Saturday, July 23, 2005

And Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep

What thread runs through today's top world headlines? (This selection was obtained by running the search URL "" at July 23, 2005 03:00 Zulu)

Blasts in Egypt Kill at Least 49 at Sinai Resort

Police seeking London bombers shoot man dead

Blast rocks Beirut after surprise visit by Rice

Kidnapped Algerian envoy had refused Iraqi offers of bodyguards

Ummah must initiate joint war against extremists: Musharraf

Sunnis to continue boycott until demands met

Tribal elders who aided hunt for al-Qaida-linked militants shot ...

Terrorism: brigades threaten Rome, Amsterdam and Copenhagen

Rice: Israel must coordinate disengagement with PA

UN reform to include first definition of terrorism

Of the several possible answers, the subtlest is that there is no skein running through these stories. In January, 2005 the BBC ran a series of television programs called the Power of Nightmares, which argued that horrifying headlines like these, if connected at all, were linked in entirely imaginary ways.

In the past our politicians offered us dreams of a better world. Now they promise to protect us from nightmares. The most frightening of these is the threat of an international terror network. But just as the dreams were not true, neither are these nightmares. In a new series, the Power of Nightmares explores how the idea that we are threatened by a hidden and organised terrorist network is an illusion. It is a myth that has spread unquestioned through politics, the security services and the international media. At the heart of the story are two groups: the American neo-conservatives and the radical Islamists. ... Together they created today's nightmare vision of an organised terror network. ...

(from the description of the second part of the series)  ... both failed in their revolutions. In response, the neo-conservatives invented a new fantasy enemy, Bill Clinton, focusing on the scandal surrounding him and Monica Lewinsky. Meanwhile, the Islamists descend into a desperate cycle of violence and terror to try to persuade the people to follow them. ...

(the third part concludes)  ... There are dangerous and fanatical individuals and groups around the world who have been inspired by extreme Islamist ideas, and who will use the techniques of mass terror - the attacks on America and Madrid make this only too clear. But the nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organisation waiting to strike our societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for this al-Qaeda organisation, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the "sleeper cells" in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy. But the reason that no-one questions the illusion is because this nightmare enemy gives so many groups new power and influence in a cynical age - and not just politicians.

Although the proposition that organized international terrorism does not exist may seem funny, many writers on the Left seriously believe that terrorism is a derivative phenomenon with no independent existence of its own. It is simply a reaction to Western, and particularly American oppression. It is the shadow, as it were, of the USA, which would cease to exist once the solid being that gave rise to it vanished. According to this point of view, it is entirely correct to refer to terrorists as 'insurgents', 'resistants', 'militants' or even 'freedom fighters', because they have no actual violent goals arising from their consciousness except as are suggested to them by their oppressor; entirely correct refer to them as 'phantoms' because they do not exist of themselves, except as emergent phenomenon in relation to the United States.

Thomas Joscelyn spends two whole pages in the Weekly Standard article The Four-Day War reminding us that after President Clinton launched Operation Desert Fox in 1999 to prevent Saddam Hussein from acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction the press widely reported that Hussein had turned to Osama Bin Laden to exact revenge on the United States.

Just days after Operation Desert Fox concluded one of Saddam's most loyal and trusted intelligence operatives, Faruq Hijazi, was dispatched to Afghanistan. He met with senior leaders from the Taliban and then with bin Laden and his cohorts on December 21.

While we cannot be sure what transpired at this meeting, we can be sure that it was not some benign event. In fact, within days of the meeting bin Laden loudly declared his opposition to the U.S.-led missile strikes on Iraq and called on all Muslims to strike U.S. and British targets, including civilians, around the world. According to press accounts at the time, bin Laden explained, "The British and the American people loudly declared their support for their leaders' decision to attack Iraq." He added that the citizens' support for their governments made it "the duty of Muslims to confront, fight, and kill" them.

Bin Laden's words sounded alarm bells around the world. Countless media outlets scurried to uncover the details of the relationship between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. Dozens of news outlets--foreign and domestic--reported on the growing relationship and its ominous implications. When assessing any news account the reader must take all of the information with a grain of salt. But the sheer weight of the evidence reported from so many different sources paints a disturbing picture.

Joscelyn's extraordinary efforts at recollection are important today because it has since become an article of faith that neither the WMDs nor the Hussein-Bin Laden connection ever existed. Recalling the recent past inconveniently undermines the thesis that an "organised terrorist network is an illusion". It is data that would be swept out of sight without the vigilance of writers like Joscelyn. (And it didn't used to be hard, at least in the days before the Internet. One Soviet historian working in the days of Stalin complained of the difficulty of his task because "You never know what's going to happen yesterday".) It would then be harder to deny the existence to an international terrorist network with actual goals of its own, with a will to power of its own, acting in the world today. Then we might have to conclude that the skein running through today's headlines is terrorism; that it is warring on us and that we might have to return the favor.

Yet on one limited point the BBC's producers may be right. There probably isn't a single controlling terrorist network in the world today; but multiple ones each with their own specific goals who may maintain links with each other, just as the multiple totalitarian movements in the 1930s formed an axis whenever it suited them. But the multiplicity of diseases does not invalidate the notion of disease. Terrorism does not exist simply because the Google search engine lets us pull together disparate threads to conceive it. The mind assisted by instruments can discover terrifying phenomena invisible to the eye. Then horror may take on the aspect of nightmare, except that it is all too real.


Blogger Doug said...

It is sad how we never seem to learn to reject the malignant fantasies propagated by our government, and now especially, the NeoCons.
In the "Cold War" days they cooked up the phony "Soviet Threat" to manipulate a gullible populace.
We all should have sneered at Reagan's hilarious referral to an
"Evil Empire"(!) but unfortunately only the enlightened elites on the left saw the joke for what it was.
Now, we all must suffer as the Buffoon Pawn of the 'Cons talks equally nonsensically about
What a joke!

7/23/2005 01:39:00 AM  
Blogger Rune said...

We have those politicians we deserve, and all our troubles are of our own making. You can't expect politicians to be anything but what the people seek. If we can't seem to elect politicians with any grander vision than protecting us from nightmares, then I propose that reflects something deeper amiss in our civilization. A culture become confused, without a bedrock of shared values, at war with itself and above all: always so afraid.

I don't believe Al-Qaeda exists in anything but an idelogy, there is no global terror conspiracy - just a lot of people with a shared goal. And the war on terror is nothing of the sort. This is a war on islamism, of which the one part happen, at this point, to use terror in ingenious new ways and with remarkable good results. And they wouldn't be so successful if we weren't so scared.

7/23/2005 01:54:00 AM  
Blogger Meme chose said...

The political correctness to which the UK media are wedded was well displayed after the second wave of bombing attacks. In the immediate aftermath several television journalists found themselves live on the air talking with eyewitnesses who had seen the bombers, all of whom were then still on the loose.

They peppered them with questions about every aspect of what had happened except that for some reason they forgot to ask them any questions at all about what the bombers looked like.

Only after it became clear that photographs of the bombers taken by closed circuit TV cameras would be released did they start asking about this, and receiving the unsurprising answers.

7/23/2005 02:04:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

'And Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep', 'Think Globally, Act Locally', and 'The Green, Green Grass of Home,' represent to me your awakening.

What took you so long. I think you might have been destracted by the struggle against terrorism (War on Terror.)

Today, inside my head polls which measure whether we are 'winning' the 'war on terror' and whether 'Iraq is a Distraction in the War on Terror' sparks memories of old Monty Python or Benny Hill sketches.

I hope the GWOT is a dying meme. It's done enough damage. Perhaps, when it is gone we can focus on the real wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Red X all references to the GWOT in speeches and return to the Bush Doctrine.

Let's let nations police themselves, and join with other nation/states in War against state sponsors of terrorism. Let's also keep struggling against the terrorists. Locally, where it all matters most.

7/23/2005 02:09:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

(responding to a bimbo reporterette)
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD: On the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq that the first point of reference is, once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away to use a vernacular.
And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats.
And no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.
Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

PRIME MINISTER HOWARD: And can I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.
PRIME MINISTER HOWARD: Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor.
Are people, by implication, suggesting we shouldn't have done that?
When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy, not just in Iraq, but Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan? When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq, a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations, when Al-Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor. Now, I don't know the mind of the terrorist.
By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber.
I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited, the objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq.
And, indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life; this is about the perverted use of the principles of a great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse, through a perverted ideology, of people and their murder.

7/23/2005 02:18:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

(or maybe it was abakan?)

7/23/2005 02:19:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

"By their deeds ye shall know them."

And so it is. The attempt to find a single controller is futile. Finding a single controlling ideology is obvious - thy name is Islam.

Now we all know this, we have known it since 9/11. But we are polite.

When the Imam comes to shuffle us onto the train taking us to Auswitch, I hope you all remember that "Work will set us free". And touch your cap, as you board.

Sweet submission.


7/23/2005 02:58:00 AM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...


There is the possibility that something might not be a conspiracy as legally defined, yet entirely real. The Daily Telegraph has just printed an editorial whose contents would have been astounding two weeks ago. Called "Ten Urgent Steps to Make Britain Safer" it urges:

1. Confidently assert British values;
2. Exclude foreign undesirables;
3. Repeal the Human Rights Act;
4. Crackdown on propaganda;
5. Intercept (wiretap) evidence admissable in court;
6. Visible police presence;
7. Sensible policing;
8. Expectation for Muslims to join the police and security forces;
9. Effective border controls;
10. Increased detention facilities.

Are these guys swatting imaginary flies or what? What boggles the mind is the Telegraph's use of the "M" word because once the dam holding back the verboten idea cracks, who knows what may follow?

The Left failed to understand just how good a deal it was to portray terrorism as a conspiracy when the alternative was portraying it as a struggle against what is at the minimum, a cult comprising millions of adherents, if not a significant part of a world-religion. But no. They had to go and equate terrorism with Pink Elephants, without appreciating that people understood that anything with real effects could not be illusory. The shelter of political correctness was always going to be shattered by the first thunderstorm of blood.

7/23/2005 02:59:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

But we'll fail at point 1.

Nobody knows what "British Values" are anymore.


7/23/2005 03:14:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

RUSH: ( story) "Terror investigators hunting the London bombing mastermind are to question a suspected Al Qaeda planner held in Pakistan. British-born Haroon Rashid Aswad was seized at a religious school with a suicide bomb belt, explosives and GBP 13,000 in cash. Security sources in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, claim he had up to 20 telephone conversations with London bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer. One of these is believed to have been just hours before the blasts." This guy had a meeting with Bin Laden. Everybody is talking about how these things are because we are in a Iraq. It has nothing to do with Iraq. Australian Prime Minister John Howard is right on the money. A friend of mine sent me a quote today from Robert E. Lee, and I want any of you who are in the mainstream media to listen to this, because this just shows you the more things change, the more they stay the same.
This is Robert E. Lee talking to a friend admitting that the south had made a huge mistake from the beginning:
"Why, it appears that we appointed all of our worst generals to command the armies and we appointed all of our best generals to edit the newspapers.
I mean, I found by reading a newspaper that these editor generals saw all of the defects plainly from the start but didn't tell me until it was too late. I'm willing to yield my place to these best generals and I'll do my best for the cause by editing a newspaper."
Basically what he is saying is that, you know, "It is amazing all these generals that write for the newspaper have no clue what they are doing. They are always telling me what I am doing wrong after the fact. Why don't they tell me what I'm doing wrong before I get started? In fact, let's trade places. You people in the media think you know what is best and run the war, you go ahead and do it and we'll take your jobs." That is Robert E. Lee.

7/23/2005 03:29:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Oh Robert, thou should'st be living at this hour.

ADE. appologies to Milton

7/23/2005 03:35:00 AM  
Blogger husker_met said...

"Joscelyn's extraordinary efforts at recollection are important today because it has since become an article of faith that neither the WMDs nor the Hussein-Bin Laden connection ever existed. Recalling the recent past inconveniently undermines the thesis that an 'organised terrorist network is an illusion'."

Never let it be said that a politician let the truth stand in the way of a good ideological talking point.

In many ways, we're our own worst enemies. Two tight presidential elections and a near 50/50 partisan split of the electorate make an objective assessment of our current situation difficult at best.

AQ as monolithic boogeyman vs. Bush lied. Easily digestible articles of faith that play well on CNN or FoxNews, but cloud the collective orientation cycle.

I don't think there is an organized Liberal or Neo-Con conspiracy to obfuscate. It's simply a reaction of the political classes to the political environment. Whatever it is, it's going to get a lot more people killed than what is necessary.

The politicization of security threats, the general non-curiosity of the electorate, and smokescreen permanent political campaigning will, I fear, draw this ordeal out.

The first step is admitting you have a problem...

7/23/2005 03:37:00 AM  
Blogger ledger said...

Wretchard, you are right. The left MSM is at fault. It's well know the Beeb, Reuters, and the Guardian are liberal Main Stream Media (they employ a considerable number of Islamic reporters).

Further, they often cater to various entities which have an agenda. This would include a continuum of spin-masters from the local barrister attempting of boost the images of his murderous client (He was a nice kid - but his back pack just happen to expoded in the train) to high powered "image firms" to project various political agendas.

It's now known that Saddam will go on trial for war crimes. Your post indicates he was a major player in terrorists activities. Further, it has been documented that Saddam robbed the Iraqi central bank and placed the proceeds in Syrian hands (along with many of his Baath party members).

It's possible that said ill gotten gains are being used to disrupt the transition of Iraq and influence the Main Stream Media. Saddam's relatives (children and so forth) are still around and active (as are Bin Laden's). It's possible they are behind this huge push.

I would suggest that US and UK investigators discreetly inquire to how and where these stories are developed. Is there a communication connection between Baathists/al Qaeda and the MSM? Are there cash transactions between the Baathists/al Qaeda and the MSM. Given the events one could might conclude that there were. It's time get the book on some of these reporters.

7/23/2005 03:38:00 AM  
Blogger wretchardthecat said...

Had Islam faced the West without the distorting influence of the Left these past decades the tectonic shifts between them would have been gradual and relatively painless on both sides. But alas, the Left is part of the West and it presented Islam with a false picture, one that suggested Islam didn't have to reckon or respect the West at all; that even its most extreme sects could pull a wire and the marionette would shuffle. Osama's strategic calculations were based on his appreciation of Clinton, who managed to give them entirely the wrong impression.

Perhaps, having lied to everyone else about the way things were, the Left also lied to Islam, which must now abruptly adjust itself when it awakens in the Fool's Paradise. But I think there is enough residual decency to prevent this becoming a real tragedy -- as long as people act sensibly and act now.

7/23/2005 03:44:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

There does not need to be an underlying command structure,nor is a unitary orgaisation,the call to Jihad is all that is required.

7/23/2005 03:55:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

The democrats routinely fax out talking points, often taking positions diametrically opposed to their stated positions when Clinton was in office!
Just the facts, mam, nothing but the fax.

7/23/2005 04:10:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

Wretchard, you couldn't be more correct, the horror is undeniably real. Why then, with the smoke filling the rooms, do half the occupants of the asylum think the flames and choking gases are coming from the fire trucks fighting the inferno?

I am loathe to apply psychology to the situation, but when the evidence is so overwhelming, why does half the populace of the US believe this is all new phenomena "caused" by "Bush's war" in Iraq? Can it be something as simple as denial? They don't want there to be a war going on, and therefore they can't abide the existence of a deadly enemy.

It is like the depressed young man suffering self-defeatism - he can't find a job because no one will hire him so he won't look for a job - and he'll remain unemployed and depressed.

Likewise, the populace in denial that a deadly suicidal philosophy affects the world and its agents are Islamic fanatics, will convince themselves the reason for the phenomena is something that is not so scary, not so uncontrollable - that it is in fact - US!

Right now the argument of the Left hinges on denial of any precedent, there is no past. We must focus on the huge "mistake" of Bush's war in Iraq and how we're going to rectify that. Let's not consider the ten or fifty or hundred years leading up to this point, let's just talk about how we're going to get out of Iraq. Like the cancer patient worrying about her hair falling out, let's fix the one thing we can, let's buy a wig and restore the appearance.

We can count on our Islamic enemies, organized or not, to continue their evil. And one can only suppose those in denial, and those in active opposition on the Left, will eventually awake from their suicidal denial. No human society has walked lemming-like off the cliff, like we are doing now, has it?

7/23/2005 04:19:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


The tectonic shifts were always there, from Xerses. The betrayal was recent, however.

How embarassing to be the most successful civilisation known to man (and indeed, women). What a burden. I'll go and light a candel to appologise.

Will that be all right, though?


7/23/2005 04:20:00 AM  
Blogger husker_met said...

Osama may have incorrectly assessed the Western psyche, but I think we may be falsely projecting the common man's common sense on Western policy makers.

British journalism aside, we have a hard time admitting to ourselves, in this country the nature and extent of the problem. And we're nominally the lead player in the West!

It isn't just the Left misdirecting the debate. The Right, ever fearful of being cast as intolerant hate-mongers, plays right along by not speaking up.

I recognize diplomacy plays a role, but God forbid a conservative ever point out Saudi financial support for the enemy, Pakistan's tacit ideological support, or the local imam's inflammatory rants.

Hell, you might lose an election that way.

7/23/2005 04:34:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

Because we have two preprogammed entities,which when given the verbal signal will either rise in jihad or "speak truth to power".That is what indoctrination is about,the left and the jihadis are like Pavlov's dogs and ecents have started them drooling.
Immensely depressing in the 21st century.

7/23/2005 04:35:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

From one viewpoint the Enron and Global Crossing failures never happened, since all of the physical manifestaions of those companies still exist. So why are we prosecuting people?
Wretchard's post shows why our streets are in reality guarded by "rough men prepared to do nasty things" far away. You cannot kill everyone who supports Islamic terrorism. But you can reveal it to be weak and ineffective as a philosophy, as weak and inffective in prevailing on the world stage as it is in providing the basic necessities at home.

7/23/2005 04:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Robert Scheer in the LA Times today advances the theory that Al-Qaeda does not exist.
Al-Qaeda is just a bogeyman. "Is it conceivable," he begins, "that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist? To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical, especially in the context of the U.S. media's supine acceptance of administration claims relating to national security. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain's leading documentary filmmakers--" probably their version of Mary Mapes, "--systematically challenges this and many other accepted articles of faith in the so-called war on terror." The name of this documentary, "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear." It's a three hour historical film by Adam Curtis. "It argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services and the international media." Isn't it interesting who the left now turns to for their source authorities? Filmmakers! I guess Michael Moore has run his course. Now we gotta go get somebody from the respectable so-called BBC named Adam Curtis who claims that Al-Qaeda is a figment of our imaginations, it's been foisted on us by a bunch of conspiratorial governments for the purposes of more government power, the erosion of civil rights, the killing of innocent women and children and so forth -- and of course it's not just the U.S. that's involved in this. The British are involved and all of the coalition partners are involved in this, and I guess we would have to include Bill Clinton and John Kerry and all the other Democrats in 1998 who signed on to this, and I guess we'd have to include all the Democrats who signed onto use-of-force authorization that they demanded Bush let them vote on again in 2002. "The documentary does not doubt that an embittered, well-connected and wealthy Saudi man named Osama bin Laden helped finance various affinity groups of Islamist fanatics that have engaged in terror, including the 9/11 attacks. Nor does it challenge the notion that a terrifying version of fundamentalist Islam has led to gruesome spates of violence throughout the world. But the film, both more sober and more deeply provocative than Michael Moore's 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives..."
Read: Jews.
Is what that means. "...has seized upon the false image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet empire in order to push a political agenda."

7/23/2005 04:46:00 AM  
Blogger Baron Bodissey said...

What proportion of terrorist attacks is perpetrated by Muslims, and in the name of Islam? We know it has to be high; after all, the Tamil Tigers are out of the trade now, and the IRA and the ETA are mostly quiet. Searching for non-Muslim terror in America, one finds only Eric Rudolph and McVeigh/Nichols.

If somehow all the Muslims in the world could be sedated, strait-jacketed, and put into little locked rooms, how much terror would be left in the world? Anybody got any ideas?

7/23/2005 04:47:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

More Scheer,
Bush Is Serving Up the Cold War Warmed Over.
The "war on terror" is turning out to be nothing more than a recycled formulation of the dangerously dumb "domino theory." Listen to the way President Bush justifies the deepening quagmire of Iraq: "Defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." If we didn't defeat communism in Vietnam, or even tiny Grenada, went the hoary defense of bloody proxy wars and covert brutality in the latter stages of the Cold War, San Diego might be the next to go Red.

7/23/2005 04:49:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I got an idea:
DON'T use profiling (young Arabs, etc) when checking bags on NY Subways or in Airports.
DO check randomly, little old ladies in wheelchairs, no matter the amount of inconvenience and humiliation inflicted.

7/23/2005 04:53:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


The Left and the Jihadis are not in cahoots. They just have the same objective - you.

AQ does not exist, thanks to USMC. Islam, sadly, will be with us for some time. Just as bad, regrettably. But then, if you were an Imama and knew a baddie, you could always turn him in? Just kidding!


7/23/2005 04:56:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly promised that officers would not engage in racial profiling, and that passengers will be free to “turn around and leave” rather than consent to a search.

7/23/2005 04:59:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

Imam - peace be unto them, Allah, the whole world, women, aetheists, why, even Doug.


7/23/2005 04:59:00 AM  
Blogger ledger said...


Had Islam faced the West without the distorting influence of the Left these past decades the tectonic shifts between them would have been gradual and relatively painless on both sides. But alas, the Left is part of the West and it presented Islam with a false picture...



Islam, which must now abruptly adjust itself when it awakens in the Fool's Paradise. But I think there is enough residual decency to prevent this becoming a real tragedy -- as long as people act sensibly and act now.


Sorry Wretchard, the cancer is incubating. But, as in all long term disease the incubation period is uncertain - could be farther along than thought.

Realistically, the Islamic thugs are pumped on their huge supply of oil. This oil is sold at a high price and finances their agenda which includes destruction of "non- believers." The king pins are at the age that assumes they can ride the magic economic carpet to their retirement. They assume they can buy or sell whom every they please. Throw in the nuke factor and it's a real disease.

Can this cycle be reversed or stemmed? I would guess that it is 60% non-reversible and 40% reversible. Indications of top Islamic persons who condemn the terror action would be positive - but none have been forthcoming.

In my opinion major surgery will be needed (and it will not be pretty).

As for the MSM, they are bought and sold as commodity. The Web logs are the only place for real information.

Wretchard is optimistic. I am intrepidly optimistic. The reason is that surgery must be performed before the disease is contained (this surgery may require further military operations). The top people that spread mass killings must be removed.

7/23/2005 05:02:00 AM  
Blogger Peter UK said...

Al Qaeda probably is an invented concept,it is a euphemism for the terror whose name we dare not speak.This construct allows us to bring mayhem on selected sectors of the RoP without ever having to spell out the real size or the problem.
The black banners are flying once more the drummers are drumming and the shade of the Mahdi stalks the world.
This time everyone averts their eyes and tut tuts at the unrepresentatively violent minority who WE must have offended in some way.
Ask Lenin's question,"Who,Whom?"

7/23/2005 05:18:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


You are well named

"Realistically, the Islamic thugs are pumped on their huge supply of oil.

And what a pump.

Should we apologise?

If you knew the financing of the oil industry, you would say no. If you were French and benefiting from no OIF, "OIU, mon cher, where do you want me to point my bum? Towards Mecca? Quelle plaiseure".

So we must strike a deal. It'll be x for y.

What it won't be "it is your hostages for mine. Or I've just gone all Islamic, gimme the oil".

But Islam is religion of peace, Non? As long as you pay the Danegold.


7/23/2005 05:23:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

While I too rankle at the term "GWOT" I have come to realize that is indeed what it is.
While our main problem is the Islamofacists at present, if Britain responded to the London attacks by withdrawing its troops from Iraq at once and expressing regret, what would happen next? Would the Left Handed Lithuanian Lesbian Tennis Players Association set off a few bombs and make demands relative to being included in the Olympics? Would we get a hundred new Ted Kazinskies, expressing hatred of airlines and universities, and perhaps, park benches painted green? Terrorism must be shown to have the most severe consequences, just as attacking us with those tanks and jet fighters the Palestinians don't have has been proven unhealthy as well.

7/23/2005 05:25:00 AM  
Blogger Whereisoliver said...

Regarding Doug and Enlightened elites of the left: It never fails to amuse how leftist are always commenting how smart or enlightened they are, but are so unbelievably dense.

You should know Doug, that conservatives disagree on virtually everything (example: Goldwater was pro-abortion, Buchanan is anti-war), but ALL CONSERVATIVES AGREE THAT ALL LEFTISTS ARE STUPID.

7/23/2005 05:32:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Again with your Afghan and Iraqi wars against defeated nation states
What Nation State are we battling in Afghanistan, today? Karzai's? of course not, we are engaged in an anti insurgent battle there. The fact that the indigs do not respect Afghan or Pakistani governess or borders makes the Opfor there insurgents, not a Nation State. The Nation State of Afghanistan was defeated years ago
The Nation State of Iraq was defeated in 2003. It's Armys disbanded and it's leader imprisoned. We are not in a conflict with a Nation State in Iraq.
Until the Congress declares it, in a Declaration of War, the US is engaged in Operations in both locales, not WAR. Read the US Constitiution for further clarification.

7/23/2005 05:37:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...

"While I too rankle at the term "GWOT" I have come to realize that is indeed what it is.
While our main problem is the Islamofacists at present...

rwe, we have only one problem - those who hate the West. There are many who fit the definition: The Left, Islam, China, Russia (ok, sort of when they work out what they stand for - let's hope China gives them a nudge), the French, French running dogs such as the Germans.

"Oh Lord it's hard to be humble, when you're perfect in every way."

Consider the possibility. One thing I'll say, it's not me.


7/23/2005 05:46:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

By the way, Wretchard's sub-post on Islam + Western Leftism = Terrorism is well worthy of its own learned discourse with about 500 responses.

7/23/2005 05:47:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Of course you do not have to submit to a search.
Have you never read the 4th Amendment, doug?
That is what Jr. is defending, that is what I took an Oath to defend, your life or any subway riders life is worth less than the 4th Amendmemt of the Constitiution.

The Nation is of a greater value then any Individual within it and it is the Constitution that makes the US a Nation.
Without that we are nothing.

7/23/2005 05:52:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

Live free or die

I will not be imprisoned by your fear. I will not submit to terror
I will not relinquish what makes US, US
I will oppose any who wish to
All enemies, foreign and domestic

7/23/2005 05:59:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

The nations of the world have a right and a duty to cooperate in collective security, according to The Glory of God.

All nations rise up against the diseased and the murderous amongst us. We have a right to live, unoppressed by Islamic thug ubermenschen drunk on their own 'leaders' continual whispering of "They are k'ffr, they are unbelieving dogs..."

7/23/2005 06:02:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Desert Rat said,

Again with your Afghan and Iraqi wars against defeated nation states."

Again, with your War is over mantra and the inclusion of the word defeat. As I have said over and over we are fighting Taliban and Baathist remnants, sympathizers, and foreign fighters.
The who isn't as important as the when. The when is of course before the win.

Desert Rat said,

"What Nation State are we battling in Afghanistan, today?"

What Taliban forces do you think would resume governance if we left Afghanistan? What Baathist will be reelected by votes at gunpoint. I know this seems to be difficult for you to grasp, but the war was against Baathists and the Taliban and we are currently fighting Baathist and Taliban remnants, sympathizers, and foreign fighters.

Desert Rat said,

"Karzai's? of course not, we are engaged in an anti insurgent battle there."

Yes, we work side by side with newly elected governments in both countries against a mutual enemy.

Desert Rat said,
"The fact that the indigs do not respect Afghan or Pakistani governess or borders makes the Opfor there insurgents, not a Nation State."

Which indigs would you be refering to exactly. The Taliban remnants, sympathizers, and foreign fighters, or the indigs that make up the new government and serve under Karzai?

Desert Rat said,
"The Nation State of Afghanistan was defeated years ago
The Nation State of Iraq was defeated in 2003. It's Armys disbanded and it's leader imprisoned. We are not in a conflict with a Nation State in Iraq."

Again, I must have missed that victory parade? When was it?

Desert Rat said,
"Until the Congress declares it, in a Declaration of War, the US is engaged in Operations in both locales, not WAR. Read the US Constitiution for further clarification."

Pure semantics, a declaration is no longer required, now we refer to Authorization for Use of Force.

7/23/2005 06:05:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

ADE, 3:14 AM
British Value Number 1:
Open Borders
10 out of 10 Cabbies are down on Blair for this:
London no longer looks British.

7/23/2005 06:07:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

And while we're on the hated American roots of freedom and liberty (the 'root causes' of Islamo-thug cowardice), please recall T Jefferson's "I have sworn on the alter of God, eternal enmity to oppression in all its forms!"

What more oppressive than that rational humans seek the love of God, and have no where to turn?

7/23/2005 06:07:00 AM  
Blogger the gas guy said...

An individual in the Rotary club I attend made much the same point about our foreign policy being at the root of our problems. I asked and just as I suspected there was not a person in that room of highly educated white men who could give a comprehensive accounting of what that foreign policy was over the last say, 50 years. So how is it that terrorists could come to be so erudite and driven by particular foreign policy decisions from one country over a couple generations when a group of the most educated and internationally involved individuals in the world don’t have a clue what that policy was?

You don’t suppose someone is putting that idea in their heads do you?

7/23/2005 06:09:00 AM  
Blogger Baron Bodissey said...

I have a post about this at Gates of Vienna, but it was too good not to include here:

Asked whether he thought the blasts might be related to Islam, the Egyption Interior Minister replied, “What Islam? This terrorism has nothing to do with any religion, because all religions do not allow aggression and do not allow killing civilians in innocence. Those don’t belong to Muslims. They are a gang of criminals.”

7/23/2005 06:11:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

"What Baathist will be reelected by votes at gunpoint."
If the US Military were to leave, Iraqi Baathists would cease to exist.

7/23/2005 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Doug said,

What Baathist will be reelected by votes at gunpoint."
If the US Military were to leave, Iraqi Baathists would cease to exist."

What would happen when air rushed in to fill the vacuum as they ceased to exist? Would there be a hissing sound or a loud pop?

7/23/2005 06:17:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

Carridin: President Bush's vow to "end tryanny" produced more shock and awe than our bombing raids. But I thought of that quote from Jefferson, which says the same thing, and I believe, over at his memorial is literally carved in stone.

7/23/2005 06:17:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


Britain no longer looks British? And there's our problem. Actually it does, just that the BBC makes it socially unacceptable to be British.

So it's not just the left, it's the whole brainwashing they've done on us (well, clearly not us Belmonteers, just those awful idiots out there).

And sadly, idiots = those ghastly people I invite to dinner parties in my home.


7/23/2005 06:20:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

An Autherization for use of Force is not WAR, read the law, the Constitution and enabling legislation. If you did you would know why they did not declare WAR. Your use of force is just that, permission for the President to use force. The use of force is not WAR.
Semantics is everything in the LAW
Unless you live in Alice's Wonderland, then words mean whatever the State wants them to mean.
Which indigs do not respect the borders or government? Answer that yourself.
Bush had the Victory Parade, I guess you missed his Carrier Landing.
Major Combat Operations Over
Operation Iraqi Freedom

What word repeats,
the Operation is OVER
Iraq HAS been freed
As has Afghanistan

There may be a threat to those new Governments, but there is also a threat to the Bolivian Government, should we deploy there?
How about England, Columbia, Eyqpt, Bali or Israel all are in need of American blood to help catch those pesky bombers.

7/23/2005 06:20:00 AM  
Blogger diabeticfriendly said...

Great news, the targets of the "islamic terror" is expanding! Now the resorts of arab countries are targeted... for years the arab/islamic world said it's ok to blow up jews.... now these nuts are turning on it's former masters! this is the begining of the end of them!!!!

they never know when to stop, thank g-d!

7/23/2005 06:25:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

No I think the Operation Enduring Freedom is over in Afghanistan, if we want to chase the Opfor into Pakistan we will need another, new, different Authorization of use of Force, because you see, we, US are not at WAR

If we left Afghanistan today the outcome is unknown. That would be as Rummy would say "An unknowable"

7/23/2005 06:26:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


If you think the war is over, welcome to the dark side.


7/23/2005 06:29:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

The Conflict is raging
but we are not at war

That is our sides challenge,
to make it a WAR if that is what it should be.
But a WAR against whom?
When the US Government names the enemy, then I'll believe we are at war. Nameless, faceless suspects in a bombing do not a war make.

Rhetoric, no matter how volitile does not a war make.
Find an enemy battalion, an enemy capital or even a city on the map.
There are none.

The President and his cohorts have said many times we are not at war with Islam. Take him at his word, I do. We are not at war with KSA, Syria, Jordon, Iran, Suda or Pakistan. Iraq and Afghanistan have been defeated. Indig elections have been held in each country. Mission accomplished

We have won in those locales.
What comes next?

7/23/2005 06:40:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Desert Rat said,

"An Autherization for use of Force is not WAR, read the law, the Constitution and enabling legislation. If you did you would know why they did not declare WAR. Your use of force is just that, permission for the President to use force. The use of force is not WAR."

That which looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, is a DUCK.

Desert Rat said,

"Semantics is everything in the LAW
Unless you live in Alice's Wonderland, then words mean whatever the State wants them to mean."

The word semantics has several meanings. The meaning I used when I used the term is as follows;

3b the language used (as in advertizing or political propaganda) to acheive a desired effect on an audience esp. through the use of words with novel or dual meanings

For example, claiming that hostile actions by one nation/state against another is not a WAR.

Desert Rat said,

"Which indigs do not respect the borders or government? Answer that yourself."

No... You answer it. I'll repeat. Which indigs are you refering to exactly? I realize that you prefer the term indig because it allows you to disguise the weakness in your argument. However, I'm not interested in entertaining you at this point. Who are the indigs, specifically?

Desert Rat said,

"Bush had the Victory Parade, I guess you missed his Carrier Landing.
Major Combat Operations Over
Operation Iraqi Freedom"

Major allows for minor and we've covered all this before in a previous thread. I'll go get it and cut and paste it here. This refers to a created phase of OIF not the war.

Desert Rat said,

"What word repeats,
the Operation is OVER
Iraq HAS been freed
As has Afghanistan"

OIF is not over. There was no victory celebration. The men and women have not returned home. We are still fighting Baathist and Taliban remnants, sympathizers, and foreign fighters in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Desert Rat said,

"There may be a threat to those new Governments, but there is also a threat to the Bolivian Government, should we deploy there?"

Ah, yes, the threat. The indigs. Who are they exactly?

Desert Rat said,

"How about England, Columbia, Eyqpt, Bali or Israel all are in need of American blood to help catch those pesky bombers."

Well we haven't got an authorization for use of force against any of those nations. Why don't you do up a little presentation on power point, and see what happens?

7/23/2005 06:43:00 AM  
Blogger Dymphna said...

"bimbo reporterette" --Doug you are so darn cute I can't hardly stand it. The Baron says "babe reporter."


Wretchard said:
Had Islam faced the West without the distorting influence of the Left these past decades the tectonic shifts between them would have been gradual...

Quite. But the imploding Left and the exploding Islamists created a synergy of destruction. On the one hand, a pseudo self-hatred, on the other delusions of grandeur. Definitely a match made in the anteroom to Hell.

Here's a difference: the Left makes fine points on the suffering of all the various victims who have been crushed by the boot of the brutish oppressors; Islamists just despise us all, without differentiation. In fact, there are lots of Muslims it hates, too.

7/23/2005 06:55:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

what looks like a duck...Goose at a distance
the LAW prevails
We are a nation under the rule of law, law is semantics, get over it.

Sematics how about claiming the stationing of 130,000 US troops is a WAR when it is a garrisoned occupation
OIF is not occuring in Afghanistan, you are mixing your Operations.

The Opfor insurgents to Karzai's Government indigs who are living in the border region with Pakistan and those in the southwest region of Afghanistan that do not submit to Karzai's Government.
My son and his legion have returned home, you should talk to people that have been there
We have a garrisoned occupation, a long way from war.

7/23/2005 07:01:00 AM  
Blogger desert rat said...

If we were to Declar War on radial Mohammedism then lwt's Decalre War.

It is not for me to rally the country to WAR, abakan, that is the Presidents job. Listen to FDR's speach on the subject.
It begins with "December 7th, a date that will live in infamy...a Stste of War exists with the Empire of Japan" ... or words very similar.

Leadership is required at a level above my pay grade, but if it is not supplied there will be no further war

7/23/2005 07:09:00 AM  
Blogger Abakan said...

Desert Rat said,

"what looks like a duck...Goose at a distance
the LAW prevails
We are a nation under the rule of law, law is semantics, get over it."

We are still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Desert Rat said,

"Sematics how about claiming the stationing of 130,000 US troops is a WAR when it is a garrisoned occupation."

Technically, it isn't even a proper occupation. There was that vote to elect a constitutional body and the handover by the Coalition Provisional Authority.

Then, of course, this whole idea that the state or described phase of a war is in some way connected to victory of defeat is just ignorance.

Desert Rat said,

"OIF is not occuring in Afghanistan, you are mixing your Operations."

Ok, when you see me refer to OIF just assume I'm talking about Iraq.

Desert Rat said,

"The Opfor insurgents to Karzai's Government indigs who are living in the border region with Pakistan and those in the southwest region of Afghanistan that do not submit to Karzai's Government."

Who are these OPFOR, and insurgents, and indigs specifically? I didn't ask for their motivation or their locale.

Desert Rat said,

"My son and his legion have returned home, you should talk to people that have been there
We have a garrisoned occupation, a long way from war."

I believe that Iraq and Afghanistan have freely elected governments which makes your claim that we are occupiers immediately suspect.

And, again none of the states have anything at all to do with the definition of war, victory, or defeat?

7/23/2005 07:16:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


It is for you to declare war. Get with the program. We are at war. Every body knows, Belmonteers, Tony Blair, John Howard, GWB, why, even OBL.

Those who don't know are Guardian readers.

When they get over their difficulty with cooked chicken, they will begin to understand that fried people don't look too appatising.


7/23/2005 07:33:00 AM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Robert Scheer has made a fine career for himself rubbing America(or Amerikkka in his heart) in the mud of her real or perceived sins.Leftists are useful idiots for those who would destroy us.
The debate will rage on with chattering fools on cable news shows,ill-informed jingoists like Hannity,etc.,politically correct pols who dare not call a spade a spade.All the while the peril grows.Young men will die in the desert because they aren't allowed to fight without remorse.
Our only hope of victory lies in having enough brave warriors like the cop in UK yesterday who are willing to put 5 hot ones in the head of a fruit of Islam adherent and damn the consequences!

7/23/2005 07:58:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...


Now you are on the soul of the issue.

Young men will die in the desert because they aren't allowed to fight without remorse.

This is what we must fight. If you were in the desert and had no confidence in those back home, what would you do?

To so few, so much owed.


7/23/2005 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger luminary said...

I was thinking about something today that I feel is important.
After, or during the 911 attacks, the nations top leaders, friends, and families were rushed into underground bunkers.
Why? Well, I guess to preserve the hierarchy, or the chain of command.

In the event of a nuclear attack, bio attack, WMD’s in general, other than the nuclear subs for a while, who will these people command when they finally emerge from these bunkers?
If and when it is ever safe to do so, say in 20 years.
And . . . providing there is anyone left to be guided, would they allow these same people to guide them?

I think that instead of sheltering people of questionable worth, and minimal shelf life, that there should be a plan in place to preserve the countries most brilliant young minds in several fields, and perhaps their children.

I’m serious, I’m not trying to offend anyone here, but if you think about it, what kind of seeds of humanity would you sow?
I have started a list based on my opinions.
Please add names, and why, by commenting to my post. (The seed list)
Thank you,

7/23/2005 08:29:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Michael Moore must be preserved at any cost.

7/23/2005 09:01:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Too bad Edward Said isn't alive. As a former student I wouldn't mind watching him choke on the entirety of his career tout suite.

7/23/2005 09:05:00 AM  
Blogger Anointiata Delenda Est said...




7/23/2005 09:07:00 AM  
Blogger Common Cents said...

Why does the left argue for al Quada being a figment of the immagination?

Because if they were in the shoes of the right they would have made up a boogey man to fight.

Does anyone rememeber the Vast Right Wing Conspiricy?

Ms. Clinton, the smartest women in the world, perfectly knew she was lying when she advanced the theory.

Projection, believing others have the same thought processes/motivating factors as your self, is one of the most dangerous natural human tendencies in existance.

7/23/2005 09:09:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

And by the way the difference between use of force and declaration of war, abakan, is a very big deal indeed. The invocation of an actual state of war grants the Executive far more power to rule by diktat, and allows for the curtailing of civil liberties without nearly as much fuss. I believe the press can be censored. A state of war is a very serious thing. It may be a semantic distinction, but the law is made of words, and those words, depending on how you deploy them, trigger very, very real consequences beyond what calling out the US military already entails.

7/23/2005 09:10:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

And again I say with a happy heart: bring out the skinheads. Then we can say "well, it's only our Extremists--they don't stand for us as you don't stand for Islam."

The terrorists shall be terrorized. Amen.

7/23/2005 09:15:00 AM  
Blogger Dan said...

Because the Left is Socialist.

The entire 20th century is an attempt to come to grips with Socialism, either through accomodation, compromise, open war, cold war, political war, thug violence, academic debate, philosophical controversy, pseudo-science--you name it.

The Socialist believes in the conspiratorial cause.

That is an intended pun.

Go back and read Lenin. Then read Sartre. Then read Foucault.

Read virtually every non-Anglosphere luminary, in fact, of the past century--or even two centuries.

For a quick tour, read Flaubert's Sentimental Education (L'Education Sentimentale). Tell me you don't recognize everyone in 1870s France in the most amazing way.

This is the direct living result of the malevolence that the French Revolution unleashed on the French Monarchy and its Clerisy in 1789.

7/23/2005 09:20:00 AM  
Blogger Peter said...

There sure are a helluva lot of dead people around the world from this imaginary threat.
I never knew that imaginary bombs could blow so much up.
And how's about those imaginary beheadings?
Unlike some, I don't give a rat's ass whether Saddam and Osama sent each other Christmas cards. I don't care if Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas have high level meetings unless we could, if they do have such meetings, naplam them.
What I know is that there are a whole bunch of murderous goons out there that want my children killed.
We don't have the resources to go after all of them at once, atleast without flinging nukes all over. so, what we have is an incremental fight.
Meanwhile we've got this big bunch of real smart people saying that it's all fantasy or somehow immoral because of something that happened in the year 1326 or something.
It's time to stop trying to prove that y'all are the smartest people in the room. It's real simple. A significant percentage of the world's billion and a half Muslims think it's a good idea to kill my children. I don't really approve of that. From the looks of things there is a possibility that this old fart might just have to pick up his gun someday soon. I hope to avoid that, I'm too damned old. If it comes to it, though, well, okay. Don't stand in front of the target, I'll just use heavy bullets with plenty of penetration.

7/23/2005 09:26:00 AM  
Blogger luminary said...

Peter, Well said!

7/23/2005 09:50:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

I think the American Congress *should*, officially, declare war. Since there's a majority of Republicans there, I can't think why it hasn't been done already. It would make it official, both here and overseas, that we are definitely fighting something and it's not a figment of Bush's deranged imagination that will go away if you just call him "stupid" enough times. It might even serve to tamp down the more inflammatory Leftists of the MSM, if a lot of people could point at them and OFFICIALLY call them treasonous.

One reason it may not have already been done is the question of who you are declaring war *against* ... since more and more it's becoming apparent that this is a war against an ideology of ideas and not some specific sabre-carrying commander.

But just because something has never been done before is no reason not to do it now. I'm sure some bright young legal Turk (!) in the White House could come up with the proper phraseology so that it would be clear that the U.S. and its allies will be going after anyone who subscribes to blowing up civilians. For any reason. And we don't want to hear any more dumb damned "root causes".

Further, since the London bombings, it appears that 1 in 4 Muslims support terrorism, so that even if they are not actively exploding themselves, we have every right to declare war against them.

For the core values thing, I think this from Friday's Instapundit sums it up as well as anything I've seen. If a Muslim won't commit him or herself to what is said following, very simply we are at war with that particular individual:

If what we are trying to defend is a pluralistic tolerant society, then we have to make sure that the message is not just "throw the wogs out!" but rather "You are welcome here if you are willing to assimilate to a sufficient degree."

But how does one define what that 'degree' is exactly? I am not talking a Norman Tebbit style "cricket test" but rather a willingness to tolerate 'otherness'. We do not need Muslims to approve of alcohol or women in short skirts or figurative art or bells or pork or pornography or homosexuality or (particularly) apostasy. We have no right to demand that at all and obviously not all Anglicans approve of some of those things, so why require that Muslims must? No, what we do have the right to demand (and that is not too strong a word) is that they tolerate those things, which is to say they will not countenance the use of force to oppose those things even though they disapprove of them. In fact it is not just Muslims from whom we must demand such tolerance.

If we can get them to agree to tolerate those things, then it does not matter if Muslim women wear burquas because as long as they are not subject to force, a woman may elect to say "Sod this for a game of soldiers!" and cast off that symbol of misogynistic repression... and if she does not do so, well that is her choice then... but she must have a choice. They do not have to look like us (I do not hear calls for Chinatown to be razed to the ground), they do not have to share our religion(s), or lack thereof, but they do have to tolerate our varied ways and if by their actions or words they show they do not, we have every right to regard them as our enemies and take action to defend ourselves.

7/23/2005 09:51:00 AM  
Blogger Mike H. said...


"We have met the enemy..."


7/23/2005 09:53:00 AM  
Blogger exhelodrvr1 said...


"should be a plan in place to preserve the countries most brilliant young minds in several fields, and perhaps their children."

THere already is a plan like that in place. It's called "The Belmont CLub."

7/23/2005 10:25:00 AM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

re: 4th Amendment Search and Seizure

When speaking of the rights afforded and protected by the constitution, it helps to start with the true proposition that no right contained therein is absolute. Because of the presence of competing interests (e.g. freedom of speech interest v. state's interest in compensating its citizen for defamatory harm [Gertz v. Welch]), the first step is always to accept that values compete, which means no unequivocal rights.

The discussion of police search then becomes a balancing act between the state's interest in safety and security, and the 4th amendment interest of freedom from unlawful search. The scale tips towards security if the search is immediately pertinent to safety, and tips towards individual rights if the searches are flippant or extraneous.

When the threat of a suicide bomb is imminent and immediate, the state, constitutionally speaking, has an enormous amount of latitude for searches. This is not something to like or dislike; it is merely the way things are.

7/23/2005 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger David said...

Actually, Arab based terror has been around since the start of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. This war is over 300 years old, and our active involvement began in 1803.

7/23/2005 11:26:00 AM  
Blogger Gene Felder said...

Gee, did the BBC miss Osama bin Laden fatwa August 1996 "Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places."

Wouldn’t it just be easier to believe Osama Bin Laden that he is involved in a jihad, a Muslim holy war against infidels that is non-believers? They believe it’s Jihadists duty to kill the infidels.

Osama Bin Laden has grievances against the Saudi regime, but his grievances would be true in most all countries in the world:
(1) "Suspension of the Islamic Shari'ah law and exchanging it with man made civil law."

More at

7/23/2005 11:44:00 AM  
Blogger truepeers said...

the gas guy,

Next time you have that smart dude at the Rotary Club blaming the US for all yer woes, you might reveal to him these interesting passages from the Hamas Charter:

Article Twenty-Two:
For a long time, the enemies have been planning, skillfully and with precision, for the achievement of what they have attained. They took into consideration the causes affecting the current of events. They strived to amass great and substantive material wealth which they devoted to the realisation of their dream. With their money, they took control of the world media, news agencies, the press, publishing houses, broadcasting stations, and others. With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the world with the purpose of achieving their interests and reaping the fruit therein. They were behind the French Revolution, the Communist revolution and most of the revolutions we heard and hear about, here and there. With their money they formed secret societies, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, the Lions and others in different parts of the world for the purpose of sabotaging societies and achieving Zionist interests. With their money they were able to control imperialistic countries and instigate them to colonize many countries in order to enable them to exploit their resources and spread corruption there.

Article Twenty-Eight:
The Zionist invasion is a vicious invasion. It does not refrain from resorting to all methods, using all evil and contemptible ways to achieve its end. It relies greatly in its infiltration and espionage operations on the secret organizations it gave rise to, such as the Freemasons, The Rotary and Lions clubs, and other sabotage groups. All these organizations, whether secret or open, work in the interest of Zionism and according to its instructions. They aim at undermining societies, destroying values, corrupting consciences, deteriorating character and annihilating Islam. It is behind the drug trade and alcoholism in all its kinds so as to facilitate its control and expansion.

Rotary is evil!

It is quite amazing how the Islamicists just reproduce the old European Judeophobia, almost word for word. One could be reading Hitler on the Jew-Freemason conspiracy. I'm not sure if Hitler was against Rotary; probably, but maybe the Hamas guys have actually made one "original" addition to the idea. Perhaps the problem with our left is that it is rather hard to imagine such unbelievably lowbrow propagandists being an enemy? Anti-Americanism is supposed to be smart, after all.

7/23/2005 12:20:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

Not Kiwanis?

7/23/2005 12:25:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Wretchard writes: Osama's strategic calculations were based on his appreciation of Clinton, who managed to give them entirely the wrong impression.

It is a mistake, I think, Wretchard, to postulate an ideological conflict as boiling down to a mano a mano struggle between two men.

As is, while trapped in the idea as a former lawyer that terrorism was a matter of law enforcement, prosecution, and getting jail convictions to deter suicidal fanatics - Clinton did bomb the crap out of Iraq twice, invaded Haiti to once again make it's latest failure more tolerable, went to war over Bosnia and Kosovo, and had authorized Binnie's death.

Bush didn't exactly come into office with an agenda of fighting the "evildoers". Tax cuts for the wealthy, stem cells, cutting wood to stop forest fires, national missile defense, military transformation, and a month-long vacation in Crawford after getting his big tax cuts through were his agenda items.

After he got bitch-slapped on 9/11, he made amends. But if 9/11 happened to Clinton, I think he would have also rebounding from the bitch-slapping and rammed the Patriot Act through and invaded Afghanistan. Clinton was not hesitant about using the military.

BTW, as part of Rumsfeld's "Transformation", the plan was to gut the Marines and Army of heavy mech infantry and artillery, and reduce the size of both forces to facilitate more tax cuts.

As for the Left facilitating Islamism. True. But if we look at the Right, we see there the complete toleration of despotic regimes in the Muslim world, the complete lack of concern about training and arming "Noble Freedom-loving Religious Fighters" (in Reagan's words), the spread of Wahabbism -- as long as those actions were of assistance in our global struggle with Communism.

Both the Left AND the Right did not foresee the threat ISlamism would become.

7/23/2005 12:42:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

I say we also throw a couple F-17 over Khartoum and let fly a few 500 lbers. for that "roughing up" of Condi's entrouage the other day.

Let us compare "roughing up"s. Because these people are BARBARIANS who NEED TO BE KILLED, PERIOD.


Jesus and is that really the Hamas Charter? That could be the back pages of the Workers Party Weekly or whatever these punks hand out near where I live.

Why, WHY do people choose to believe that form of complete crap everywhere? The self-administered cyanide of all the "Decline of the West" droids. Ah Europe. You piece of excrement.

7/23/2005 12:49:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Nice list of stories by Wretchard. I knew he threw them up as mere examples - but key in them is the UN efforts at getting an accepted, non-watered down definition of terrorism so that a new warfare convention dealing with terrorism can be voted on in 2006.

The irritating "Global War on Terror" slogan was always useless.

IMO, because we avoided saying WHO, which movement we were concerned about using terrorism as a tool - and WHAT global, and WHAT terrorism actually is.

This 2006 Convention appears to be on track under Jean Ping. Annan strongly supports it and wants to have some good elements in his legacy to compensate for Oil for Food and his corrupt son...

It is encouraging because the West and Asia are ensuring that no language on moral equivalency or state terrorism creeps in. No wrong except when used against Israelis language. Encouraging because America is finally realizing that we need agreement on wiping out the scourge of terrorism by defining it as globally illegal...that high tech wonder weapons never had a hope of winning the ideological struggle.

And proscribing terrorism as a tool now has high appeal to Muslim nations that are now in great fear that a cult of death that threatens them as well has sprung out of their religion. The UN, if it makes the tool of terror globally subject to sanction - gives them political and religious cover to crack down..

7/23/2005 01:06:00 PM  
Blogger Sparks fly said...

This posting , Wretchard is a wonderful read: political analysis and romanticism; interesting combination! Hey, what!

The "dreams verses nightmares" is classic, Copywrite that.

My wife and I were both inspired.

Since there are no more possibilities of finding an Eldorado on the surface of the earth the fever swamps of the mind will have to do: Marxism, Fascism, Terrorism, etc.

By the way, I cheered at Ronald Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech. I still do.

7/23/2005 02:10:00 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...

Dan, I learned about the Hamas charter from Melanie Phillips who was recently on the BBC (link to interview at her site), debating some apologist who, in defending Hamas, says they are in the process of rewriting their charter. Anyway, one more quote from the 1988 Hamas charter, just to make clear to you Rotarians that your butts are on the line too:

Article Seventeen:
The Moslem woman has a role no less important than that of the moslem man in the battle of liberation. She is the maker of men. Her role in guiding and educating the new generations is great. The enemies have realised the importance of her role. They consider that if they are able to direct and bring her up they way they wish, far from Islam, they would have won the battle. That is why you find them giving these attempts constant attention through information campaigns, films, and the school curriculum, using for that purpose their lackeys who are infiltrated through Zionist organizations under various names and shapes, such as Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, espionage groups and others, which are all nothing more than cells of subversion and saboteurs. These organizations have ample resources that enable them to play their role in societies for the purpose of achieving the Zionist targets and to deepen the concepts that would serve the enemy. These organizations operate in the absence of Islam and its estrangement among its people. The Islamic peoples should perform their role in confronting the conspiracies of these saboteurs. The day Islam is in control of guiding the affairs of life, these organizations, hostile to humanity and Islam, will be obliterated.

As some have said, bottom line may be, it's all about controlling the women.

7/23/2005 02:12:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

"Michael Moore must be preserved at any cost."
Quite so.
I recommend in 1 gallon plastic bags in a freezer.

7/23/2005 02:24:00 PM  
Blogger The Scrutinator said...

The Power of Nightmares film itself is available free online at I've been planning on reviewing it myself.

7/23/2005 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

c4: "It is a mistake, I think, Wretchard, to postulate an ideological conflict as boiling down to a mano a mano struggle between two men."

This is not how I perceived W's comment. To me, using Clinton and Bin Laden to personify separate and conflicting paradigms is not at all obviously inapt. I suppose the mindset of the 90's should be labeled Clintonism, and the global jihadi complex Bin Ladenism, but the point remains the same: the times defined the men, and these men defined the times.

The rhetorical flourish in no way hides the truth; in fact, the explicit dichotomy highlights the underlying reality: Clinton's faux humanism and misty-eyed internationalism lured Bin Laden down a path paved with unreality. Al'Qaeda's strategic calculations were built on sand; their fundamental belief in American weakness sprang from their observation of an anomaly. Despite the overwhelmingly conclusive results that coursed through history of American resolve, Bin Laden decided to bet it all on the outlier.

So we find ourselves in the position where neither party in this fight recognizes the 90's anymore; it never really existed, it was all lie.

7/23/2005 02:36:00 PM  
Blogger Fat Man said...

Denial is not a river in Egypt, where a major terrorist attack occured yesterday. No terrorist organization can be organized like the Pentagon, and the fact that they are organized as cells which have limited CC&C does not mean that they are not organized.

They are organized they have a common goal: rebuild the Caliphate - the Muslim state of the middle ages -- as a universal empire and Islamicize almost every aspect of daily life.

We will fight them or surrender to them.

7/23/2005 02:37:00 PM  
Blogger husker_met said...


I was thinking a salt brine mixture in 150 Ball jars in the cellar.

7/23/2005 02:40:00 PM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Aristedes -

Give Clinton some blame, I don't seek to exculpate "Clintonesque" 90's actions, though he did more harm with technology transfers to China. Blame the Euroweenies too, for that matter.

But lets not forget the Right loved "Our Friends the Saudis" and did nothing to stop the spread of militant Islam for 12 years after the militants took over Mecca's Grand Mosque in 1979 and the Saudis cut a deal. For 10 years we all but worshipped the Holy Mujahadeen Jihadis that were punishing the Russians in Afghanistan and worked with the Saudis to recruit and fund radical Islamists to join that fight.

And the Right has always blown off Muslim protests of America backing Israel no matter how illegal or brutal Israeli policies were - and don't forget the Right's love and active defense of dictators who were in our pocket.

Don't forget, because no group on the planet is unmindful of America's choices over the last 3 decades.

7/23/2005 02:53:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"...there should be a plan in place to preserve the countries most brilliant young minds in several fields."
Since fat is a poor fertilizer, I propose kibbled Moore be spread on several fields for the benefit of birds, buzzards, bees, and of course, RATS.

7/23/2005 03:02:00 PM  
Blogger RWE said...

Husker met: Mason jars occurred to me, but I don't know how large a size is available.
Of course, any size would do if we use a blender set to "puree", after the wood chipper gets finished.
Say, does that Hamas document also explain that the reason that the Palestinins do not have jets, tanks and attack choppers is because that their design teams and factory workforce were wiped out by the engineered AIDS virus developed by Lee Atwater and Carl Rove using funding that came from profits from CIA sales of drugs that CIA Chief G.H.W. Bush flooded the black gettoes with by using Ollie North's Contras? And that this was all a plot hatched by the combined forces of the Masons and Roscrucins directed by a radical offshoot group from the Illuminiti?
Did I leave anyone out?

7/23/2005 03:05:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

c4: "But lets not forget the Right loved "Our Friends the Saudis" and did nothing to stop the spread of militant Islam for 12 years after the militants took over Mecca's Grand Mosque in 1979 and the Saudis cut a deal."

Everybody loved the Saudis, not least because their ministry had a habit of paying for State Department retirements. So I agree with you.

However, when sitting down to discuss strategic analysis, correlations and potential causations, Bin Laden focused not on our realpolitik but on the perception of weakness. He supposed that a swift, powerful strike at the center of American power would expose, not a waking giant, but a bully with a glass jaw. Our sidling up to the Princes did not cause this misperception, our hunger for oil did not cause it, even our status as infidel did not cause it.

It was the irresolute weakness of policy, starting in Vietnam, growing in Beirut, highlighted in Iraq, and then metastasized in Clinton's '90s that gave Bin Laden the unwarranted assurance that we would tuck tail and run.

7/23/2005 03:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Who has uttered
"tax cuts for the rich" more?
Moore, or C4?
Clinton for SecDef!
(Hillary, that is.)
The pitiful Muslims vs the all conquering Amazons will be no contest.

7/23/2005 03:14:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...


If you include the Nazis in the left (and they should be included), the wrong turn was taken in the '30s. In the '40s the Mufti of Jerusalem (who Arafat called "uncle") raised two divisions of Balkan Muslisms for Hitler's army. Their expressed purpose was to assist in the killing of Jews.

The Muslim Brotherhood was assisted by the Nazis (Sadat was a member) in order to cause trouble for the Brits.

And of course we had the Soviets supporting the same groups as an irritant to the left.

If you want to put historical brackets around current events it can be seen that we are still dealing with blowback from WW1.

It is a war that has been ebbing and flaring for at least 90 years with perhaps another 50 to 100 years to go.

The '90s were an illusion. A very nice dream (I liked it). Still, just a dream.-------

7/23/2005 03:19:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...

And of course we had the Soviets supporting the same groups as an irritant to the West.

7/23/2005 03:21:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wasn't Hitler Bushitler's Great Uncle?

7/23/2005 03:32:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Maybe we're all completely off track here.
Your quote below has convinced me the best approach is to remove ourselves entirely from the struggle and let them collapse on their own failed ideology:
"As some have said, bottom line may be, it's all about controlling the women. "
As any rational adult knows, they have set themselves up for sure failure.

7/23/2005 03:41:00 PM  
Blogger Ron Wright said...


This ideology of hate and evil is the same as Nazism, Communism, and Fascism that have failed.

It's probably worth repeating here. See my thread in an earlier piece and follow the links.

The free world is in a Global War on Terror (Un PC Islamofascism) against an enemy and ideology from the herders of the Arabian desert and Northern African that predates the religion of Islam.

Certain pathological traits of this culture were adapted in the Religion of Islam. This travels forward in time through the Muslim Brotherhood and the Wahhabis.

This is no different than extremist cults we have experienced in our own culture David Koresh, Jim Jones, KKK, and other supremists groups your choice of color or race.

They all operate the same. It's just Islamofascism has been spread throughout the modern world by petrol dollars of the House of Saud. BTW the biggest hypocrites of the World of Islam. That's about the only thing that the prodigal son OBL has gotten right.

This is a frame of reference issue. As Pape has taken heat for his rationale bombers driven by some beef with occupation of foreigners there is a shred of truth here.

Yes, they are acting in a rational sense in view of the Islamofascist paradigm of the world. From our frame of reference they are just plain nut cases.

That's the main impairment here. You can rationalize with them, negotiate, appease, apologize for some disses of the past but must kill them.

For more on this follow the links from my earlier post here:

Belmont Link

and see comments at this post at Regime Change Iran:

RCI Link

7/23/2005 03:42:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...

Desert Rat,

A bit thick?

The "Mission Accomplished" sign refered to the mission the carrier task force was assigned to accomplish. It did not mean the war was over.

A war is over when mopping up operations are complete. We are still in the mopping up phase. In this particular case the mopping up phase is lasting much longer than it took to break the enemy divisions.

War is hell.

I might add that even the above is not a true representation. Iraq and Afghanistan are battles in the war. Just as the conquest of Sicily did not end WW2.

7/23/2005 03:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

In Hawaii, the Wahabis aim to control the Wahines.

7/23/2005 03:50:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

re: to war or not to war.

Surely everyone is right in this debate. Statutorily, we are not at war. The legal implications of a "state of war" are numerous and specific, and the available emergency provisions have yet to be initiated. So in that sense we are not truly at war. We have not been truly at war in over half a century.

However, Sun Tzu, when writing the Art of War, was not prescribing presidential powers and emergency laws. There is something obviously war-like in our military adventures and posture--the elements of strategy, tactics, logistics, reserves, etc. are present--so is it not historically accurate, if not legally precise, to say we are at war?

The term 'war' is much more loaded than the fillers, the replacements. Battle, engagement, skirmish, feud, etc.; these do not connote the exact same thing. For such a short word, war says and means a lot. In certain situations, specifically those of life and death, only 'war' will do. Our present condition, to me, is one of those circumstances.

So yes, in our present struggle belongs the lexicon of war.

7/23/2005 04:43:00 PM  
Blogger luminary said...

If you really want to know why there has been, and always will be atrocities against humanity.
Think about this the next time you are in church . . . checking your watch.
Religion is foolish.

7/23/2005 04:49:00 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...

Doug, right about women, and yes the Islamicists will destroy themselves. But, seriously, i was wrong to suggest the bottom line is about controlling women. That's a notch above the bottom. The bottom line, as always, is the free human choice to love or to resent. The root cause of terrorism is resentment, and nothing else (resentment is sometimes necessary to a free life, and hence a necessary cause given the other's superior position, but to deny the basic choice of love/resentment in offering other "root causes" is just rationalization or scapegoating, instead of openness to grasping the paradoxical human condition before the resentable/lovable sacred at the center of human consciousness). And it is the resentful fear (fear of resentment, fear of the sacred) of the woman mouthing off or showing a little leg, that blinds some of these dudes to the root cause of their pathetic lives. And similarly it blinds them to considering the appropriate (i.e. winnable) strategy in response to their necessary resentment/love. And a religion that could show them all this, say Judaism or Christianity or maybe even a liberalized Islam, is consequently a great existential threat, as they know themselves.

7/23/2005 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger husker_met said...


I've always liked the term "conflict". But that's just me.

"War" suggests a legal condition between two nation-states and lends itself to Lefties invoking the Geneva Conventions and other such lunacy.

"Conflict", OTOH, implies a clash of ideas which can take many forms (including military action).

Itwould all be largely a matter of taste if it weren't for the accompanying misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict that certain words cause.

7/23/2005 04:58:00 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...

To clarify my last: freedom is the recognition of necessity; and when we scapegoat, e.g. rationalize "root causes", instead of cooly recognizing the necessity of our resentment, we lose some degree of freedom. The anti-scapegoating religion that can teach this truth (i.e. Judeo-Christianity, or an appropriate secular substitute, of which which there is presently only a certain anthropology not yet well known) will provide its people a path to greater freedom. I say this in response to luminary, who just dissed religion; religions are not all the same; some provide for much greater degrees of freedom - compare western history to any other - which is why they matter very much indeed.

7/23/2005 05:06:00 PM  
Blogger John Aristides said...

luminary: murderous motivations come in all stripes.

A simple rejoinder to your assertion: Hutus v. Tutsis. Had nothing to do with religion.

Yes, our current problem is motivated by Islam, but the absolute worst atrocities of the last century were committed by secular monsters, not religious demons. I know what you mean, and I understand the sentiment behind your words, but the problem is larger than religion.

7/23/2005 05:17:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...

How do you declare war on an idea?

FDR didn't declare war on violent Shintoism. He declared war on Japan.

War was not declared on Nazi ideology. It was declared on Germany.

7/23/2005 05:24:00 PM  
Blogger Jack said...

"The "war on terror" is turning out to be nothing more than a recycled formulation of the dangerously dumb "domino theory." Listen to the way President Bush justifies the deepening quagmire of Iraq: "Defeat them abroad before they attack us at home." If we didn't defeat communism in Vietnam, or even tiny Grenada, went the hoary defense of bloody proxy wars and covert brutality in the latter stages of the Cold War, San Diego might be the next to go Red."

Nevermind the bloody Marxist coup, nor the plans to arm "tiny Grenada" with the equivalent of four smallish divisions of Soviet arms, a few miles from thousands of American college students...

7/23/2005 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger luminary said...

Yes, obviously they do matter very much indeed.
A path to greater freedom, or understanding, does not require a religion.

7/23/2005 05:53:00 PM  
Blogger luminary said...

I respect you comment, and I do agree.

7/23/2005 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger StoutFellow said...

m. simon
How do you declare war on an idea?

FDR didn't declare war on violent Shintoism. He declared war on Japan.

The US declared war on Germany and Japan because they were nation states that were exporting Fascism and Shintoism through force of arms in a drive for world domination.

The problem with declaring war on those who are exporting Islamo-fascism by force of arms is that they are most often not acting through the agencies of a nation state. Of course Afghanistan was an exception, where the Taliban had siezed power and had given Bin Laden sanctuary for training Jihadists. But by-and-large the foot soldiers of Islamo-fascism are non-state actors. However, non-state means only that they do not operate from within a single well-defined territory. 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. It is the distributed nature of the Nation of Islam which makes it such a difficult enemy to fight. Where the soldiers of the Nation of Islam gain control of nation states, war can be declared on the nation state (if anyone has the cahunas to do so). Elsewhere, we must fight against an idea (Islamo-fascism) and the methods it uses (terrorism) to try to achieve world domination.

Fouad Ajami's essay addresses some of these ideas and hopefully will provide an impetus for severe restrictions on immigration to the West by Muslims, who too often become the
Enemy Within the Gates

The Islamists are now within the gates. They fled the fires and the terrors of the Arab-Islamic world but brought ruin with them. This new Islamism mocks the borders of nations and the very idea of nationality. "We may carry their nationalities," a Wahhabi preacher decreed recently, "but we belong to our religion."

7/23/2005 06:17:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Yeah--another shibboleth that should be retired: the domino theory is correct. But it isn't a "theory": it's what an enemy who gains in one area puts his accumulated resources into taking down the next target, fueled by triumphalism. Jeez.

And Laos? Cambodia?! C'mon! USSR-China-North Korea-Vietnam!?

7/23/2005 06:20:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

What else has to happen for you to think the domino theory is correct, ye crypto-Marxists--or at least unwitting Hegelians?

7/23/2005 06:21:00 PM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

The thought occurs that we're sending Muslims mixed messages. We're telling *them* to be tolerant, but then we're also telling them that we will NOT tolerate this, that or the other behaviors mandated by their religion.

If we were to enter a legally-defined state of war, at the very least it would tell our Muslim audience just exactly how much they can get away with, and what will bring down the wrath of an American Marine upon their turban-wrapped head.

We've been assuming that they'd be able to read between the lines on what it takes to be a good, accepted and assimilated Westerner. Since this has not worked, we can either make the rules more stringent and black and white, or just assume that they're too stupid to learn and kill them.

Right now, we're at the point of enforcing the "too stupid to learn" theory.

7/23/2005 06:24:00 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

Is it me, or will these people in the remote-from-history tribal areas of the Islamic hinterlands just require intermittent beatdowns for the forseeable future?

What the hell's with the Muslims anyway? Why is it so impossible for them to get there act, for lack of a better word, together? Stasis is not a noble feature of any civilization. Just like Alexander plowing across Asia...

7/23/2005 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger warwren said...

I am amazed by people inability to read. I had to reread this article to make sure it said what I thought it said.

7/23/2005 06:42:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Nahncee says,
"We've been assuming that they'd be able to read between the lines on what it takes to be a good, accepted and assimilated Westerner"
Maybe you've hit on the central problem of our "leaders" wrt a host of problems that have plagued the country at least since LBJ.
Immigrants, both legal and illegal, military adversaries, the monopoly liberal education establishment, on and on.
The combination of the nanny state and Political Correctness has removed all self-correcting mechanisms from the system, as many citizens are well aware, but our "leaders" blithely carry on as though all is well, in spite of the facts on the ground.
(Since going along to get along means going along with ever bigger government to get reelected and gain more power over the electorate.)
Socialism does not breed individualism and self-reliance, and PC systems of education and etc do not produce patriotic citizens.
I will leave these points of light to be better connected by someone more motivated, and whose wires are better connected.
...calling M. Simon.

7/23/2005 06:51:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Seems you missed the entire message of the Pop Psych Era:
Whether it's changing a lightbulb, or changing one's wet dreams of the hereafter,
The patient must
...just ask Dr. Sanity, Neo Neocon, and etc.

7/23/2005 06:55:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Dan, cont.
Or, as I was referring to in my Nahncee cite,
WE need to change back to what we once were in order to gain proper respect, both at home and abroad.
PC dhimmitude is provocative.

7/23/2005 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger Wild Bill said...

Ref: The Baron's post of 4:47AM..
Dear Baron, I am afraid we are awash in terrorism, of one style or another.. We have MS13, Bloods,Crypts,Banditos,KKK,Arians, and a list as long as your arm.. We have terrorism from gangs and groups that dont even have names, just reputations.. Our liberal prison system has served to recruit and organise groups with only an identifier as: "Cell Block C", "Hellhole" or "LaFamilia".. Execution squads have even been born from our very own Police forces.. While our politicians rave and rant and lobby for Billions of dollars to improve infrastructure in their districts, The U.S. Coast Guard has to plead for a few Million dollars to keep 25 percent of their fleet operational to help protect our Nations shoreline.. Think of all the wasted space in the newspapers, trying to malign Karl Rove, when that space could have been used to rally support for the Coast Guard in their drive to keep this country safe.. But dont expect it, because the politicians the C.G. is wrangling with, are the Democrats.. Just doesnt fit the papers agenda.. And remember too, that a lot of nightmares are the result of a faulty diet.. Lately most of my nightmares have resulted from a dose of too much Liberalism..

7/23/2005 07:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Hey, 'Rat:
True/False -
Is the War on Poverty over?

7/23/2005 07:10:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Cedarford made the point that Clinton would have passed the Patriot Act and invaded Afghanistan,that he was not averse to using the military.Huh?His use of the military was casualty fear driven.Thus over Belgrade,but no boots on the ground,leave the Delta in a sling in Mogadishu and cut and run when the savages win the day.That was take Bin Laden out of the er sights to avoid collateral damage while our enemies don't care if all 280 million of us are collateral damage.
Wars are fierce,who gets there with the most first wins.You don't string out the troops because you don't want to offend some jackass on the NYTimes editorial board or some repulsive blowhard like Kennedy.
WWII was won by things like the fire ing of Dresden,Doolittle over Tokyo and yes the demise of two Japanese cities.The south was defeated when Sherman sacked and pillaged Georgia and that old sot Grant refused to lose.
General Westmoreland died this week and he missed a few calls but he was right that the war needed to be taken into the North,Cambodia and Laos.Instead 58,000 of the finest of the baby boomer generation were bled like stuck pigs in Asia so we could walk away with our phony humanity intact.
If you're going to fight a war,fight it to win.If not might as well surrender to the Minaret and be done with it.

7/23/2005 07:10:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Wild Bill could not have posted at a better time to start to fill out my unfinished dream/nightmare.

7/23/2005 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

A few shots with peashooters at the Minaret prior to departure is acceptable, both to the enemy, and our PC Keepers.
Hadn't really made the connection between the Democrat Sellout of the South Vietnamese and the repeat performance by New Democrat Bill in Mogadishu.
The more things change...

7/23/2005 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

According to RTE, by the time you read this, Bewley's Oriential Cafes — both of them; the other's on Westmoreland — will only have hours to live.
By next month, they'll be shuttered or filled with computer companies.
The New Ireland.
No smoking, no caffeine, no bulk carbs, no chewing gum on the pavement, but lots of angry feminists on the TV.
Pretty soon, the only entertaining thing a man will be able to do in Dublin is drink. In fact, you could actually skip the Dublin part altogether.
. Boyles/National Review.

7/23/2005 07:24:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"CBS almost certainly misled viewers,” concluded veteran reporter Stephen Klaidman in the New York Times."

Klaidman wrote these words more than 20 years ago, when General William C. Westmoreland settled a lawsuit he had filed against CBS for libel. The controversy over what the television network had claimed about the retired officer, who died yesterday at the age of 91, unmasked the biases of the mainstream media, hardened the public’s views about liberal journalists who insist that they are objective, and helped lay the groundwork for the swift rejection of Rather’s bogus assertions in 2004.

Born in South Carolina in 1914, Westmoreland attended the Citadel for a year but graduated from West Point. During the Second World War, he fought bravely in Africa and Europe. During the Korean War, he commanded paratroops. He became the youngest man in the history of the Army to attain the rank of major general (at the age of 42). So when the United States began to broaden its military commitments in Vietnam in the 1960s, he was an obvious choice to lead the American effort.

That war did not go well, and Westmoreland received his share of the blame. He always maintained that the United States could have prevailed in Vietnam, if President Lyndon Johnson had given the military more support. He also resented the antiwar movement, and sent liberal Washington into predictable conniptions when he called protesters “unpatriotic.
. Miller/National Review

7/23/2005 07:32:00 PM  
Blogger Matthew said...

Excellent analysis, Wretchard.

By reminding us of our need to be reminded, you have done a great service in the best tradition of war blogging.

Your post reminded me of the strong, incisive essays of Stephen Den Beste.

7/23/2005 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger trangbang68 said...

Sorry for some incoherance on my last post.The anti filter on my computer deletes a certain four letter word beginning with "B" which comes disguised as Daisy Cutters,2000 pounders,etc.These things fall from the sky when political types have the will and obliterate wretched third world madmen and all their horrid schemes.

7/23/2005 09:05:00 PM  
Blogger Karridine said...

A poster notes what many imply: "Religion is foolish."

For 7,000 years human affairs were administered by the priests and the kingly caste. No 'power to the people', and no sharing the power-skills, reading and writing and study and numbers.

For 7,000 years, many good and decent advances were made by our kings and priesthoods, selflessly serving even when there was some abuse of the system.

Starting May 23, 1844 (1260AH), however, God sent the Promised One to reaffirm (NOT redefine) re-ligio: (the power) which reunites, reuniting the creature with the Creator, the creature with fellow creatures, and the creature with itself.

But we let our CLERGY debase religion into the foolish ecclesiastical systems around us today, antagonizing and dividing humans, instead of leading us to the Glory of God, Baha'u'llah.

7/23/2005 09:07:00 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...


you agree that "religions matter very much"; this suggests you would agree that religions are not all the same. If they're not the same, what differentiates them? What else if not that some religions are more true, more insightful about human beings and their shared origin (whatever the unnecessary buncome also promoted alongside the truths)?

It may be correct that a true and liberating anthropology needs no theology, beyond an explanation for how the sacred and sacrificial could have emerged to center human affairs - i.e. how sacred being could have been created by men. But no theology can make do without an anthropology. And what if - as I think is the case - the Enlightenment's facile rejection of religion left it uninformed about certain anthropological knowledge acquired by religion over the history of its development? And so i think you need to consider that some religious thinkers may be better anthropologists than many a strictly secular anthropologist following the PC tribe down at the local university. If you are dismissive you will never appreciate the insights of the religious.

7/23/2005 10:02:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This NY Times piece may not be available free much longer but the Free Photomuse site is forever, I guess:

But now both institutions are at work on an ambitious project to create one of the largest freely accessible databases of masterwork photography anywhere on the Web, a venture that will bring their collections to much greater public notice and provide an immense resource for photography aficionados, both scholars and amateurs.
The Web site -, now active only as a test site, with a smattering of images - is expected to include almost 200,000 photographs when it is completed in the fall of 2006.
. Amassing a Treasury of Photography
. ____Photomuse____

7/23/2005 10:09:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

My 7:36 PM
post in the previous thread has a link 'Rat posted. I'd be interested to know if the material there relates to anything you consider significant.

7/23/2005 10:22:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...


I agree with what you said. I should be more explicit.

How would you formulate a declaration of war against the Islamic fascists that didn't make all Islamics enemies?

7/23/2005 10:45:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

What, when we say "Islamofascist" they are too Lamo to separate two words and the meanings thereof?

Greetings from the new frontline in Europe: Londonistan.
Muslims here are expressing concern that our police have adopted a "shoot to kill" policy in resonse to Muslim suicide bombers. They have failed to notice their own "bomb Londoners to pieces" policy leaves their concerns somewhat hollow.
Sincerely,Andrew, LondonPosted by Andrew at July 23, 2005 04:27 PM

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

7/23/2005 11:01:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

"UNITED NATIONS Jul 23, 2005 — U.N. diplomats have revised their blueprint for reforming the world body to include a definition of terrorism, indicating nations are moving toward consensus on a contentious global issue. "
I hope Abakan and 'Rat both made it.

7/23/2005 11:03:00 PM  
Blogger david bennett said...

istricts, The U.S. Coast Guard has to plead for a few Million dollars to keep 25 percent of their fleet operational to help protect our Nations shoreline.. Think of all the wasted space in the newspapers, trying to malign Karl Rove, when that space could have been used to rally support for the Coast Guard in their drive to keep this country safe.. But dont expect it, because the politicians the C.G. is wrangling with, are the Democrats..

Sorry Republicans control the Congress and also the presidency.

Here is a Democrat position:
In addition, while the Republican-led Senate Appropriations Committee reported out a Homeland Security Appropriations bill that provides some increases over the President's inadequate budget, for certain programs, it still falls far below the amounts authorized by Congress through laws signed by President Bush. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard Deepwater Modernization program, a vital effort to modernize the Coast Guard's fleet of cutters and aircraft to improve maritime security capabilities, is authorized at $1.1 billion for Fiscal Year 2005. But the program only receives $776 million in the Republican bill.

It should also be noted that Democrats pushed for increasing in veterans care that were reported as necessary. Republicans opposed it and even replaced the chairman who advocated it until the extent of the crisis became clear a short time ago.

Both parties have their strengths and weaknesses as do individuals within them. But when someone lies and states that sinister leftists somehow prevented a Republican dominated government it is typical of the imaginery reality common to this group. Take it into the real world where facts are checked and people will consider you a liar or an idiot.

7/23/2005 11:13:00 PM  
Blogger Common Cents said...

Doug said:

"Hadn't really made the connection between the Democrat Sellout of the South Vietnamese and the repeat performance by New Democrat Bill in Mogadishu."

Other examples:

1 Ted Kennedy leaving the young lady to drown trapped in the car; instead running to find his family lawyers to cover his fat rear end.

2 In 1864 the Democratics adopted a platform that declared the civil war a failure and called for negotiations with the Confederacy. They bitterly opposed the Union's war against what one of them called "the injured, incensed, downtrodden people of the South."

3 In 1862 a Democrat introduced a bill in Congress to imprison President Lincoln.

Some things never change.

7/23/2005 11:26:00 PM  
Blogger luminary said...


When I said, “obviously they matter very much indeed”
I was referring to the atrocities that have been, and will be done in the name of a religion.

What differentiates them? Different degrees of needless suffering that they inflict on others.
Including other religions, and the non religious alike I would say.

One can appreciate fiction, and learn something from it.
I prefer facts, and the facts are . . . innocent people are being killed in the name of a religion. (Again)

I can appreciate insights, even if they are from a religious being.

And, some religious thinkers may be better anthropologists, but, murderers of children in the name of a god?
What differentiates them?

7/23/2005 11:39:00 PM  
Blogger M. Simon said...

Wild Bill,

The biggest recruiter for gangs is our Government's Cocaine Price Support and Gang Finance Program.

Republican Socialism.

Any recollection of alcohol prohibition from your history lessons?

(sarcasm follows) I suppose we gave up on alcohol prohibition because the police couldn't fix alcohol addiction. We keep up drug prohibition because the police have a much better record against drug addiction.

In many ways the right is no different from the left. Neither will give up their beliefs in the face of reality.

7/23/2005 11:55:00 PM  
Blogger truepeers said...


your anti-religiosity is kind of religious inasmuch as you seem to have no independent, scientific, hypothesis of why humans are sacrificial beings in the first place. You simply blame this on religion. For example, could you begin, as a scientist might, to answer the question: does religion teach us violent sacrifice, or is the origin of religion simply the ritualization or institutionalization of an already existing sacrificial behaviour, a behaviour that is perhaps originary to the human?

You denounce our sacrificial ways, but being unable to explain them you fall into them yourself inasmuch as you have a need for a scapegoat to sacrifice, or to blame for all our troubles - i.e. the beast religion.

You may be interested to know that there is a tradition of religious thought that is generally anti-sacrificial and secularizing in its historical impact (if you can handle the paradox of religious thought being an agent of secularization, but then what else can explain western history?) a tradition that can lead us beyond the need for scapegoats.

you may be aware of the archeological and other evidence that if we go far enough back in time, we discover that we all descend from violent peoples who performed human sacrifices, including child sacrifices. Yet today, most of us no longer sacrifice our children to the gods.
What has happened to change us? Well, first of all, religions evolved to go beyond child sacrifice. (If there is one thing that justifies the idea of progress in history, it is religious evolution.) This is what the story of Abraham that founds Judeo-Christian religion is all about - the overcoming of child sacrifice. Indeed, the whole BIble, properly read imho, is an anti-sacrificial tract. That's not to say there has been an overnight success in conveying this message, since the sacrificial idea is deeply rooted in, indeed is probably original to, our humanity, and since some forms of sacrifice remain necessary, e.g. in wars of self-defense. But anyone who tries to justify sacrificial violence in the name of Judaism or Christianity - as many have - is misinterpreting the religion, in my view. Many have done this; but many of the devout have not, which should lead you to consider where the spiritual resolve to overcome violence came from, given our violent prehistory. The fact that violence has not yet been fully eradicated from the world should not lead you to despair. Most of us live in a less violent world than that experienced by our forebears, notwithstanding the improved technologies of violence.

But religions are not all the same; some go farther than others in providing insights into the sacrificial origins of our humanity and they thus contribute more to the process of understanding and overcoming our violent behaviors. Christ, for example, epitomizes such teaching. Religion as an agent of secularization? Is such a thing possible? Yes, this is the history of Judeo-Christianity and the modern west in a nutshell. The secular world you live in and admire emerged out of the Christian west, and i think could not have emerged from any other tradition. In your anti-religion i think you are quintessentially "Christian", though it is perhaps easier for a Jew to see this than for many a Christian.

7/24/2005 12:34:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Losers Become Islamofascist Terrorists .
"What was true for the first generation of Al Qaeda is also relevant for the present generation: even if these young men are from Middle Eastern or South Asian families, they are for the most part Westernized Muslims living or even born in Europe who turn to radical Islam.
Moreover, converts are to be found in almost every Qaeda cell:
They did not turn fundamentalist because of Iraq, but because they felt excluded from Western society (this is especially true of the many converts from the Caribbean islands, both in Britain and France).
"Born again" or converts, they are rebels looking for a cause.
They find it in the dream of a virtual, universal ummah
the same way the ultraleftists of the 1970's
(the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Italian Red Brigades) cast their terrorist actions in the name of the "world proletariat" and "Revolution"
without really caring about what would happen after."

7/24/2005 01:42:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

M. Simon,
Drug Prohibition is good because it results in a powerful and well funded lobbying mechanism for keeping our borders open and friction free, which also facilitates easy access to the disposable labor market:
Free Trade Uber Alles, Legal or Not!

7/24/2005 01:50:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/24/2005 02:12:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

Maybe some of our oh so sensitive semantic theoreticians here would do well to seek employment as wordsmiths for the BBC:
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 Catholic 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 02:13:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...


Your colatura on force transformation: "the plan was to gut the Marines and Army of heavy mech infantry and artillery, and reduce the size of both forces to facilitate more tax cuts..." is very slanted.

The object is to make the forces more lighter, more mobile and more lethal, to enable them to win battles faster, with less casualties and less collateral damage.

You can look it up: DoD: Office of Force Transformation .

Of course, in the battle we're in now, especially in Iraq, and Afghanistan, it would appear that the approach we used in Okinawa would be more appropriate. Unfortunately, in Okinawa, in addition to annihilating the enemy and gaining a strategic base that we still use to this day, 100,000 civilians were killed in that small place.

7/24/2005 05:01:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

Mr. Bennett,

You do know that the US Coast Guard is the single largest component of the many organizations that were joined to form the Homeland Security Department, right?

Could the urgent concerns of DHS have something to do with the slowing of plans for the Deepwater Coast Guard?

7/24/2005 05:30:00 AM  
Blogger Cedarford said...

Trangbang88 writes regarding Clinton and 9/11 and the Patriot Act (responding to my previous post that if Clinton was in office when 9/11 happened he would have pushed the Patriot Act and invaded Afghanistan)

His use of the military was casualty fear driven.Thus over Belgrade,but no boots on the ground,leave the Delta in a sling in Mogadishu and cut and run when the savages win the day.

Well, what Clinton did in Somalia was just take a cut and run lesson from Reagan leaving Lebanon. I disagree with those that "blame" 9/11 on Clinton's wimpiness and credit Maximum War Leader Bush's "Churchill-like resolve" with being the bane of "evildoers".

First, the reason the Patriot Act passed so fast was that it was all the elements of Clinton's Counterterrorism Act that liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans rejected in 1996. Second, while Clinton was feckless in many ways, he would have been no less adverse to taking casualties in Afghanistan than Bush was after 2800 people were butchered in America by Islamoids.

As I pointed out, terror wasn't even on Bush's radar screen until he was bitch-slapped on 9/11. Stem cell research, tax cuts, forest fires, missile defense were Bush's big ticket items.

It is easy to look back at a Prez and see flaws. We may judge Bush harshly for many of his calls. Keeping the Borders Open unguarded ,and illegal immigration unchecked because his big bucks corporate cronies want it so to keep wages depressed, profits going into their pockets high. Letting the military and especially the Reserves run down to keep his tax cuts and the Iraq mess going. Underfunding the Coast Guard while being the biggest spender since LBJ. Almost 5 years into this conflict, he still hasn't defined the enemy - beyond some few amorphous "evildoers in their caves who hijacked the Religion of Peace."

And so on. And I say this as a Republican. The point being that if Bush was in charge in the 90s we would have seen him reacting to terrorism roughly similar to how Clinton did. No world's policeman or nation building - two other things Bush campaigned on - thinking Clinton was too involved in trying to bring democracy to butthole countries. And the menace built. It took 9/11 to wake Bush and many Republicans and Democrats up.

Tony writes:

"the plan was to gut the Marines and Army of heavy mech infantry and artillery, and reduce the size of both forces to facilitate more tax cuts..." is very slanted.

The object is to make the forces more lighter, more mobile and more lethal, to enable them to win battles faster, with less casualties and less collateral damage.

The original Plan ex-Navy pilot Rumsfeld and his civvie neocons came up with was for 5,000 Special Ops forces with expert AF and Navy pilots to invade Iraq, capture or kill Saddam, secure the vast stockpiles of WMD, and liberate the freedom-loving Iraqi people.

The Army and Marines said that was nuts and pushed back until DOD said enough and embraced the ground commanders proposals enough, but sent a message with Shiniseki's fate that they best peep down finally. And the Generals did.

Of course, heavy mech worked superbly with precision warfare showing that regular troops could use it, not just the "elite supersoldier" Rumsfeld favored. Then, of course, the Army and Marines were left with a bag of shit because no real postwar planning had been done - but that bag of shit prevented Rumsfeld from gutting the Army like he wanted to into a smaller, faster, more lightly armed (but somehow more lethal) force.

If you have been following BRAC, you know that "Transformation" is looking to be as big a botch as the "no Post-War Plan needed strategy that assumed the "noble Iraqis" will blow off some steam and be back at their offices on Monday signing lucrative Reconstruction contracts and flooding the American public with cheap oil".

BRAC? 23 States (mostly in the North) had their Air National Guard units eviscerated without any consultation between the Governors and Adjutant Generals and the AF decision-makers. New England to be demilitarized of active duty troops. The best, most cost-effective shipyard proposed to be closed despite having so much work that all workers are on forced OT. A Navy that is proposed to shrink from 350 warships to 260 ships to make a "faster, lighter, more effective, and lethal" Navy. (One that "needs" less aircraft carriers, submarines as China is building subs like crazy and now has a larger Fleet of them than we do.) Removing military assets (down to 8% of military net) from the Mid-West and Northeast states (42% of the population) and California (11% of the population)to concentrate them in "friendlier, redder" states. No doubt to stimulate recruiting efforts - "Well, no planes in Michigan means I guess you should move to Mississippi to be a Air Guardsman volunteer!"

IMO, Bush will look no better than Clinton in hindsight, and in likelihood, worse.

7/24/2005 06:12:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...


Given our shared understanding of Clinton's enablement of China's strategic forces, I humbly submit no former president will look worse than Clinton.

7/24/2005 06:35:00 AM  
Blogger Doug said...

I have concluded C4 is on hallucinogenics.
Will Bill still look bad under Tangerine Skies?

7/24/2005 06:50:00 AM  
Blogger Tony said...

Hey Doug,

I don't know. Comparing Bush and Clinton ... I knew there had to be some reason.

Btw, tell RWE, Exhelo, Nathan, et. al. - I saw the Imax "Fighter Pilot" aka 'the Best Job in the World!' movie yesterday.

Whoa! If you like jets, this is the "Some Like It Hot of jet movies, with an F-15 playing Marilyn Monroe.


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

Doug, He HAS come forth!

What's important in this thread is not that He fulfilled hundreds of prophecies about His coming, but that MANY of those prophecies are embedded deeply in Islam as well as Christian, Buddhist, Hindu and Zoroastrian prophetic historical traditions!

People (here) suggest establishing alternate cells in the Muslim community to subvert or modify or transform Islam into... something at least neutral, instead of deadly and misogynist and hateful.

But its already being done! Millions of (Followers of the Glory) Baha'is acknowledge and respect those Islamic prophecies without in any way supporting Islamic clergy or current Muslim efforts.

All it takes now is ONE public, online or well-publicized examination of the Glory of God, and EVEN CARRYING THE STORY will be anathema to the mullahs, who are fearful of the authority, majesty and attractive power of the Glory of God! They'll do everything in their power to keep the name from even being translated into Arabic, because THEN its Baha'u'llah!

The 12th Imam, the Mahdi, the Lord of Hosts, the Amit-Abha, the Righteousness that is Christ, come in the Glory of the Father.

7/24/2005 07:16:00 AM  
Blogger Karridine said...

Doug, Rat...
It is easy to get caught up in Left/Right Us/Them arguments, but just for a moment consider the possible effects of a few Arabic news wires carrying a story explaining the West AGREEING that Muslims have Hadith focused on the Mahdi, AND He CAME in the year 1260!

In a matter of DAYS, hundreds of millions of Muslim moderates (!) could declare their faith, confident that they're submissive to the Will of God, and THEIR actions would fuel the next wave of controversy, leading to the declaration of faith of the rest of Islamic ummah!

A few million holdout, hard-core Islamicists would, in the space of a few weeks, be castrated and powerless, bereft of followers, cut off from their billions.

And the events OF the transformation, dramatic and GOOD around the world, would reinforce OTHER investigation of His teachings, His cause, His institutions! Not even China will be able to hold out against Him!

Its coming...

7/24/2005 07:24:00 AM  
Blogger luminary said...

See my point?

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

Yes luminary, I think I see your point. I just don't think it's a very good one, for the reasons I tried to give last night.

Religions and philosophies prove themselves in the laboratory of history. If a people go from relatively violent to peaceful, explore their ideas to find out why. If they go the other way, ask why their ideas are failing them, since the purpose of ideas and indeed all culture must be to defer our violent desires that would have no restraint without ideas or culture. Even ideas that pander to desires have some deferring effect, not that appeasement always works in the long run.

the present experiments in the laboratory of history would suggest there is a problem with Islam or at least part of it. Is the problem terminal or can it be overcome? That is for the Muslims to determine, within the time that the rest of humanity will permit them. As for the Bahais, I'm not yet worried about their terrorists, however unfamiliar their faith may be to me. Under present historical conditions, they seem to be passing the (non)violence test.

What you don't get luminary, is that all thinking, religious and secular, including your own, relies on the sacred and sacrificial to make the distinctions with which all meanings are rendered and conveyed. In other words all language looks violent to the eye trained to see this. That is what postmodern philosophy teaches. Read Derrida. But it would be ridiculous to claim - though this is indeed what much postmodern thought claims - that all language is inherently violent, the tool of power. No, (violent) culture generally succeeds in deferring real violence; but sometimes not. Look into the reasons why.

In a nutshell, this is the paradox of the violent video game or movie. Most people use them to mediate or defer their aggressive feelings, even as the game or movie can intensify those feelings. The viewer/player gambles on this. But only very occassionally does someone violently act out the game or movie. So does the game or movie do more to defer or encourage violence. This is a debate we can never settle given the fundamentally paradoxical nature of the question. And yet, over time, it should become clear that some forms of culture are better proven in history than others. If culture and religion didn't do more to defer violence than to encourage it, none of us would be here now. For starters, how did those primitive child sacrificers ever survive and reproduce themselves?

7/24/2005 11:08:00 AM  
Blogger luminary said...

Is obviously an educated intelligent being, and I do respect truepeer's thoughts.

If one refuses to believe that there is a god, he walks often alone, only at times meeting up with the logical thinker along the way, in the quest of greater freedom.

7/24/2005 12:40:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

We used to have an Imax, here but not now as far as I know.
Hope it still gets part of the feeling across on my 17" screen!

7/24/2005 08:18:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/24/2005 09:50:00 PM  
Blogger Tony said...


I might have been seeing things, but it appears the F-15 can make square turns in three dimensions. I've seen Mig-29's and F-16's do that in films of the air shows, I didn't know the big boy could do it. The Migs wowed the world years ago with a manuever called Pugachev's Cobra (sp?) where they pulled nose up, almost fell over on the back, lost all their airspeed, and came down on the tail of the poor sucker who was just on their six.

Also, re RWE, in "Fighter Pilot" they have a shot of C-17 doing a "GPS-aided" supply drop.

Too bad about no Imax for you, the surround-sound of Jet Noise is awesome.

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

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/25/2005 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger Nathan said...

but sent a message with Shiniseki's fate that they best peep down

I always thought Shinseki was more in trouble over the ICV debacle, itself possibly foreshadowing a mess with Transformation, blah blah, and FCS in particular, over the course of the next decade.

The vehicle should have been designed from scratch. The Piranha was a proven bad choice but Shinseki picked and stuck with it anyway, and now the Army continues to throw away money trying to get the damn things to meet their requirements, without success.

The best, most cost-effective shipyard proposed to be closed


Tony- nice!

7/25/2005 12:43:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

You remind me that over the years I had begun to question my memory of an F-15 at an Airshow:
He was near the deck at what looked like 50 mph, banked at what looked like 90 degrees, and steered this tight corner as though on rails:
I was awestruck.

7/25/2005 06:29:00 PM  
Blogger Doug said...

Had burners lit also, I think.

7/27/2005 06:36:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Powered by Blogger