has no fixed address to attack, and fights for a cause in which death while killing enemies earns paradise.

"The persistent misidentification of bin Laden and al Qaeda as 'terrorists' is sponsored by the well-entrenched, well-funded, and sclerotic U.S. counterterrorism (CT) community. This entity was created to combat state sponsors of terrorism and their surrogate terrorist groups - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya and groups like Lebanese Hizballah. It has largely and expensively failed but trundles along absorbing massive and many people to fight lethal nuisances, not national security threats. Politicans and bureaucrats built the CT community to avoid militarily attacking a state staging acts of war as downing commercial airliners (Libya) or destroying a U.S. embassy (Iran and Hizballah). Instead of the U.S. military smashing the miscreants and being done with them - easy, we know where each lives - Washington used a gun loaded with standard, dud CT bullets: endless diplomatic demarches; threats of pursuit, trial and jail; life-risking intelligence collection; and a near complete cancellation rate for CT operations involving the slightest risk. As practiced by the United States, counterterrorism is appeasement; it lets the enemy attack and survive, keeps allies sweet by staying the hand of the U.S. military forces they hate, and ignores the true terrorist states of the Sunni Persian Gulf because they own much of the world's oil. The bloated, risk-averse, and lawyer-palsied CT community ensured state sponsors and their proxies survived, and now it blocks the counterinsurgency strategy needed to beat al Qaeda."

Michael Scheuer

7/24/2005 12:13:00 PM  
Blogger Kevin said...

By thrusting Great Britain, at least temporarily, into the driver’s seat of the global struggle against militant Islam, the recent attacks in London have unleashed an unexpected (?) dynamic. Whereas, up until recently, it would have been difficult to slip a piece of paper between the US and British positions regarding Islamic terrorism; if the tone of recent posts on the Belmont Club reflect anything happening at higher levels, gaps may soon be appearing. The simple fact is: Americans, writ large, do not enjoy riding shotgun; let alone being consigned to the back seat.

As the flypaper “theory” lay smoldering both in tunnels deep below the London streets and commingled with body parts and slightly reinforced concrete in Sharm al-Sheikh, the Belmont Club, in its previous post, took the opportunity to take a swipe, though not by name, at Jason Burke and his ideas. Let's put aside, for the moment, the issue of from where this notion arises of the myth of al-Qaida warriors being so brave and courageous that they would all choose to take on US soldiers in Iraq instead of attacking helpless civilians on London Transport or European tourists and Muslim workers in Egypt. What is totally clear is that the fanciers of this myth had never read Burke’s Al Qaida: The True Story of Radical Islam which was the source for much of the BBC program mentioned derisively in the previous post. For if our “flypaper-boys” had glanced through his work, they would have never again confused Jihadi suicide bombers with warriors; as Burke points out, these fanatics would be more correctly called religious performance artists and they are never going to choose a hard target over a soft to win their 72 virgins.

Far from discounting the threat of militant Islam, as implied previously, Burke spends 291 pages articulating the extreme danger that Saudi Arabia’s industrial level exportation of radical Wahhabi ideology all over the Muslim world is posing to the West. This danger is continuing to grow as I type. The bombers in London were “weaponized” with shot after shot of straight Jihadi-151 at their local Pakistani madrassa until they were so out of their senses that they blew themselves up in the Underground. No doubt the Egyptian murderers were served the same rounds at their local Saudi sponsored madrassa. The Saudis continue to expand their fast-suicide franchises at pace. Tony Blair will be quite familiar with Burke’s writings, it will be interesting to see if he takes advantage of his brief time behind the wheel to lead, since the US seems unable or unwilling, in closing down these academies of atrocity – by force if necessary - by persuasion if possible.

7/24/2005 12:26:00 PM  
Blogger Ticker said...


My hesitation to identify Islam as the enemy comes from the second sentence:

"They are also the victims of the terrorists, for suicide attacks have likely killed and wounded more Muslims than people of any other faith."

and the recollection that if Muslims are our most numerous foe, they are also our most numerous ally. Not only the Afghans and Iraqis who are in action alongside Americans, but also many of the Iranian people too. The other thing which gave me pause was the realization that a large part of the enemy was in the West and not Islamic. And so like Lot before Sodom we are faced with the terrible problem of what part of ourselves to nuke. Extending that analogy further, its interesting to note how Christianity at least, could never do away with the concept of Judgement in favor of condemning man as a whole. When we look at Islam, indeed when we look at ourselves, it may be impossible to eliminate the concept of individual innocence and guilt in favor of wholesale condemnation.

Personally, I would be willing to name "radical Islam" or "Islamic cults" as the enemy but I would be unwilling, at this point, to go further because of the reasons above.

7/24/2005 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger Common Cents said...

Why don't we just declare war on Wahabbism and see where it takes us?

7/24/2005 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

re: war on salafism, war on radical islam, war on wahhibism, war on islamic cult.

These are surely the most descriptive. Perhaps an important question would be: is 'descriptive' enough? Will we also need something motivational, inspirational--something that will ring true?

I am not at all convinced that we do, but sometimes it helps to give your cause a shot in the arm by enlisting a banner under which we all want to rally.

Americans are idealistic people, we know that, but so too the British.

Churchill wrote: "But the British nation from time to time gives way to waves of crusading sentiment. More than any other country in the world, it is at rare intervals ready to fight for a cause or a theme, just because it is convinced in its heart and soul that it will not get any material advantage out of the conflict."

Spreading freedom and democracy might be it, but I suspect it will have to be articulated as something more primal. My gut feeling is that before this war ends, we will need to find that theme, and drive it home.

7/24/2005 01:11:00 PM  
Blogger pluribus said...


substitute 'Jews' for Islam in your prescription -- see where that puts you.

Check your moral compass...

7/24/2005 01:17:00 PM  
Blogger Rune said...

I just checked. All Danish newspapers, right and left - even far left, as well as the two (state owned - and fairly left leaning) national TV/Radio channels use the word "terror" in their coverage of New York, London, Israeli and now Egyptian umm.. terrorist attacks. Denmark is a member of the UN security council this year and Denmark was just elected chairman of the UN counter Terrorist Committee (CTC).I just don’t see it making much of a difference admitting it is terror. This is a War On Terror ever as much as WWII was a War On Tanks. However WWII was a war on Nazism, and this is a war on Islamism.

I see some very harsh articles and editorials in Danish media on Islamism in general and the weak PC ridden western response in particular – even the liberal press seem to be going banzai these days. I just don’t see it making much of a difference in the world. And well, Denmark is very microscopic country. What I’m looking for is some kind of overall assessment. Is it going the right way? Are we moving forward? Two steps forward and one back. Or is it one forward and two back?

7/24/2005 01:36:00 PM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

Hey! why not call it a war on The Base? Nah! Never work ,we need something more ethnic than that!

7/24/2005 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Rune said...

War on the Base?

Holy mother of God!! It just occurred to me it was the Japanese all along. All your base are belong to us. Al-Qaeda is a front for the imperial Japanese army!!

Allah Banzai Akbar!

7/24/2005 02:31:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

I now snicker as badly now when I see someone parroting early Bushisms like "evildoers" and "Global War on Terror" as I did less than 2 weeks after 9/11 when I heard "Religion of Peace" for the 200th time.

Maybe a relabeling when a new President comes into office. I suspect we will still be hearing about "religion of peace", "evildoers", and the "noble freedom-loving Iraqi people" for another 3 years.

I suggest "Civilization's final fight against deady religious intolerance". Radical Islamists instead of "evildoers". And, "The Shitheads" replacing the "brave, good, generous noble freedom-loving Iraqi people"

The striving towards a working definition of "terrorism" is a good thing, and I hope the UN is finished waiting on 22 Arab countries "buy-in" given their stance that terrorism is not justified unless it is against Zionists. Time for a global vote, and screw the Islamoids if they are not "ready". Four years after 9/11, it's time to stop screwing around with no one agreeing on what terrorism is and thus letting many involved escape consequences. If the Arab countries are willing to isolate themselves by opposition, by all means let them do so.

Wretchard writes: My hesitation to identify Islam as the enemy comes from the second sentence:

"They are also the victims of the terrorists, for suicide attacks have likely killed and wounded more Muslims than people of any other faith."

and the recollection that if Muslims are our most numerous foe, they are also our most numerous ally.

The biggest victims of Nazis aside from Jews and Slavs, were the Germans themselves. The biggest victims of the Shinto militarism, outside the Chinese, were the Japanese.

At a certain point, though, unless the innocent, peace-loving folks signal and impliment their opposition to evil taking over, you don't distinguish between "evil fanatics" and "innocent men & women" just drafted into fighting, or doing war support. They are all the enemy.

The "moderates" of Islam have to step up, or they will be like the bewildered and outraged Germans in Konigsberg as 1,000 Soviet artillery pieces opened up on their city. "Why are the Soviets trying to kill us? We are peaceful Germans who hated the Nazis! No one in my family served on the Eastern Front!!"

7/24/2005 03:12:00 PM  
Blogger Utopia Parkway said...

I don't that it is Islam per se that is the enemy. Rather, it is the Honor/Shame culture that is shared by the various Arab and Muslim countries. It is the Honor/Shame culture that has led the Arabs to stagnate and fall so far behind the West economically, which has led to the humiliation that they now feel. Their Honor/Shame culture mandates that their response to humiliation is violence.

I won't say that Islam isn't part of it at all. Islam, The Arab Religion, of course incorporated parts of the culture it developed in. The supremacist nature of Islam comes from the Honor/Shame culture.

The difficulty is separating the Honor/Shame culture from Islam. If it possible for us to do this then it may be possible for Muslims to see that we are not at war with Islam, only with those who would impose Islam on the world.

7/24/2005 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

I have found something that I think could provide insight into this question.
Edward Gibbon, in his book The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire stated in regard to the future of Europe: “Should the Barbarians carry slavery and desolation as far as the Atlantic Ocean … Europe would revive and flourish in the American world, which is already filled with her colonies and institutions… Whatever may be the changes of their political situation, they must preserve the manners of Europe. “
This was written in the 18th Century, at a time in which the idea of Barbarians pulling down the nations of Europe was all but unthinkable – except for a man such as Mr. Gibbon, who took the long historical view.
In response to the “Now I lay me down to sleep” essay, Luminary suggested that there should be plans made to save the “most brilliant young minds” in the case of a truly devastating war. Now, I have not been very impressed by those that probably could be labeled as “the most brilliant young minds”, but I think he does have a point (that was not addressed, and as usual it was Doug’s fault for starting the craziness).
I think that this war is the one to Save Western Civilization, and that exporting democracy is simply a case of the best defense being a good offense.
The Barbarians have come, bringing slavery and desolation just as Gibbons prophesized, and have brought it as far as the Atlantic and beyond.
Perhaps we truly do no care if Whabbisim flourishes elsewhere, but there must be a point where when it must be stopped if it endangers our civilization. That goes for every other philosophy as well.

7/24/2005 03:34:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

In Western law, there's a concept called "aiding and abetting" whereby even if you don't actually pull the trigger or hack off the head, if you know about it ahead of time and don't do something to make it not happen, you are also guilty of that crime.

It's my posit that every single Muslim who accepts that the Koran is God's word and each syllable of it should be followed to the letter is also buying into the concept of jihad, and the idea that "infidels need to be killed". Until we can get the Koran rewritten to omit that little bit, then the people who follow that book and pledge their Islamism takes precedence before their nationality will be our enemies.

I'm not saying that the families of the London bombers should be nuked. But I *am* saying there should be consequences for them, too, in raising and harboring their son-snakes in England's bosom. Those mothers and fathers are now saying they are stunned and amazed and had no idea, but why should we allow them to be any more innocent as parental units than we allowed the parents of the Columbine shooters? If we thought the Colorado parents had a moral DUTY to know that their kids were amassing guns under their roofs, shouldn't Muslim parents be held to the same standards?

And for the Jewish/moral compass person, this is a new situation and a new war -- it's never been faced before. I will not allow myself to be guilt-tripped by 6 million dead Jews who have nothing to do with anything. And if you see any similarity then you are blind and/or stupid.

Finally, I read something this weekend about the flypaper theory that I thought made sense. Like the good little cowards they are, our jihadist buddies have finally discovered that (1) they couldn't change anything by shooting at armored Americans, and (2) they haven't been able to accomplish anything by blowing up civilian Iraqi's, so they're merely transferring their attentions to the next soft belly target which is London. So that, actually, the London bombing can be taken as a sign of defeat in Iraq because Al-Queda and its ilk werent' able to get what they wanted from the Iraqi's so now they're going to go threaten some Westerners who aren't as well-armed as American soldiers are.

7/24/2005 03:35:00 PM  
Blogger trish said...

Bin Laden and Zawahiri have not attempted to protect their movement from an all-out confrontation with America and the West and its Middle East allies. They've wanted to force it, and have.

7/24/2005 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

" usual it was Doug’s fault for starting the craziness"
Second post of the day to be read, after First, being Miss Trish, resident contrarian.
(considers crawling back in sack)

7/24/2005 03:52:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Make space for at least one old, non brilliant, out of the box "thinker" just on the off chance that...
...and SOMEONE has to keep the young women satisfied and entertained.

7/24/2005 03:56:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I suppose you think Mr. Atta is anything other than a Hard Working, God Fearing, Egyptian Lawyer also???

7/24/2005 04:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I still don't understand why they aren't left the option to be Islamofascists or Islamopeaceniks, their choice, by my mere use of the "IF" term.
What am I missing?

7/24/2005 04:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"Just think of al-Qaeda as a low budget 'reality TV show'. Hollywood doesn't have to carry the production costs, al-Qaeda gets their payoff in terms of blackmail paid directly by governments."
First time Trish used the Term Snuff Film wrt Haifa Street Production Scene, it gave me the creeps.
...I have since recovered and converted the creeps into righteous anger at the Murderous MSM/ DemLeft/ Islamoterrorist Alliance.

7/24/2005 04:46:00 PM  
Blogger Ticker said...


Point taken. Right now we can distinguish between the bad and the good guys, at least to a degree? Proof? We have Muslim allies some of whom are committed to such a degree that Americans and Australians can operate with them in the field, which is the ultimate kind of trust. And this is good. It would be as if, during the Second World War, there whole armies of Germans on the Allied side fighting Hitler.

But if this model fails, which is what may happen if the fight against the Base cannot be prosecuted effectively, then many Muslims will conclude that we've decided to sell them down the river to the Al Qaeda, as happened to the Meo, Hmong and the Vietnamese who fought on the Allied side. There's a Vietnamese poster on the Belmont Club, whose name I (shamefully) cannot now recall who keeps recalling this theme of betrayal. The point is that if we fail to fight them effectively while they can be distinguished, necessity will force us to fight them when there is no time to choose between potential friend or foe.

I don't want to overstate this point, which I have made ad nauseam, but I think it's important and fundamentally correct. What this implies is that when we name the foe that we do not include our friends in it.

7/24/2005 04:48:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Very well said.

7/24/2005 04:50:00 PM  
Blogger Caroline said...

I am tempted, like Nahncee to identify the enemy as Islam but it isn't Islam as a whole that is a problem (someone's personal belief in Allah is not a problem for me)- rather it is one particular tenet of Islam that is problematic - that tenet being Jihad. I would be satisfied if our press and government started to routinely refer to our enemies as "jihadis" rather than terrorists, not only because the term reveals the Islamic connection without having to explicitly identify Islam itself as the enemy but because it would also get people talking about, what is jihad? There is also "demographic jihad" that we need to be concerned about. Even taqiyyah is in the service of jihad and probably 80% of westerners don't even know the meaning of the term. Identifying our enemies as jihadis (rather than terrorists) also lets Muslims off the hook who are willing to renounce jihad as a fundamental theological tenet of their religion. Likewise, it allows us to identify westerners who are or are not aiding in the aims of or apologizing for jihad.

So I vote to name the enemy "jihad" (or Islamic jihad) (which is redundant since I'm not aware of any other kind) and it seems to me that the west is currently engaged in something like "the great 21st century COUNTER-jihad".

7/24/2005 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"The ideology that allows, that tolerates, the greatest amount of gene vehicles and can organize them for its own defense will win the evolutionary battle. The strategy that maximizes cooperation and organization will take the field and win the war."
I followed most everything but the above. VDH does a great job of illustrating the importance of maximizing cooperation and organization, but it seems to me that this has often meant a SMALLER number of greater cohesion/effectiveness = POWER.
IOW, at this point I reject the "amount of gene vehicles" argument, unless I can be shown I am missing something.
It seems to me it has all become mostly moot at the present time if I am correct, because PC mandates that our small, well organized, powerful group is not morally allowed to USE that power, since that would imply a moral judgement that we are somehow *justified* to do so.
That would be surrendering to the sinful notion of JudgeMentalism..

7/24/2005 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"demographic jihad"
Prior to PC, it would have been considered suicidal absurdity to SUBMIT to such.
Now, anything else is INSENSITIVE, not to mention racist and EVIL.

7/24/2005 05:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"They just want to have a good job and raise some sweet innocent kids in the sweet culture of socialist pleasures."

7/24/2005 05:11:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

As the GOP/WSJ and etc will also exlain, anything other than submission to Demographic Jihad is
bad for business.
Can't have THAT.
That would be immoral.

7/24/2005 05:15:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Why would the tent of life affirming individuals cover leftists and many Islamists?
(I guess if we consider cockroachs life affirming we should also include Islamofascists.)

7/24/2005 05:20:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Abortion is hazardous to health, yet that is the leftists most sacred ritual.

7/24/2005 05:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Scott Rosenberg on Elections Have Consequences. There's no doubt that John Roberts, the President's nominee for the Supreme Court, will decide against Roe v Wade. All I need to know is that the conservatives aren't expressing concern. I agree with everything Scott says, and go a bit further. I haven't forgotten that the Supreme Court gave Bush the Presidency in 2000. It was a coin toss election. When Bush started governing as if he had won, well that's when the trouble started.
. Dave Winer - .
The Great Leftist Knows All.
...part of the Script.

7/24/2005 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger Pangloss said...

IMHO, Terrorism is war crimes committed by non-uniformed combatants.

Jihad is another pretty good definition of terrorism.

7/24/2005 05:41:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"If we are to avert the 20th century iteration of ideological conflict, we will have to."
(incorporate Muslims)
Ok, Nahncee: Time to come up with something that rolls off the tongue to replace:
"Better Dead Than Red."

7/24/2005 05:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Posted by Zonk on Sunday July 24, @07:36PMfrom the gotta-love-them-butterflies dept.Anonymous Coward writes "The BBC has an article about a dramatic discovery in the quest for understanding evolution. From the article: 'Why one species branches into two is a question that has haunted evolutionary biologists since Darwin. Given our planet's rich biodiversity, "speciation" clearly happens regularly, but scientists cannot quite pinpoint the driving forces behind it. Now, researchers studying a family of butterflies think they have witnessed a subtle process, which could be forcing a wedge between newly formed species.'"
Maybe we could declare ourselves a separate species?
They certainly seem to be pounding on that wedge.

7/24/2005 05:55:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I heard Wretch is working on a sequel to
"Rascals in Paradise."

7/24/2005 05:59:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Trish, 11:11 AM
Nobody ever does anything stupid?

7/24/2005 06:04:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wretch writes,
"The other thing which gave me pause was the realization that a large part of the enemy was in the West and not Islamic. And so like Lot before Sodom we are faced with the terrible problem of what part of ourselves to nuke."
Luckily for us, most of them have stopped reproducing at replacement levels, and they continue to nuke their wombs.

7/24/2005 06:07:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This is no place for your Base Humor!
We should be adding them to the morpheme.

7/24/2005 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

Doug: I was referring to your exhortation to "preserve Michael Moore", which set me off and then someone else, too.
As for preserving the "most brillant minds" it is my view that if you live in the USA - and probably Australia - if you open your front door and look around you will see the very answer to that issue. It's us. That was Gibbon's view as well.
Maybe we are not the most brillant, but getting useful things done counts for more in my book.
Besides, when I think of "preserving the most brilliant young minds" I think of that Phd guy on Battlestar Gallactica....

7/24/2005 06:13:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...


How about "better dead that rude"?

I'm finally wrapping my mind around why Wretchard is against naming Islam as the ideology. He's trying to protect the comrades in arms on the battlefield who are standing up with us and fighting and dying with us. The newly-trained and appointed soldiers and police and special forces in Iraq are Muslims, and therefore if we call Islam the "ideology" we're fighting, and all Muslims are our enemy, then that would necessitate the American soldiers calling someone in Iraq who may have their back an enemy, just because.

OK, fair enough. But just like the UN is having trouble defining terrorism because they keep wanting to add "except for Israel" after every clause, could we define the terror ideology as Islam "except for Iraq" after the clause?

7/24/2005 06:26:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Doug - that should have been "Better Dead Than Rude". What I get for being a smart-ass.

7/24/2005 06:28:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Kevin 12:26,
Nice post.
Anyone know where Steve Emerson's video is available?

7/24/2005 06:35:00 PM  
Blogger Wild Bill said...

One thing the bombers, terrorists, insurgents, have in common, is that they are all motivated by IDOLS !! Al Q was born from followers idolizing OBL.. I figger that OBL idolized the "Father of Modern Terrorism": Arafat.. Arafat defeated anything that resembled peace in the ME.. Without Arafat, there would have been peace in the ME many years ago.. With peace in place all these years ago, many of todays troubles would not have come to fruition.. By somehow associating our conflicts of today, with Arafat or idolism or both, then maybe we can draw light to the fact that after all those years of fatwa, Arafat accomplished NOTHING !! In the short time that Abbas has been in charge, he has gained Palistine a State and brokered somewhat of a peace.. I'm thinking that Idoliters or Failures of Idoliters, would be a good Brand Name for the followers of jihad and terrorism.. And to highlight the uslessness of Arafat is just a bonus !! With the term IDOL inthe phrase, then it would have an anti-Christin overtone to it, and also the Pagans aint to happy about other idols themselves.. I'm gonna toss this "bone" out there, and ya'll tell me whether I may be in the ballpark of workable, or whether ya'll think this Texas heat is gettin just a little too intense for me !!

7/24/2005 06:36:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

After reading his humor, I say:
"Better Bred Than Rune!"

7/24/2005 06:46:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wild Bill,
Idiot-o-terrorists ?

7/24/2005 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Pakistan is a major problem here. How do we convince Musharraf to let us help him out militarily, I wonder? From MJ Gohel, a terrorism analyst:

``Why is it that all the roads keep going back to Pakistan?'' said MJ Gohel, a terrorism analyst and chief executive of the Asia-Pacific Foundation, a London-based think-tank.

``Is it a coincidence, or is there something more?''

7/24/2005 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Doug: "VDH does a great job of illustrating the importance of maximizing cooperation and organization, but it seems to me that this has often meant a SMALLER number of greater cohesion/effectiveness = POWER."

I am constraining my analysis to simply mean survival, avoidance of massive and violent murder. I am not advocating a particular culture in the gene vehicle argument (though I do advocate American culture in general); I am advocating the adhesion of all viable cultures under a common ideological banner (as opposed to legalistic, that comes later). There must be some ideals that all rational people will embrace, a theme that speaks to the heart of us all. That is what we need to find. If it exists, or can exist, it will be simple, primal, and easily understood across all cultures that are viable.

What I am proposing, though it may sound fantasist, is not an increase of national power (though, again, I do propose that), but at minimum an elimination of organized, murderous intolerance. If we can bring the selective forum of ideology up from the barbaric, if we can eliminate the countenance of mass slaughter in the furtherance of belief, we will have made tremendous strides in the betterment of mankind, regardless of the power and political shifts that adhere to human interaction.

The bonus for America is that such a shift away from murderous intolerance will greatly improve her standing and her power. We are a nation of free peoples, and our fortunes reside in the direction of freedom and tolerance.

The winds of fortune themselves are ever changing, and who knows how long they will be at our back. The time for action is now, while we can exercise our enormous strength in the cause of life, without being constrained by a balancing force of tyranny and a truly existential threat of evil.

Therefore, we need to rally all available friends and allies, all likeminded men and women who want nothing more than to live well according to their own lights, without artificially limiting our strength by pushing away those who would join us but for a crass and irresponsible battle cry.

VDH is a bright guy, but he is arguing for the survival of a culture. I am arguing for the survival, and evolution, of its ecosystem.

7/24/2005 06:53:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

"The rather well-formed structure that they had prior to September 11 does seem to be degraded," said a senior British counter-terrorism official.

Saudi officials said intelligence showed that bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman Zawahiri, dispatched cell organisers to Saudi Arabia in 2002 and weighed in on basic strategic decisions made by the local al-Qaeda affiliate.

7/24/2005 07:11:00 PM  
Blogger Abakan said...

We could play the name game for a few more months and continue to ignore the obvious. I'd rather start moving forward myself.

The terrorists will be named locally as they are caught, killed, or jailed.

The State/Sponsors are named already.

The struggle against terrorism will continue along these two tracks for the rest of our lives.

Will it work? If you're the kind of person waiting patiently for a parade, and for the men and women to come home, and for a peace dividend, then you're in for a lifetime of disappointment.

If you are a crusader itching for war against 1.3 billion people then you can call them muslims. This sentiment is the equivalent of wearing a sign on your forehead.

7/24/2005 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

In essence, we are asking many peoples across a broad spectrum of ideologies to sacrifice emotionally and physically for a cause that remains nebulous and insubstantial.

The violence of terrorism gets our foot in the door and facilitates our urgings--and it is indeed starting to turn heads--but there are many people who do not read blogs and do not immerse themselves in data and have no idea how serious the problem is. For these people we need something simple, something primal that even the most cynical or uninitiated will accept.

We can never convince everybody, but we can strive to do so. Today is different from all others, for we have the ability to organize spontaneously around a valid theme and trumpet it to the world via the internet. The answer may be esoteric--built around a deep study of culture, history, and anthropology--or it may be simple, commonplace, and hiding before our eyes. Whatever it is, it will divulge itself. All we must do is remain focused and continue the search.

7/24/2005 07:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Well said.
Don't think Aristides or I would argue with eliminating the SAUDI FUNDED houses of hatred and the evils therein.
What examples are there of any other culture being CAPABLE of maintaining conditions favorable to survival?
...and the PC segment of our present culture certainly doesn't qualify imo.

7/24/2005 07:29:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

I'm with Caroline.

Jihadis has got all the right connotations. It points to people who believe in a crazy ideology that is killing more Muslims than infidels.


7/24/2005 07:30:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Jordan's independent Al-Arab Al-Yom said the attacks reflected a war pitting United States President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair against top terror mastermind Osama bin Laden and his top Iraq frontman Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

"It is a war between mad people and ghosts," it said.

7/24/2005 07:31:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"or it may be simple, commonplace, and hiding before our eyes"
Yes, a majority had a "common sense" in the WWII era that has been degraded by our monopolist and corrupt educational establishment, among others.
Dennis Prager is fond of giving examples of nonsensical statements that no one without a college education would ever make.
Dave Winer's that I posted above comes close.
But there are still non college types fighting the 2000 election, I guess.

7/24/2005 07:35:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

...and don't leave out
"demographic jihad"
a democratic vote for sharia law is still sharia law.

7/24/2005 07:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

...or for whatever those moron folks call there cause to re-annex USA to Mexico.

7/24/2005 07:38:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I think of Dark Helmet.

7/24/2005 07:43:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

And it cannot be said often enough: Mass-casualty terrorism is not the enemy. It is merely one of the tools the enemy has chosen to employ in his war against us."

I agree, we do not need a definition of terrorism - some new convention for our domestic enemies to throw in our face everytime we fight some way distantly similar. They aren't the enemy because of their methods, we've ourselves used similar methods in the past. They're the enemy because of what they believe in, and what they want to create.

I expect flak for saying it, but if I was given a choice between submitting to Al Qaeda and fighting as they do, I'd fight as they do. Gruesome, yes, but not much worse than incinerating entire cities at a time - our way of life is at stake, not our sensitivities.

7/24/2005 07:45:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Yes Doug, but once you vote, it means you no longer think that the Koran is the only source of law.

You are on your was to being a non-believer, or maybe on the way to being like the West, believe in anything except the West.

Imagine, we could be "The Other" in what was once our own society. Actually, come to think of it, I've long been "The Other" in my own society, own family even. But they tolerate me.


7/24/2005 07:50:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Doug: "Don't think Aristides or I would argue with eliminating the SAUDI FUNDED houses of hatred and the evils therein."

There is absolutely no argument there. Close them down.

7/24/2005 07:51:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Everything is traced to AQ:

Spanish investigators identified a suspected ringleader of the Madrid attacks as a Moroccan al-Qaida operative named Amer Azizi.

Azizi spent time at al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan before 2001 and is believed to be a conduit to the al-Qaida leadership, intelligence officials said.

Counterterrorism investigators and analysts said it was highly unlikely that the people who organized the July 7 London bombings were directly involved in the Sharm el-Sheik attacks. But they predicted both plots would eventually be traced to al-Qaida.

7/24/2005 07:52:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I think the reason the administration settled on the hopelessly remote War on Terrorism, aside from its facile familiarity, is that no formulation is possible that could be repeated in the struggling quarters of the world that matter most. We've all heard the interpretation, apparently canonical, that "jihad" has two forms, lesser and greater, or external and internal. Of course I'm no Islam scholar, and never heard of this distinction before; clearly Osama and many, many of his co-religionists--particularly the many "radicalized" imams--think that the ultimate expression of inner jihad, the final measure of its triumph, is one's participation in external jihad, against the Dar al-Harb, even to the point of suicide.

But the concept of jihad remains an apparently malleable one, and, given the barbarian switch-blade quick sensitivities of the vast majorities of backward Muslims, they must have avoided this for fear of casting too wide a net.

They cannot use Islamofascism either, perhaps, because that is virtually the only political organization known to them--even the socialism and corpse of pan-Arabism is animated by appeals to and some sort of identificiation with Islam.

Nor "Islamic fundamentalism," which has the same problems. I think "fundamentalism" would translate as "orthodoxy" anyway under the pen of a critic in, say, Lahore, or wherever.

7/24/2005 07:53:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

You should hear what they say behind your back.
Plans, even.

7/24/2005 07:55:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

ADE: I do tend to lean towards Wretchard's descriptive labeling, and therefore could accept "War on Jihad" too. I'm not sure how it will translate for the Muslims we want to get on our side, but it is a perfectly accurate description of our present conflict.

As I'm sure all of you can tell, the opportunistic part of me thinks we should not stop there, that we should define the struggle so broadly, yet so inspirationally, that we completely eliminate all kinds of murderous intolerance.

The part of me that channels Tolkein would agitate for a more ambitious banner:

The Last Stand Against Tyranny.

Who knows, maybe one day that will be a reality.

7/24/2005 08:02:00 PM  
Blogger ledger said...

Red River: I dont think its right to shout Jihad in a crowded theater. The imams who promote this should be shot on sight - they must suffer the same fate as the foot soldiers. Freedom os speech only applies to the sane.

Second, we need to stop believing in redemption. It will not occur in most cases. The West needs to stop being co-dependent on the rest of the world. If someone is a killer, then they need to die - there is no redemption possible

I could not agree more. I some sicko "cleric" issues a death threat he is just a guilty as the thug who pulls the detonator cord.

7/24/2005 08:08:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

Doug: "What examples are there of any other culture being CAPABLE of maintaining conditions favorable to survival?"

Unfortunately, we simply don't what culture will survive, but those that might be capable are surely those that believe in a live and let live philosophy, that believe that non-violent competition between ideologies is possible. Again, because of the historical and philosophical success of America, I think it has the staying power to be dominant, at least as long as nation-states remain preeminent, and as long as a deadly mutation like multiculturalism does not take over, but I do not aspire to know what the end result of ideological evolution will be.

For now, I am comfortable relying on the Anthropic Principle and the less accurate human ability of extrapolation.

7/24/2005 08:15:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


The guys on our side could interpret is as they are on the lesser Jihad, the baddies we face are on the greater Jihad, which is now socially unacceptable.

Thus, they have a face-saving formula, possibly life-saving formula.

Personally, I don't believe in the Lesser/Greater versions of Jihad. But we must give 1.5b a chance to leave the dark side. So I'll go along with the lie, if it gives the right outcome.

Oh dear, am I practising Taquaia?

But the Arab way of war is to first declare your enemy an apostate, then you can kill him without guilt. Hence Sunni kills Shiite kills Kurd kills Sufi kills Sunni. Infidels? Well there just there for target practice. So we must make sure that the Muslims on our side see the (Greater) Jihadis as apostates.


7/24/2005 08:19:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Carridine's answer is in the _____previous thread_____, (down in the 150's) I was going to paste it here, but he probably will make a new post here when he sees the discussion.

7/24/2005 08:23:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

British Muslims are caught between a rock and a hard place. The number who throw their lot in with the Islamists might be infinitesimally small, but even that is enough to arouse much fury and contempt for them at the street level. In order to be free and equal citizens, they need better leadership and a more realistic government. In time, this will happen.

In another familiar stereotype, the British public ultimately will go in for fair play. But the time before that day arrives has been made longer still by the terrorist outrages in London.

7/24/2005 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

ADE: "So we must make sure that the Muslims on our side see the (Greater) Jihadis as apostates."

You are most definitely correct. This is the key, the result we are striving to bring about.

To be the contrarian, I wonder whether this fact will force us into a modification of your original assertion. If we are waging war against "greater jihad", shouldn't we begin by calling it "War on Greater Jihad"? And furthermore, does this formulation do a service to our Muslim allies by having a non-Muslim entity interpret and restrict what the Koran allows?

7/24/2005 08:30:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

For the life of me I can't figure out why they don't shut these madrassas and hate-preaching imams down. It's illegal to shout 'bomb' in airports. What's the difference?

7/24/2005 08:31:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

More thoughts on Dark Helmet, SpaceBalls, etc:
If we could convert Mel Brooks into a Neocon, he could get everyone to drop their swords and laugh in Harmony.
Haven't read anything since Anne died:
Hope he's coping by working.

7/24/2005 08:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Religious Tolerance, first ammendment, no crosses, library porn for the kiddies and there molesters, etc. get the idea.
They call themselves "progressives."

7/24/2005 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

"...draws manpower from a 1.3 billion-person pool, has no fixed address to attack, and fights for a cause in which death while killing enemies earns paradise."

THIS is one way that the whole hateful, murderous problem can be defused, sidestepped AND transformed by applying Islam's OWN Hadith, its own traditions and prophecies about the coming of the Holy 12th Imam, the coming of the Mahdi, and letting Muslims know (in a widespread, organized and ongoing manner) that the Mahdi WAS WITH US, from 1853 until 1892 (Micah 7:15)!

He WAS WITH HUMANKIND and the Muslim clergy abused, imprisoned, tortured and exiled Him! Let the Muslims know!

If they want to step OUT of the shame and guilt that flow from participating in His torture; OR if Muslims want to move positively TOWARD submission to the will of God THROUGH God's newest Messenger, THEN either way, Islamic extremists are gutted, castrated and left powerless, while hundreds of millions turn in obedience to the Baha'i Institutions NOW FUNCTIONING worldwide!

7/24/2005 08:39:00 PM  
Blogger StoutFellow said...

The terrorists will be named locally as they are caught, killed, or jailed.

The State/Sponsors are named already.

Let's name the terrorist groups as well. And then move on as you suggest. We will see that the representatives of two Evil Empires make-up the bulk of the list.

Terrorist Groups as listed by the US State Department. I added the ideological orientation.

17 November
Muslim Abu Nidal Organization (ANO)
Muslim Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG)
Muslim Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade
Muslim Ansar al-Islam (AI)
Muslim Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
Muslim Asbat al-Ansar
Idiopath Aum Shinrikyo (Aum)
Basque Basque Fatherland and Liberty (ETA)
Marxist Communist Party of Philippines/New People’s Army (CPP/NPA)
Irish Continuity Irish Republican Army (CIRA)
Muslim Gama’a al-Islamiyya (IG)
Muslim HAMAS
MuslimHarakat ul-Mujahidin (HUM)
Muslim Hizballah
Muslim Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU)
Muslim Jaish-e-Mohammed (JEM)
Muslim Jemaah Islamiya Organization (JI)
Muslim Al-Jihad (AJ)
Israeli Kahane Chai (Kach)
Marxist Kongra-Gel (KGK)
Muslim Lashkar e-Tayyiba (LT)
Muslim Lashkar i Jhangvi (LJ)
Tamil Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE)
Muslim Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)
Marxist Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK)
Marxist National Liberation Army (ELN)
Muslim Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
Muslim Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
Muslim Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP)
Muslim Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC)
Muslim Al-Qa’ida
Irish Real IRA (RIRA)
Marxist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)
Anarchist Revolutionary Nuclei (RN)
Marxist Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party/Front (DHKP/C)
Muslim Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
Maoist Shining Path (SL)
Muslim Tanzim Qa’idat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (QJBR)
Marxist United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia (AUC)

7/24/2005 08:41:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Er, aristides

I may have got my Lesser and Greater reversed. Doug will put us straight.

No, the war is against the people who commit bad actions. You blow up anybody under the pretext of Islam, you're a Jihadi. We'll go after you. Incite a Jihadi, we'll go after you. Sign up to be a Jihadi, we'll go after you.

And just to show that we are fair, sign up for the IRA, and we'll go after you too.


7/24/2005 08:44:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Aristides, not to dwell on the obvious, but aren't you calling for a 'jihad on Greater jihad'?

Catch 22. Oxymoron. War on Warmongers.

7/24/2005 08:44:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I've read that the number in Britain is far from being "infinitesimally small."
30 percent comes to mind, but what do I know?

7/24/2005 08:45:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

A thought I have been mulling is what lies at the essence of Islam?Christianity while arguing on the peripheries about doctrines is basically a response in faith to the concept of God's love expressed in the sacrifice of Christ.
When I consider the theology of Muslim paradise as a reward for martyrdom it gives me pause.It is hard for me to fathom the thought of a deity who rewards the slaughter of faceless non-combatants .Do all Muslims believe Mohammed Atta is in paradise? Or are there some who believe he is in torment as the evil deluded fool he was.
This question is the real bottomline on who our foe is.If all Muslims believe in Wahhabi jihad,then the whole enchilada is amoral,despicable,nihilistic and devilish.
But if there are some who only desire to treat Islam as a means to improving themselves and humanity perhaps there's hope here.
If the former is the case then we should deliver hammer blows to known rat's nests and cower the rest into submission.

7/24/2005 08:45:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

carridine: "Aristides, not to dwell on the obvious, but aren't you calling for a 'jihad on Greater jihad'?"

I was tasting the term to discover its viability, though I do not think there is anything oxymoronic about a war on aggressors. WWII springs to mind. Tthe only thing I have explicitly called for is "The Last Stand Against Tyranny." It is a little heady, and probably can't sell in a cynical age, but nothing undermines cynicism like imminent death.

As I'm sure you will agree, my previous posts all have one thing in common. What I am searching for is a war cry that does not have to be explained, cannot be perverted, and speaks to the heart of all people.

It is not an easy problem to solve, and I agree with you that there are intractable problems with any reference to Jihad. I also think Islam, because of its purported finality, may not be compatible with the general aims of the West. I have said all this before.

However, the first step is to try to argue as humans, towards humans. If we are forced to argue Islam we will lose.

7/24/2005 08:58:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

From Tom Barrett:

Most of you who have written to me about the goodness and kindness of Muslims know only Muslims who live in this country. They have been influenced by the values of America, which include tolerance toward other religions, values based on the Bible. Many U.S. Muslim immigrants are as horrified as we are by the actions of Muslims in the countries of their birth.

God tells us in Proverbs 31:8 that we must speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves. President Bush needs to speak up in behalf of the good people of this nation who are appalled by the cruelty of Islamic governments towards our brothers and sisters in Muslim nations. Our President needs to demand that Muslim nations treat Christians as Muslims are treated here in America. Write to President Bush. Tell him not to be seduced by promises from liars, in order to get their cooperation in our battle against terrorism. The war against terrorism is a just war, but if in our zeal to punish international terrorists we ally ourselves with religious terrorists, what have we gained?

7/24/2005 09:21:00 PM  
Blogger Abakan said...

As Wretchards post and title bounced around in my subconscious something strange surfaced.

In protracted land battles fixed emplacements are built, fields of fire are created in the direction of the enemy, and even the rear or friendly areas become unknown in the darkness.

There is an ancient ritual designed to protect the isolated post from attack from the rear or friendly area.

Rifle pointed center of mass, finger ready near trigger, in a measured voice "Halt, Who Goes there? Measured to be just loud enough to be heard by the individual approaching your post.
Waiting.... This point is an odd place. I've felt it personally and there is nothing quite like it. There are many reasons why a voice would not be heard. Fatigue, injury, or a degree of deafness so if the approach is not stopped you must call out again. "Halt, Who Goes There? If the approach continues at some point in the near future according to individual judgment the target will be shot.

If the individual stops and provides a "name," and a rank, he will be offered a code of the day.
At the proper response all is presummed well.

So, Wretchard, I was wondering, did you know of this ritual or procedure before you titled your post?

Looking for a name in a friendly area before you have to kill someone?

7/24/2005 09:30:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Nice Job.
And to think I didn't even know there IS a Revolutionary Nuclei (RN) Group.
If I were younger, might have been "drawn in" by the name.

7/24/2005 09:34:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

World War III:

Islam has long been associated with Nazis. Many Arabs and Moslems consider Hitler to be a hero. The fact that a handful of Nazis took over Germany is not lost on the Jihadists, whose stated goal is to force the entire world to bow down to Islam. Less than 2% of the Russian people were members of the Communist Party when that nation was taken over by the Communists.

History has shown us that a few dedicated, ruthless men and a complacent, foolish population are a recipe for disaster. Our nation has survived too much to be taken down by militant Islamists who believe they are doing Allah a favor by murdering our women and children. We must stop inviting murderers into our midst.

7/24/2005 09:42:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I'll bet Wretch has more dramatic memories than I:
Pulling Guard duty in Korea, used to our lackadaisical "discipline," (might have had a beer stashed in the brush!) approached by the new 2nd lieutenant, a tall, VERY disciplined
(we used the term "STRAC" which I understood was giving respect to LeMay.)
young (black) soldier on his way up.
I was quickly set straight.
(at least for a while)

7/24/2005 09:42:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"I believe that we should immediately halt all immigration until such time as the threat has become manageable. We will never completely eradicate the fear of terrorism, but there are steps we can take to greatly reduce the threat. Closing our borders would be an important first step.

Of course, the Leftists have managed to portray the Japanese internment of World War II as some sort of domestic holocaust, rather than a reasonable exercise in prudence. They neglect to mention that the Japanese in US camps were well fed and well treated, in contrast to the American civilians who were starved, tortured and murdered in Japanese camps. Nonetheless, the Democrats and the Socialists will undoubtedly bring up the internment in an attempt to use misplaced guilt to disable America from protecting itself against its enemies now."
Thanks for that, Sam:
I recently heard (Medved I think) someone say the Japanese didn't have to stay there, they just couldn't live in Coastal States.
Anybody read Malkin's book?
...and the lefties always leave out that there WERE Spies, and their WERE other groups interned, but their version fits the
Evil Racist Format Best.

7/24/2005 09:51:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

An interesting side-note: While working as Medical Equipment Consultant in Sandi Arabia, my interpreter was Mehtab al-Harbi.

Mehtab the Enemy. (Didn't learn this til later.)

And please take note of the entries by Trangbang (just above) and other 'Christians': they go on about Christianity AS IF Jesus didn't MEAN IT when He promised the 'One, like unto the Son of Man'; AS IF Jesus didn't WANT all three of His promises to come to fruition/conclusion in the same year, 1844 (1260AH); AS IF Jesus didn't KNOW that all 3 of His prophecies would come together in the same year that The Bab was recognized by the first human: May 23, 1844.

For the Christians, its as if Christ has not returned, and they blindly suffer for their clergys' "damnable heresy".

7/24/2005 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger sam said...

Europe unprepared:

Dominique Thomas, a French consultant on Islamist terrorism, divides the networks operating in Europe into two tendencies: dissidents targeting mainly the Arab regimes they oppose and "internationalists" pursuing broader objectives such as destabilizing the order in Western countries.

Much more threatening are the "internationalists" who have proliferated in recent months and follow what Mr. Thomas described as al Qaeda's "ideological and operational model for a global struggle."

"On the basis of intercepted documents, the professionalism of the conspirators is growing," he said. "If we took the pulse of the Islamic movement, we would see that it beats steadily. Al Qaeda is no longer one organization but a community of networks, which is much more dangerous."

7/24/2005 10:00:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

...and left us with the goofiest guy possible in charge:
Little Normie Minetta who still vividly remembers the Evil GI's taking his baseball bat when he got on the train.
Oh! The Humanity!
Nothing with the facts 'mam,
Just the fax.
(Democrat talking points.)

7/24/2005 10:05:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Even in my ignorance, it's apparent the clergy is way off track.
(How else to explain their present politics, for one thing?)

7/24/2005 10:08:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

That would be Mehtab the Arab?

7/24/2005 10:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

I guess the French are good at that stuff largely because of Algeria and etc?

7/24/2005 10:13:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hell, they'd know a lot about Terrorism just by studying Chirac's Friends!

7/24/2005 10:14:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Aristides, Point Taken, Sir.

Yes, you've been searching for a rallying cry, and I meant you no disrespect.

On another hand, IF a moderate but concerted effort (at informing Muslims, in Arabic) could yield results FAR in excess of what is invested in it, I want to go the transformation/subversion route, transforming the 90% of Muslims now cowed into submission TO THE WILL OF MULLAHs, who tell them its the Will of God!

THAT is oppression, and I have sworn an oath to protect America from such enemies, foreign OR domestic! (Aristides NOT included among said NME) :)


7/24/2005 10:37:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sam said,
"Many U.S. Muslim immigrants are as horrified as we are by the actions of Muslims in the countries of their birth"
The Iraqis in LA Area seem to fit that description.
My son used to work for an Iranian guy here whose kids said something like Nuke the place after seeing 911!

7/24/2005 11:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

The NEA:
"Better Dead Than Well Read"

7/24/2005 11:45:00 PM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


You could be on to something.

Undermining the mad Mullahs may be a lot easier than trying to tackle a whole religion.

Does anybody know the extent to which the West directs propaganda at the ME?

I suppose we'd need clearance from the MSM before we say booh, though.


7/25/2005 12:03:00 AM  
Blogger sam said...


Speaking of Chirac and his cronies. The French are ready for a new revolution:

Today should be Jacques Chirac's big moment. As the standard bearer of France's republican tradition he oversees an impressive parade on Bastille Day. Horseguards, soldiers, pilots, police officers and firemen will march down the Champs Elysées accompanied by as much hardware - tanks, rocket launchers and fighter jets - as France's military might can muster.

Mr Chirac will be remembered more for the sleaze and scandals that have mired his decade in power. Bereft of direction, the Chirac presidency will go down as the era of broken promises, or "words, words, words" as one analyst put it.

"Nobody seems to give a hoot if we produce anything or not. In fact they're prepared to pay us not to produce anything," said dairy farmer François Fihue.,11882,1527921,00.html#article_continue

7/25/2005 12:07:00 AM  
Blogger trish said...

Trish, 11:11 AM
Nobody ever does anything stupid?

- doug

Just an observation made by many others. IF we were at war with Islam and Islamists, we would not be funding and and in other ways backing Islam and Islamists. "Well, so, they're Islamists. They're OUR Islamists." Is this the absolute height of stupidity? Sure it is, insofar as it is a consequence of the thoroughly naive belief that money and a handshake can buy us anything.

7/25/2005 12:24:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Wretchard said,

"The reactions of Stephen Hadley and Frances Townsend to the London bombings in a New York Times signed article entitled "What We Saw in London" (hat tip: DL) emphasizes the ideological aspect of the War on Terror to such a degree that it is doubtful whether the traditional meaning of the word "war" can cover the case."

As a young American student learning the English language three decades ago I was taught that 'meaning' was determined by context. At some point afterwards I began to hear the word "traditional" used with meaning but I never gave it a second thought.

With this in mind, I knew instantly at first hearing that the GWOT had nothing at all to do with WAR in any context other than a 'struggle.'

As I read the exerpted comments I read them with a completely different mindset. The 'idealogical' references didn't create references to soldiers fighting in real Wars, it lead me instead to struggles between ideas.

By the time we get to the third lesson and the "struggle against terrorism" I had already begun problem solving in ways that had nothing at all to do with what you have described as the "traditional" meaning.

I can't help being a little disappointed by their "we have waged such wars before, and we know how to win them" comments.
They shouldn't leave these types of statements out in the open without giving some indication of how 'wining' will be defined. We have come full circle. The meaning of the War on Terror meets head on with the meaning of 'to win' and everyone continues to lose. Your Douglas MacArthur slices would be out of place in a discussion about 'the war on poverty' and the are out of place here. Douglas MacArthur would have steered clear of the GWOT. My hunch would be that he'd also be no great fan of the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on smoking, and all those other figures of speech that aren't "traditional" wars.

This is an example of why I don't blame the Bush administration. They are trapped between a rock and a hard place, and the best thing they can do now is bury the whole damn concept and try to find a more effective war cry, or banner.

7/25/2005 12:30:00 AM  
Blogger sam said...

War shuts borders:

What American Muslims need to understand is that this is not a Muslim country, or else they would have probably been slaughtered in the thousands after Sept. 11. The public hysteria would have been parallel to the sort Americans saw from Southern redneck whites who were always ready to string a Negro up, cut off his fingers and toes for souvenirs and burn him, dead or alive, feeling more white and righteous with each puff of smoke they inhaled.

Gone are those days. So we need to face what we have to face and do what we have to do.

7/25/2005 12:49:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

While I find your arguments generally well-informed, and your attitude quite humble, your man Dawkins strikes me (with all due respect, of course) as somewhat of a Pretentious, grandstanding, ill-informed twit.

"...I don't agree with this man, but we could have a wonderful argument. I would push the "cold bath" theory; he would (presumably) advocate the theme of inherent spiritual meaning in nature, however opaque the signal. But we would both be enlightened and filled with better understanding of these deep and ultimately unanswerable issues. Here, I believe, lies the greatest strength and necessity of NOMA, the nonoverlapping magisteria of science and religion. NOMA permits--indeed enjoins--the prospect of respectful discourse, of constant input from both magisteria toward the common goal of wisdom. If human beings are anything special, we are the creatures that must ponder and talk. Pope John Paul II would surely point out to me that his magisterium has always recognized this distinction, for in principio erat verbum--"In the beginning was the Word."
. Stephen Jay Gould .
"Only religion has an unbroken record of inspiring ninety percent of all manmade evil for at least three thousand years."
Richard Dawkins .
To which I add another personal gripe of mine:

The lack of a consistent, rigorous and precise definition of a meme remains one of the principal criticisms leveled at memetics, the study of memes.

...other than that, he's a cool dude!

7/25/2005 03:30:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Chinese PC Update .

At the same time, I feel that everyone has been applying the labels of ‘racist’ and ‘bigot’ much too liberally. In this age where people have become more PC and aware of the legal consequences of their words and actions, a lot of ‘racism’ and ‘bigotry’ get hidden behind more subtle actions: an uneasy smile, the aversion of eyes.
So before any of you celebrate in relief that you’re not anywhere AS ‘racist’ or ‘bigoted’ as Cheng Zhan, you may do well to reflect on how much effort you yourselves have REALLY made to ‘know’ other ‘races’ and people from different backgrounds. Although our government would like us to believe that we’re a wonderful ‘multicultural’ (’multiracial’ doesn’t even suffice anymore) entity- the fact is, a lot of assumptions that our policies are based on still get filtered through a ‘racist’ and ‘bigoted’ lens; most chinese people would still laugh at ‘mat’ or ‘indian and curry’ jokes (in the privacy of their bedrooms or behind closed doors of course); most people will still look at gangsters as if they’re the scum of the earth (watch ‘15′) and make fun of ah lians and ah bengs.

7/25/2005 05:21:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

You might miss it with only a link:
"somehow, the singaporean association here in my school has become an indian association. so gross. and somemore non-singaporean. its just so repulsive…these ugly guys with dark skin n irksome features. ya. i discovered i’m so racist. at the club (under lighting in which everyone is supposed to look good), i still find indians and filipinos (dark ones) so repulsive n such a turn-off. anyway, so now we have this ugly mass as our president. n his indian counterpart who isn’t even singaporean is our senator. what is the world coming to? why are indians dominating the singaporeans here?
all these mang ka-li….gross gross. don’t come near me!"
>.< disgust.

7/25/2005 05:26:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"When Dawkins spoke at the first artificial life conference in Los Alamos, New Mexico, in 1987, he delivered a paper on "The Evolution of Evolvability." This essay argues that evolvability is a trait that can be (and has been) selected for in evolution. The ability to be genetically responsive to the environment through such a mechanism as, say, sex, has an enormous impact on one's evolutionary fitness. Dawkins's paper has become essential reading in the artificial life community. His multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary fluency in fields ranging from ethology to software has made him someone who is closely watched not only by fans of his popular books but especially by his scientific peers, who range from Stephen Jay Gould to Marvin Minsky to Roger Penrose"
Some of Darwin's heirs and contemporaries would consider this guy a lightweight.

7/25/2005 05:38:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

Doug: I have not read Michelle Malkin's book yet but I did see a lecture by her on CSPAN last year. She did point out that those Japanese interned in the camps could leave them and go somewhere else, jut not to the U.S. West Coast. They could even go to college if they got accepted somewhere.
I wonder how many of them left the camps? Of course, the feeling in the country being what it was, and given the relative rarity of Asians in the U.S. at the time, I am sure they would have been concerned about how well they were received elsewhere. You can imagine.
So, it appears that the camps were to protect them, as much as anything.
And there is even a book out that explains how the internment ripped the guts out of the Japanese spy networks.
By the way, she begins her book explaining how a Zero fighetr from the 7 Dec raid crashed on one of the smaller HI islands, and the pilot enlisted the aid of one Niesi and one Japanese immigrant, ripped the machine guns out of the airplane, and tried to take over the island. A Hawaiian guy and his wife stopped them. That incident greatly influenced the decision to inter the Japanese.

7/25/2005 06:04:00 AM  
Blogger ex-democrat said...

doug, peter -- turns out the (as far as i can tell) single source for that WaPo agitprop piece may be far from impeachable.
think about it -- the WaPo relies on that single source to tell us what to think about progress in the GWOT. why?

7/25/2005 06:41:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hey! That sounds great: Gotta find that book! Know the name?
Google will probably do the job.
See my chinese pc post above:
The Japanese would want protection from the residents of Chinatowns USA.
...just kidding of course.
I'm sure all is sweetness and light between them, just like that racist guy and the Indians, Filopinos, and etc!
The more things change...

7/25/2005 06:42:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Abakan, Doug, et alia

"Winning" has been defined, and is publicly available to anyone who wants to read about what (God's) Win/Win situation looks like:

Read- "Advent of Divine Justice"
"Promulgation of Universal Peace"
"Compilation of Statements by
The Universal House of Justice"
for starters.

7/25/2005 06:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I think the NY Times editorial staff informs itself by (re)watching Fatso's Fahrenheit.

7/25/2005 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Proponents argue that the central point of the idea, that the gene is the unit of selection, is a more complete and accurate explanation of evolution than Darwin's.
(Darwin, however, cannot be faulted for this absence because the basic mechanisms of genetics weren't understood at the time).
Critics argue that this view oversimplifies the relationship between genes and the organism.
The majority of modern evolutionary biologists accept that the idea is consistent with many processes in evolution.
.However, the view that selection on other levels such as organisms and populations almost never opposes selection on genes is increasingly viewed as extreme.
In the last decade, difficulties with the theory of multi-level selection have been overcome and interaction between genes and between organisms as a force in evolution has again become a topic of research.
wiki: selfish gene

7/25/2005 06:45:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

re Interment of Japanese-Americans in WWII: It WAS a difficult situation, inasmuch as they WERE interred, but politely and courteously and -for the most part- respectfully.

There was a whole regiment of Nisei raised from interment camps, and sent to fight in Europe against the Euro-Nazis.

They enlisted VOLUNTARILY, Folks.

7/25/2005 06:47:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Thanks, I was too lost to start.
Only thing better would be a "For Dummies" link.

7/25/2005 06:50:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

...and don't forget the
Fighting 442nd !

7/25/2005 06:52:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Late here:
How does the timeline work for this?
"There was a whole regiment of Nisei raised from interment camps, and sent to fight in Europe against the Euro-Nazis."
...must be past my bedtime.

7/25/2005 06:54:00 AM  
Blogger Messiah said...

Hey, here is my reply to you:

7/25/2005 07:07:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Maybe you should contact Dave Horowitz about your idea for an Arabic Website to enlighten the downtrodden.
He's got some financial connections willng to promote helpful causes.

7/25/2005 07:08:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

I can't help but think we have "good" Mulsims inside of the mosques in the USA. It is afterall how the FBI brought down both the mob and the KKK.

7/25/2005 07:09:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

4. I have been empowered with the knowledge that if the majority of people of all religions (including atheists) recognize and accept the EXPLANATION (in other words, recognize and accept SCIENCE as their religion) then this will save our civilization.
Yeh, Science explains Creation, Salvation, Souls, and etc.
I had a dream.
(what the h... would anyone DO in the midst of 72 virgins?)
Duck and Cover?

7/25/2005 07:13:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Sheets Byrde attends a MOSQUE?

7/25/2005 07:14:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

Doug said:...and don't forget the
Fighting 442nd !

The "Go for Broke" regiment in Italy. Probably the most decorated regiment of the war. My dad's unit supported them with tanks and he always said they were the most gung ho bunch he ever saw.........

7/25/2005 07:15:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Damn, that would be every 12 year old male's dream:
Go to church to rat out the sleazeballs.

7/25/2005 07:16:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Super 6,
But HOW could they be raised in the camps?
... I be very stupid.

7/25/2005 07:17:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

...the other guys that carridine refered to.

7/25/2005 07:18:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

They weren't raised there, just volunteered to get out of them. They felt like they had something to prove.

7/25/2005 07:19:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

at 6:50 sam wrote

``Why is it that all the roads keep going back to Pakistan?''

and they do.
The problem seems to be that Pakistan is not a unified nation. The mountainous regions of tne Afghan border are pretty much autonomous. The Paki army had not entered since the founding of the Nation. When they finally did, at our urging, combat ensued.
Much like Columbia, Boliva, Philipines and Afghanistan large areas of the geography are outside the 'command and control' of the central government.
The idea that we should make war on the Nation States that are weak and cannot control the Hinterlands or their populations is counter productive. The idea that we should "help" Pakistan control those areas would lead to a situation that would make the Iraqi occupation look tame. The same is true of the other Mohammedan States.
The Egyptian Government cannot control the 'Muslim Brotherhood', should we destroy Cairo because of that? I think not.
The Mohammedan Opfor is at war with our culture, which they see as corrosive to their way of life, which it is.
The solution is in first defining Victory, which we have yet to do, defining the Enemy, which we have yet to do, and finally developing a strategy to destroy that enemy.

7/25/2005 07:20:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Super 6,
Hawaii still supplies a LOT of gung ho types.
A lot are Filopino, these days, but also Polynesians from various locales.

7/25/2005 07:22:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

So why haven't you defined all that stuff for us?
...seems like the LEAST you could do.
(other than vaporizing all that other do do.)
" The idea that we should "help" Pakistan control those areas would lead to a situation that would make the Iraqi occupation look tame. "
Even with Fuel Air Devices?
...what do we do with all the "graduates" that seem to keep coming out?
You make things so difficult:
Could you consider returning to bivouac status?

7/25/2005 07:26:00 AM  
Blogger Jake said...

Doug said...
Super 6,
Hawaii still supplies a LOT of gung ho types.
A lot are Filopino, these days, but also Polynesians from various locales.

I don't disagree. Sometimes I worry about our(WASP)warrior spirit, but conversations with our young men back from Iraq and A'stan usually put those worries to rest

7/25/2005 07:27:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

When Ronnie Raygun was first elected President he told an aide his idea for the Cold War.
It was not Detente, Coexistence or any PC descriptive.
No old RR had it right.

"We win, They lose"

and so we did,
or so the story goes

7/25/2005 07:30:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Thanks a lot, 'Rat:
Where's the plan you keep refering to that W should have?

7/25/2005 07:35:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Super 6,
Yeah, no dearth of WASPS in Special Ops, as far as I can tell.

7/25/2005 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I was only a Sergeant a couple of times and decided against OCS and a military career. The thought that you think I could prevail intellectually, where even our host is at a lost seems optimistic, at best.

7/25/2005 07:40:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

So why keep bitching?

7/25/2005 07:41:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

I will strive to fulfill your expectations

7/25/2005 07:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Maybe you could lead us in Prayer?
(har de har)

7/25/2005 07:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Fill up the Pitcher.

7/25/2005 07:43:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Identify the Imams that talk sh.t,
Kill them
Identify the financiers of the Opfor, Kill them
By the time you have accomplished those two goals, I'll think of some more options.
This should become a more clandestine play then it has been up to now.
We should be reading about their folks dying in mysterious ways and by unknown assailants

7/25/2005 07:46:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

If Ross Perot could hire 'Bull' Simmons to stage a riot and free his employees from an Iranian jail, just think what nonretired Military folks could do, if freed to do it.

7/25/2005 07:50:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Who was it tho that post that stuff I reposted that had 4 Saudis dying all at once of natural causes from thirst to Airplane accidents?
...Ledger, I think.
If I were King, I would make W. watch Steve Emerson's video for 1 month straight, then have him order the networks to do the same thing for the next month.
Mosques and Holy Immams Gone!
(except for ali Belmonti, of course)

7/25/2005 07:52:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Those Saudi's know how to get 'er done.
Identify the Opfor, kill 'em. No matter who they are related to.
Takes some rocks, though.

7/25/2005 07:55:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

...the non PC Types.
Bring back Gordon Liddy!

7/25/2005 07:56:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Mr. Eugeniscist:
"I picked her because she was tall, and that would compensate for my short stature!"
Hell, who needs tall when you bite off Rat's Heads?
(no offense, of course)
Isn't Gordo living down in AZ land?

7/25/2005 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

Doug: Sorry I do not recall the name of the book that talked about the Japanese spy rings in WWII. I am pretty sure I saw it for sale at, but I just looked there and could not find it.
Speaking of books, have you read that novel "Days of Infamy"?

7/25/2005 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

He has a house in McCormick Ranch, over in Scottsdale. I don't think he summers here, though. That takes real rocks, in the head.

7/25/2005 08:01:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Is it something about EX Marines living in Arizona?

7/25/2005 08:02:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger