Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Another eight would-be terrorists detained: how many is that in the last three months? Dozens and dozens... I don't know what the capacity of the current system is to keep on absorbing such large numbers of 'criminals', but just the volume must be putting intense stress on the CPS, Judicial system and the prisons. As a mental exercise, I try to imagine treating other wars as an exercise in crime prevention- what if the Americans had taken every Vietcong prisoner, and done a forensic study of his actions, and then put him on trial for 'Unlawful warfare' or some such legal silliness. The backlog of cases would have run through to about 2075. Its a stupid stupid idea to pretend that a minorities war on the majority is simply criminality- if you pay attention to the combatants own words they are only too happy to describe their goal as the takeover of the British state and the destruction of British law and its replacement with Islamic law. They are traitorous warriors against the British state.
Refusing to name things with their right name is a dangerous game. Huge amounts of effort can be wasted and great strides made in the wrong direction if we can't bring ourselves to even elucidate our current situation. A far more effective way of dealing with this would have been to describe these men as traitors to Britain from the outset, and hang as many of them as we discovered. There would be far fewer wannabe Jihadists out there if the penalty for joining this treasonous plot was death. It would also have made it much more difficult for mainstream Muslims to argue that Britain should drop its own interests, and pursue those of Muslim countries, knowing that an armed force were literally holding a gun to the head of the British government. The armed force would be hanging from gibbets- and Britain could pursue its own interests with equanimity.
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Found this on Michelle Malkin. Have only read a few pages, but this is a must-read for anyone with an interest in the real story of Iraqs deathly struggle for a future.
Monday, January 29, 2007
'Carter believes that if the U.S. government reduces or stops its support for Israel, then the Jewish state will be weakened and become more malleable in negotiations. His underlying logic is based upon an imperial rationality that assumes Washington to have the answer to myriad issues besetting Middle Eastern societies. This plays into the notion in Arab societies that the cause of their problems lies with Western powers and other outsiders. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid will feed that belief.'
...'By adopting so completely the Palestinian historical narrative, Carter may hamper diplomatic efforts enshrined in the "Road Map" and elsewhere that attempt to compel the Palestinian leadership to accept accountability for its actions. In pursuing this path, Carter violates the advice he gave eighty Palestinian business, religious, and political leaders on March 16, 1983, when, speaking to a gathering at the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, he said, "Unless you take your own destiny into your own hands and stop relying on others," you will not have a state.'
Bridges, spacecraft and international policy built using faulty data and lies cannot work. Much as the millions of Arab dupes in the US and Europe would like the Arab narrative of Middle Eastern history to be true, its not. So every time they use that narrative to try to make predictions about the future, they are woefully off-target. And always will be. When Arabs stop lying and decide they want to act like grown-ups take responsibility for their own actions, they will find that success if very often the payoff.
UPDATE: 'Carter has defended Hamas against charges of intransigence during his Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid book tour. While visiting Tehran on December 8, 2006, Haniyeh said, "We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated." When asked by a Denver radio host on station KHOW 630 AM six days later about Haniyeh's statement, Carter answered, "No, he didn't. No, he did not do that. I did not hear that."'
La la la, I can't hear you, la la la
Why not have one prison design, designed by a team of prison officers and intelligent members of the public (absolutely no architects allowed)? All prisons would be built according to this design, which would be simple, functional and built on the principle that the Victorians established: a prison should LOOK like a prison, not like a City Academy with slightly fewer security features. It should be built to last 100 years; it should have no entertainment facilities of any kind; it should be spartan; it should be easy to construct; it should maximise the idea of prison as first and foremost punishment.
The same idea could also be used in public housing. There is no need whatsoever to constantly re-design council houses- have one perfectly practical template and build all council houses to that pattern. That template could also have integral to it a materials quality specification which would have to be adhered to. It could save the nations millions and millions in design fees and in sub-standard council house building.
The report's lead author, Munira Mirza, blamed government policy for a growing split between Muslims and non-Muslims.
She said ministers should engage with Muslims as citizens.'
Thats it? The only problem with young Muslims in Britain is that '...ministers don't engage with Muslims as citizens.' What does that mean? How could I, were I lucky enough to reach the lofty heights of a position in Tony Blairs government, go about engaging with Muslims as citizens? A few days back, I followed a link on the wonderful Knowledge is Power blog to a spoof music video from the late 1980's. In it, a marvellously earnest protest singer puts the world to rights- well almost. Just as he gets to the interesting bit, where he would actually tell all us deluded conservatives what we SHOULD be doing, he goes all mumbly and shifty. This is precisely the same. People like Munira Mirza have a very strong feeling that its all the governments fault, they just can't quite put their finger on why exactly. So she ends up mumbling something about not being engaged with Muslims.
I wish that at least one government minister would engage straightforwardly with the jumble of prejudice, lies, myths and Islamic supremacism that Muslims bandy back and forth between each other, and occasionally with us. I wish some bold minister would go point by point through this noxious mixture and provide the exact reasons why her Majestys Government will not be incorporating any of it into policy. Mostly it would be because its just untrue- all the paranoid fantasies about neo-colonialism and Mossad agents blowing up the WTC and Israeli death balloons etc. Some of it would be ignored because it's anti-British prejudice. And what is left would be ignored because its diametrically opposed to the greater interests of the British people.
Get used to it. Thats the main message. At no point will the rational portion of the British electorate accept having their interests over-ridden by a strident minority of recent arrivals who are largely ignorant of the place they have come to; whose first instincts are supremacist and amongst whose first visible actions as a minority are mass-murder. How many different ways have they invalidated their agenda?
Friday, January 26, 2007
I tried to read this because it seemed there might some meaty analysis of the our parlous state from the Muslim point of view. Oh my God!
"From the 1950s onwards, the oligarchs who had underwritten the long war began to stake their claim. It was a brilliant move and utterly successful. What they said sounded so good. “The government’s job is to govern-but the markets must be free to adjust and develop their processes without state intervention.” In one move on the chess-board, the political ruler, assuming he was inside the democratic system, that is, playing by the rules of the game, had been check-mated. Political power had been stripped of its very motor-force, wealth. Politics itself had become a service industry. The financiers determined the value of the currency. They determined the complex taxation practices. They allotted the political state its budget. In many cases, they determined in detail on what that budget should be spent."
"It is not, of course, sustained by magic, but by the anxiety of debt, which makes man blind. The split in the wealth system is that while at the present time it has taken complete control of the world’s commodities, that is to say, everything that has come out of the ground, its hold on that wealth is sustained by the pseudo-wealth it has created with a world system of ‘national’ currencies which are in themselves utterly worthless. In short, base-metal coins, paper notes, and numbers transfer which only exist as electronic signals passing from computer to computer-none of this has either substantive reality or value."
Give that man an honorary Economics MSc and an honorary Political Science MSc! But wait for the coup-de-grace-
"The great financial systems of the past, based on the usage of gold metal, created the great civilisations. The current financial system, based on electronic numbers and the world credit systems’ gold plastic cards, has in our lifetime destroyed our continuity with these past civilisations and plunged us into the current ecological and biological disaster-area called modern life."
We are doomed because we don't use gold coins any more. Got it. Thanks.
*** NB I found this by googling the word 'Kuffar'. Have a go, there's not telling how much fun you can have :-)
I've seen three documentaries about prisons in the last year or so- I was struck by the very high level of facilities across the board. The accomodation was a higher standard than the general housing in many African countries, higher than quite a few hotels I've stayed in, and higher than the homes of many of the inmates. That is a scandal. If for no other reason that every single penny spent on prisons is public funds, that is a terrible scandal. Prison is about punishment. It ought to be unpleasant, difficult and an experience you would not willingly ever repeat. Instead, the evidence is that criminals see prison as a perfectly viable outcome, many even prefering it to forms of punishment like community service where they might actually have some personal discomfort or have to do some real work.
A prison, in my view should be bleak, clean, functional, boring and completely devoid of the facilities that free people enjoy. There would be no TV, no ping-pong tables, no video games- nothing but a stack of Bibles in the chapel. Prisons are much more like hotels than they are places of punishment- drugs are freely available, many prisoners get weekend passes, and in lower security prisons, the inmates have their own bathrooms, desks, TV's and fridges. Until every English person has a home at least that amenity-rich, I don't want a single law-breaker swanning around in such cushy circumstances.
How we came to have such idiotic ideas about prisons I can't say- but the taxes of the poor pay for these Ritzy places and I want that to stop.
Much of the anti-war blather, for example, is completely ineffectual: no facts are adduced, no rational position is posited, no evidence of sober thought about outcomes or morality revealed. There are usually very good arguments against particular wars; sadly, most anti-war fanatics rarely discover the genuine arguments and simply rely on generalities, rhetorical flourishes and sentimental gibberish. Having the overpowering feeling that they are right, they don't feel the need to think.
Irrationality is always a fact in politics. But it cannot, in any sane, advanced polity be allowed to be the basis of politics. I would be happy to discuss the US/British interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq with anyone who knows at least as much about those conflicts as I do, has a serious moral interest in the best outcome of those conflicts, and who is able to argue rational points. The latter means accepting when you are wrong, and taking new facts into account even if they destroy previously held beliefs.
Vast numbers of people in Britain now project political poses- a facade of political beliefs without any basis in knowledge or underpinning principles. Britons used to take pride in their extraordinarily dull politics based on the simple, unchanging facts of social, economic and spiritual life. Politeness, geniality, fairness, privacy, personal responsibility, steadiness, thrift, enterprise, dependability, honour, vigour, charitability, humane concern and pity for the less advantaged formed the core of all politics, that part of politics which is not partisan. These ancient and real virtues have been replaced by modish empty vessels: slogans about human rights, generalities about international law, specious historical parallels and taking every possible view on a position other than that of a patriotic Englishman/Englishwoman.
The lack of toughness and vigour of our education system can be blamed for a large amount of this; the rest is the direct outcome of the explosion of anti-rationalist dogma in the 1960's. This anti-rationalist dogma, in among its teeming hatreds, loathed science, political calculation, the existence of objective truth and even simple biological truths. This dogma also touted the arbitrary assertions and revolutionary psychopathologies of Marxism as revealed truth. Anti-rationalism breeds confusion and fatalism- states that exist to a huge degree in British society. What is to be done? A return to our traditional virtues, especially the ones that require speaking the truth, would be a good start.
"We cannot resign ourselves to Europe being no more than a huge market or a free trade area," they write.
"We want a political Europe that can speak with one voice, and with one minister of foreign affairs and a common foreign service."'
I, like tens of millions of people all across Europe, thought the EU constitution was dead. France voted it down, the Netherlands voted it down, the end. True, I'm no expert about these things, but my reasoning I presumed was sound: a constitution could not be acceptable for all of Europe if it had been rejected by France and the Netherlands, important constituent members.
I, also like tens of millions of people across Europe, have no interest in an EU state. I want a 'huge market or free trade area'. After all, at least two generations of politicians in Britain have assured my parents and now me that that's what we signed up for. There will be an awful reckoning if it turns out that under the guise of joining a free-trade area, we have become a province of United Europe. That eventuality would probably provoke the complete unravelling of the political dispensation in Britain: the subjects of the Queen would no longer respond to the politicians in Westminster with anything but abuse and bile. Sovereignty is a precious commodity over which countless wars have been fought- it is only given up in circumstances where the receiving party is considered utterly trustworthy, or when armed resistance is completely at an end.
Neither of those latter conditions prevail in our current circumstances. The instincts of the vast majority of Europeans is that the nation-state is the surest guaruntee of their safety and their interests, and is already the object of their great affection. A socialist super-state with statist, protectionist economic policies; anti-American, pro-Islamist foreign policy; and a vast array of neuroses and self-destructive habits is anathema- if the politicians think they can coerce us into it, they are wrong. People will fight. The Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Balts didn't throw off Communisms dead hand to have it replaced almost immediately by the proto-communists of Luxembourg and Spain.
'A united and capable Europe is more necessary than ever...' Necessary for what?
'We want political Europe that can speak with one voice, and with one minister of foreign affairs and a common foreign service...' Why? To stop Britain sending armies to help America perhaps? To send European armies to the middle east to help the Arabs destroy Israel perhaps?
Over my dead body.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
To save time, I'll summarize what the actual contents of the video were: a bog-standard US/Iraqi joint patrol stops a car with three blokes in it, and find mortar shells in the boot. On the way back to base, the Iraqi soldiers whack the blokes around a bit, and stuff them unceremoniously into the boot of a Humvee. The end. Nobody died, three more insurgents were cleaned from the streets, no civilians became collateral damage, in other words- total success.
But from the voice-over, you'd have thought that a Szrebrenica-scale breach of human rights had taken place, and that at the very least the UN should pass a stiff resolution of censure against the US. In a city where dozens of people are tortured in ways that you and I really don't want to dwell on and then are murdered every day, by people of the same religion, and where every trip to the market could end up with you being embedded into a nearby building, where the smell of death can be detected in most neighborhoods on most days, three guilty blokes getting some bruises is... a poor joke.
But if you sit in beautiful, modern offices in Grays Inn road, and the closest you have ever come to violence is the local rugby derby, and the most dreadful thing that ever happened to you was not getting a seat on the Northern line, its easy to get carried away. Next thing you know, your script about the Baghdad security situation has become an anguished wail against the futility of war, the hideous brutality of the Americans, the so-last-yearness of America's hubris etc.
I read the blogs of three American embeds (http://www.indcjournal.com/, http://www.michaelyon-online.com/, http://fumento.com/), guys who go out with the US and Iraqi military and police every day. They are usually ex-military, and know the tasks of soldiering very well. They are never over-the-top, never stupid, never hysterical and they are good company to their readers. The difference between the real journalism they produce, and the candy-floss squealing of the Channel 4 prissies is exactly parallel to the difference between a veteran and a pontificating 15-year old braggart. The former commands respect by his simple presence- the latter invites pity and scorn in equal measure.
Mark Steyns reliably excellent musings about John O’Sullivans 'splendid new book The President, The Pope And The Prime Minister'. The latter are Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher. What links them? They formed a tiny but awesomely influential counter-weight to the prevailing 'wisdom' of the 1970's and 1980's. Each took personal responsibility for turning the self-perception of their constituencies on their heads. Without them, the world would look completely different now.
The biggest question is, did they pass the baton on to people who were up to the job? In my view, two out of three are. George W Bush is a mostly worthy successor to Reagan, Pope Benedict XVI is a doughty force for good- only Tony Blair fails in most respects to live up to Thatcher. Mr Blair may be solidly behind the war on Islamism, but in many other respects he has betrayed the Thatcherite legacy.
This reflects the fact that of all three of those constituencies, Britain has by far the most to fear for the future, and the most bewildering lack of clarity in its 'leaders'. Two full generations of socialist dogma and marxist claptrap in British schools and universities has produced a population bereft of useful knowledge, traditional cultural beliefs about enterprise, and basic economic facts. We now have a political class with no conservative leavening at all.
As Mark Steyn has pointed out in other places, the facts of life are conservative. Trying to govern a country when you have no grip on the facts results in outcomes visible in most African countries. As the Soviet Union discovered, you can manipulate the minds of the people until the cows come home, but the economy just keeps rolling along (or not). And when public morale collapses, or people lose interest in the common enterprise, you need a very strong societal glue to hold things together. What has Britain got? A common hatred of Tony Blair? A common despising of George W Bush? A common appreciation for Chicken Biriani?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
'Democracy's leap of faith has reaped a grand reward for Hamas as it did for their Irish brothers. But with electoral success comes the burden of responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to foster peace, which inevitably means respecting its neighbours, adhering to the law and righting wrongs.'
In acting, they call it 'phoning it in'. I'm not sure what they call it in journalism- 'typing the first crap you think of'?
Comparing Hamas with the IRA is just brain-poppingly stupid. The IRA's single goal is the reuniting of the Ulster counties with the rest of Ireland; Hamas's goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and the death of all its Jews. The IRA are both logical and open to reasoned argument- when the bombing of pubs in England alienated Irish people in England, the IRA stopped doing it. When killing bandsmen and ceremonial soldiers lost the IRA even more support, they switched to economic targets like the Natwest tower. This latter strategy worked- and the British government established a dialogue with the IRA that resulted in a reasonable facsimile of peace in Northern Ireland. Implacable the IRA may be: but never satanically evil. It was assumed by all parties that should the north become part of the Irish republic, all hostilities would cease. At no point do I recall the IRA vowing to kill all Unionists and throw their bodies in the sea. What was at issue was an international border.
Hamas have one organisational goal: the destruction of the state of Israel and its people. Logic and reasoning have no impact on their visceral and crazed attachment to that goal. Only a lack of means holds them back. Since 1947, it has been the single political goal of the Arabs. McCue writes "Hamas must begin to play the Irish model of ballot box and Armalite politics until it reaches a position where - down the line - its grassroots militants are happy to disarm and stand down. Eh? 'Play the Irish model'? Hamas are so not interested in playing some political parlour game, or some international diplomatic shell game. They want Israel destroyed. And thats it. When are idiots like McCue going to accept the plain, unvarnished truth?
I am currently reading Robert Spencers 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam', and although he never will, McCue should too. Islam is not that complicated. Its core ideology and practise has not changed much in 1300 years. Kill infidels until they convert to Islam. Jews and Christians are inferior; everybody else is even more inferior. Nobody gets to leave Islam, and any land that is ever part of the Ummah will always be part of the Ummah. Israel is 'Muslim lands'. That simple fact precludes any Arab Muslim from ever accepting the existence of Israel. Forget pathetic lamo attempts at historical parallels. It is the SPECIFICS of history that are important.
Hamas, if it exists in one hundred years, will still be gunning for the erasure of Israel and all Israelis- count on it. Then again, if Mr Ahmedinajad succeeds, they won't have to lift a finger.
"Opus Dei was formed in 1928 in Madrid by the priest Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. Its name means "the work of God". It encourages members to see religion as something that should direct every minute of their lives, rather than being a matter of just turning up for Mass and confession.
But it has aroused controversy in the past, with critics calling it secretive and ultra-conservative, claims which its members deny."
BOTH secretive AND ultra-conservative? Well that just makes me want to go get each one of those bastards and rip out their spines and flog them to death with it, over and over again. In these enlightened times in which we live, there must be no secrets and absolutely no conservatives. And basically, if you want to make up a plot where Opus Dei members murder and plot and connive BECAUSE they are Opus Dei, who's gonna stop ya? Its not like they're the Muslims or anything.
Watching this clip of Neil Diamond in 1966, I had a sudden thought. He looks like a man. Even with the long, shaggy hair. If you took all the little shites that make pop/indie music in 2007, and lined them up, it would probably look like a primary school outing. They don't just look like effeminate kids, they sound like lobotomised effeminite kids. This is going to sound totally gay, but isn't: where have all the men gone? Where are the all the Robert Plants, the Ozzy Osbournes, the Jimi Hendrixes, the Jim Morrisons and the Roger Waters? These guys were not children.
The great question is, is pop/indie music in 2007 crap because its made by children, or crap because its made by people with no talent?
As soon as I saw the headline 'Quit Iraq by October - Lib Dems', I knew what I wanted to find out from the story. Why October? Why not September? Or November? Within a few seconds, my expectations began to sink... as the paragraphs went by, there seemed to be no discussion of this point. Could it be that thats the beginning of the school year, so the squaddies would be back in time to see their kids off to school? Maybe because the days start to get shorter, and there's less fighting time? Perhaps October is just a very auspicious time of year for Lib Dems.
We'll never know, because Ming 'the fragile' Campbell didn't bother to say. This reinforces in a way that is completely unnecessary the completely light-weight, jury-rigged, thoughtless nature of Lib Dem policies. Do this! Don't do that! the Lib Dems intone in their completely arbitrary way. But then a thought occured to me- maybe what the Lib Dems were suggesting was that THEY are going to quit Iraq by October; all the massed squadrons of Lib Dem personnel will be out. Thats fine! They can return to Somerset and Scotland and all the other hives of Lib Dem activity and resume their intense discussions of Street Light placement and meals-on-wheels for the under14's. As long as they butt out of the discussion of the new Iraqi settlement, the rest of us will be happy.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
There is no obvious regional power in the Middle East, especially after the instability following the fall of the former regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq. There are three Middle power states with considerable power and influence in the region: Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. (These are ranked by the NMC scores from the Correlates of War Project.)
Turkey more easily fits the traditional definition of a regional power, with by far the largest military budget, the highest GDP, and also the largest population and a stable secular democratic government. Its influence is more effective out of Middle East region, with the Turkish Armed Forces involvement in peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, which is seen as the strongest Inter-Military Cooperation Power in the world. Turkey is a member of G20, which is a group consisting of 19 of the world's largest economies. As of 2006, Turkey is in accession negotiations to join the European Union which is an emerging superpower already. Turkey is the successor to the Ottoman Empire which was considered a Great Power spreading over three continents for over six hundred years. If Turkey joins the European Union and the European sphere, it might trade its influence on Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations for European ones, effectively changing regions."
Every time I read an article in the mainstream media, I now read some version of the following, "Iran, the emerging regional power..."
Does this stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all? One of the best indicators of Irans real standing in its own region, let alone the world, is the utter desparation of its leaders to get nuclear weapons. Exactly as Saddam Hussein felt he was a big fish but with a little mans weapons, the Iranian Mullahs want to be big fish, but they're armed with 1970's technology. Not only that, the economy that underlies that '70s technology is faltering. Every indication is that a number of factors, including very widespread cynicism and disenchantment with the governing elite, militate against Iran being even as strong as it is for very long. But just as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons gave Saddam a huge boost in perceived power in the middle east for the time he possessed them, the same can be true for the Mullahs. And from what they say publicly, we can easily believe that for them, it would be enough to have the weapons to destroy Israel and swagger about the middle east, even if at the same time their people were sitting around with no work and a failing economy.
Iran is not a regional power, but with nuclear weapons it would be. We cannot be allow it to happen. You don't give madmen terrible, destructive toys to play with.
A two-pronged (at least) offensive is in progress- the top of the tree, the Quds Brigades Iranian meta-organisers are being pinched off; and at the bottom, the foot-soldiers of the Mahdi army are being rounded up wholesale and their unit commanders killed or taken out of the situation. At last! I would slightly criticise the US military middle-rankers and Pentagon brass for having taken so long to grasp this nettle, but I guess up til now the political situation demanded that Maliki's buddies in the Badr and Mahdi be given a loose rein. Not any more. The militias are rightly seen as the invisible armies keeping the Iraq situation white-hot, and providing cover for all the plain old thugs and criminals who make life absolute hell for many ordinary Iraqis.
We are definitely entering a new phase. Al-Qaeda have felt it necessary to mock the new offensives; that means it hurts and its working. Good.
The America-haters of Britain have clubbed together to tell the US it needs to 'Listen more'. What they mean is, listen to us, and do everything we say. Now why would America want to do that exactly? America is liberal, sure, and it supports free speech, and it has absorbed a huge amount of unfair and mendacious criticism from the rest of the world, who very often have huge beams to America's tiny motes. But why would it listen to these liars, nay-sayers and haters? What gain would that be to America?
One thing it would not do would stop the criticism. In fact, if the liars and critics thought they were succeeding, the volume would go up to 11 (for those Spinal Tap aficianados among you). People hate America because it is strong, it is rich, it doesn't pay lip service to the moronic socialist/PC pieties, and it doesn't rush off on every enviro-bullshit bandwagon. The strong and the rich always attract the hatred of the weak and the lazy. They take strength and prosperity as a personal affront. Only when America is weak and poor can expect to be accepted into the great circle of corrupt, poverty-stricken, barbaric governments.
And you know- I don't think that looks like a very good deal, even from English shores.
How many people who are alive right now would be dead if we weren't constantly breaking up Islamic murder cells? What would the politics of Britain be like if we didn't have very effective secret services?
There is a very vocal section of our population who believe that Islamic terrorism is a myth perpetrated on the lovely, peaceable Muslims by the great Satan Bush and the boy satan Blair. In a strange way, they are enabled in this view by the highly effective identification and destruction of Islamic murder cells by the British Secret Service. So far, only two groups have managed to take to full fruition their murderous intentions; the 21/7 ones only failing due to faulty chemistry. But week after week, we hear of these cells being rounded up, any one of which could have potentially killed hundreds, if not thousands of people.
The British are not a particularly peaceable nation. One of our national pastimes is the throwing-out-time pub fight. I'd say there would only need to be a couple more successful bombings within Britain before there is a visceral and violent reaction against the Islamic population. Throughout English history, groups who bring unwanted ideologies or violence to Britain have been subject to robust resistance from the natives, especially if they are non-natives.
What is more, when I listen to Muslims, especially young ones, talking about the current situation, they seem to be willing exactly this kind of violent reaction upon themselves. Only people who have never lived through a situation like that, which I have, would be so blase about bringing the sword of Damocles down upon their own heads. My every day experience walking the streets of London is that ordinary English people are sick to death of being put upon. Put upon by the Politically Correct legions, put upon by all the different minorities clamoring to have their interests put before everyone elses, put upon by the political class who have no idea what is going on in British towns and cities, put upon by the Police who consider white people to always in the wrong.
This situation does not have a long shelf life.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Sunday, October 29, 2006
WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic
Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.
Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.
Is this why I joined?
Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).
I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions.
When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other
regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined. In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages.
Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"
There’s a definite urge—don’t you have it?—to say, “The Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order.” What sort of suffering? Not letting them travel. Deportation—further down the road. Curtailing of freedoms. Strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan. . . . Discriminatory stuff, until it hurts the whole community and they start getting tough with their children. . . . They hate us for letting our children have sex and take drugs—well, they’ve got to stop their children killing people.Martin Amis
I never really thought much of Mr Amis, but he's definitely starting to talk like a very large majority of English people think. Problem is, he's not in charge of a government department, or a budget or a newspaper or a TV station.
Sunday, January 21, 2007
I now believe that a reserve police force, based on the concept of the 'Specials', is the best short term solution to the Muslim jihadi. It would be very large, perhaps 2 million men. All would be trained to use firearms. All would be given the same length and rigour of training as the current Police force. They would also receive specific training in combating suicide bombers and armed jihadis. All would be issued handguns and a permit to carry it concealed. This 'new Specials' force would do regular Police shifts, although not many hours a week. The rest of the time, they would be on standby. They would be spread geographically across the whole of the UK, so the likelihood of terrorists being able to attack unhindered would significantly diminish. Also, they would provide an 'instanct action force' should attacks be mounted and require a response.
Of course, it goes without saying that Muslims would not be eligible to join the force. If you think this is unreasonable or discriminatory, read this http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6284231.stm
Muslims are trying hard to dhimmify Britain, to make it conform to Sharia whether it likes it or not. There is no good reason why we should do so. In the same way that MI5 and MI6 would be completely stupid to employ Muslims when most of the current threat comes from their co-religionists, the idea that a Muslim Policeman or Policewoman will behave in the public interest rather than according to their religion is the genuinely silly proposition.
This 'new Specials' force would also democratise the fight against Islamic terrorism, and would help British people get out of their instinct to just stand by and watch as terrible things are done.
Friday, January 19, 2007
The holocaust that the whole Muslim world denies continues, but in a much more restricted way than in former decades. What is the restriction? Well, most of the 2.5 million Armenians who used to live in the north eastern corner of Anatolia are dead. 1.5 million of them died between 1915 and 1917 at the hands of the Ottoman empire, the Muslim empire.
Hrant Dink, an Armenian and a Christian (as were most Armenians), was murdered by a young Turk on January 22nd for insulting Turkey and not being a Muslim. As LGF reports, "...initial stories about the shooting included a quote from an eyewitness who said Samast had shouted, “I shot the infidel!” Reuters themselves had this quote, but it was edited out of later versions." How quaint that the media feel they have to hide crimes done in the name of Islam. Why might that be?
How is it that nobody knows about the Armenian holocaust? On my recent trip to Jerusalem, I went to the Armenian holocaust museum. It was empty. I was the only person there. I felt slightly uncomfortable because it felt like I was the only person on a planet with 7 billion plus people who cared that 1.5 million people were murdered because they weren't Turks and they weren't Muslim. How do Muslims in Britain get away with presenting their co-religionists as the perpetual victims at the mercy of great satanic western empires when the last time there was a Muslim empire, it murdered literally millions of Christians it felt were a threat to its existence? No wonder the Turks don't want to admit it happened. It contradicts the whole extended narrative of Muslim lies about how the world works. The next time you hear a crowd of vociferous young Muslims screaming about Israel being the new Nazis, perhaps you could remind them about the first great ethnic cleansing of the 20th century.
One of the most common modes of discourse for the left wing in the rich west is to constantly find people in the poor, disorganised, backward countries to echo their arguments. I don't know what the psychology of that is, but it is rather pitiful.
'Bloggers fear Somali insurgency'
'Members of the international blogging community have given their reaction to the role of Ethiopian troops in Somalia where Islamic militias have been defeated'
'The Head Heeb summed up everyone's doom-laden thoughts in his post "Somalia: the third phase":
"On balance, I'd still rate the most likely outcome as a sham Ethiopian withdrawal followed by an extended counterinsurgent conflict, with the TFG remaining ineffectual and internally divided while the Islamist militias wage a guerrilla struggle with substantial public support... Somalia deserves better, but there are too many forces converging toward the opposite to provide much room for optimism."'
If you replace the 'rate' in the above paragraph with 'hope', then that would be the exact replica of the views of most left-wingers in America and Britain. For some reason, decisive wars that change societies for the better are much less popular than nasty, bitter festering ones where everybody loses. How many lefty protest parades have there been over the last eighteen years against the internicine combat between the militias in Somalia? Thats right, zero. But now that Ethiopia has trashed the UIC and plonked numerous brigades in various strategic points around Somalia, there is hope that a real, settled country can emerge. And the reaction of the left? Doom, gloom, predictions of great catastrophes. What a bunch of morons.
Having had the Union of Islamic Courts totally obliterated on its behalf by the Ethiopian army, the Somali government has begun the task of governing the country. Virtually every mainstream media report I read was certain that gangsterism, warlordism and a return of the UIC were days away...
"Omar Finish handed over six vehicles mounted with anti-aircraft guns. On Wednesday, two other leaders gave up 60 battle wagons and 300 fighters."
Much to the disgust and chagrin of the MSM, it looks like Somalia may well be on its way back to being a nation. Wheres the Islamist insurgency then? Oh, thats right, they were shredded by Puff the magic dragon.
Of course, no matter how many times events play out in the way we predict, those on the left never pay attention, never learn the lessons, never care. "War solves nothing". Really? Ask the people of Mogadishu.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
"These actions are against international conventions which guarantee
diplomatic immunity and they are also against the framework of the agreement
between Iraq and the Islamic Republic of Iran," Mr Qomi told the BBC's
Andrew North in Baghdad.
I had been avoiding blogging about this story because it is completely self-satirising. But it brought to my mind a Friends episode where Chandler is forbidden from joking as an act of self-denial, and things keep happening that are just over-ripe with comedic potential. At last, he breaks down
"...too ...many ...jokes!"
I know how he feels.
Answer: when the defeated nation can pretend to itself successfully that it didn't really lose.
Obvious candidates- Germany after World War I, the Arabs in Palestine after the 1947/48 war, the Sunni's in Iraq in 2003.
On all three occasions, disinterested parties would have unequivocally said the losers had been defeated. On all three occasions, there was enough psychological wriggle-room for the losers to build up a great story about how they actually didn't lose. Its not really important to go into the intricacies of their self-decieving rationalisations. What is important is, how come there was wriggle-room?
In late 1918, when the British Army was reeling off victory after victory on the western front, the High Command of the German army knew there was no hope. But in the usual traditions of European warfare, as soon as the Germans sued for peace and admitted their defeat, the armies stopped fighting and everybody went home. For many millions of Germans, they never had the experience of staring down the business end of a howitzer or vickers machine gun. For them, defeat was a technicality. Something that decades of self-deception about could mutate into a betrayal rather than a defeat. Hitler just took that self-deception and turned it into a political program.
In 1949, the Arabs in Palestine had been humiliated, comprehensively beaten by the much smaller Haganah, the nascent Israeli Defense Force. Many hundreds of thousands then voluntarily upped and moved out of Israel because they refused to live in a state run by Jews. Many military age men left without ever having fired a shot or helped the Arab cause in any way. For years afterwards, the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza held Egypt, TransJordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon directly responsible for failing to destroy the new state of Israel. Over decades, all those facts have mutated into todays completely fabricated history, where a conspiracy between Britain and the US foisted a dominant Israel on the weak but virtuous Arabs (both Britain and the US government tried to prevent Israel from being created by the fledgling UN).
In 2003, the US army conquered Baathist Iraq in three weeks, completely destroying the Iraqi army as a fighting force and probably breaking all manner of records in the defeat of one nation by another. But because many of the Sunni Iraqis didn't actually bother to show up at their units to fight the Americans, they didn't ever have to test their metal in a straight fight. Four years later, despite the huge casualties the Sunni's have suffered (plus the catastrophic ones suffered by the foreign jihadis who are treated as cannon fodder by the Sunni's) both Sunni Arabs and many millions of people around the world consider the US to be losing and the insurgency to be winning.
What should we deduce from this?
It is not enough just to win wars from the technical point of view. It is not enough just to attain your strategic goals. You must also enforce your victory psychologically, in a way that is way beyond dispute by the losing combatant. This is a very important point, and one I will be returning to soon.
Anybody who went to school in England will have been subjected to the kind of scabrous abuse and belittling that Shilpa Shetty is getting at the moment. Why is that? Because anglo-saxon culture is vigorously proletarian, vigorously anti-special status and vigorously questioning of self-declared virtue or prestige.
Sadly, anglo-saxon culture in England is under seige from every side. The tough and vigorous challenge that every child used to receive once they were away from the cozy confines of the family home meant that much received wisdom and many self-aggrandizing illusions bit the dust before kids were ten years old. In a rather brutal fashion, kids were taught by their peers not to put on airs, not to claim for themselves ludicrous status and not to imagine that their beliefs were beyond questioning. Equality meant everyone getting their fair share of stick. We can see this as a long long tradition going back into the mists of English history. Real quality, real virtue and real talent were usually respected- their facsimiles were given extremely short shrift.
The frenchified portion of our society, some of the upper and most of the middle classes in England have done their best to eliminate anglo-saxon culture. For them, politeness and evasion are always preferable to bluntness and direct challenge. They viscerally hate the robustness and lack of regard for status of the 'working class' (another name for the much more Germanic anglo-saxon population), along with their many other cultural crimes. These crimes are things like loving to drink alcohol, fighting for fun, and generally rabellaisian activities.
David Cameron is a perfect example of this frenchified middle class.
Mr Cameron told BBC Scotland: "I haven't watched this series, I don't intend to, but anyone who does and who doesn't like this racism, there's a great regulator, its called the 'off' button."
Disdain for 'anglo-saxon' amusements, assuming that 'anglo-saxon' people are racist and automatically siding with (in this case) an Indian woman rather than fellow English people are all markers of Mr Camerons middle class prejudice.
Special status is given to many many groups in England these days, bestowed on them paternalistically by the frenchified middle class, and any kind of challenge to these groups will be treated as a crime. Our politicians now speak often of race, immigration and many other issues as topics that are really beyond discussion and dispute.
Right down to the smallest children in school, English kids are now taught that to make fun of someones religion, dress, manner of speech, appearance, intelligence, weight or skin colour are crimes. The old rough and tumble of the schoolyard is being replaced by a stultifying silence, where everything must be treated as holy and untouchable.
Everything, that is, except the ancient anglo-saxon culture of England. That can be mocked, cursed, derided, lied about and laughed at on national TV and Radio every day of the week. Funny that. It really makes me want to go live somewhere where the the robust cut and thrust of anglo-saxon culture still lives and breathes- somewhere like Australia.
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
I'm sure that the super-sophisticated western press will be much too clever to report this story widely. Journalists being put in jail for three years for reporting other peoples jokes about Islam? Yawnerooney.
Especially when you've got real genuine stories of George W Bush giving White House press corps journos the cold shoulder for criticising his war in Iraq.
Remember, violations of free speech are never serious unless there is some way of linking President Bush to them.
Thursday, January 11, 2007
At last, the US is moving onto the front foot, and preparing to confront head-on it enemies in the Middle East.
"In a major policy speech, President George W Bush said the US would take a tough stance towards Iran and Syria, whom he accused of destabilising Iraq."
"US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq. Her statement comes hours after US forces stormed an Iranian consulate in the northern Iraqi town of Irbil - prompting condemnation from Tehran. "
Because the Iranians would never storm somebodies Embassy and take the occupants prisoner- Doh!
This is all fantastic news for the great swathes of Christendom who have been watching on in great dismay as the drama of Iraq has dribbled on with very few defining moments. The capture of Saddam, the storming of Fallujah, the surrounding of the worst Shia neighborhoods in Baghdad by cordons of US troops (albiet for a few hours because it worked so well the Maliki government intervened to stop it) and the capture of the Iranian Secret Servicemen in Abdul Aziz al-Hakims house are all defining moments in this conflict- but the events yesterday and today are by far the most significant.
Coming as they do immediately after the hackneyed and insubstantial 'findings' of the Iraq study group, the statements of President Bush and Secretary of State Rice combined with the shipping- out orders given to US forces by President Bush together form the clearest statement of intent about the conduct of this conflict since May 2003. This clarity is causing seismic shock waves throughout the world even as we speak, as they contradict the virtually universal 'chattering classes' analysis of the Iraq situation. After the narrow defeats for the Republicans in the very recent mid-term elections, which gave the Democrats control of both houses of Congress, it was expected by the Chatterati that President Bush would go and hide under his bed until the Democrats swept into the White House; That he would gradually draw down troop numbers in Iraq, start conversations with America's enemies Iran and Syria from a position of grave weakness, and go cap in hand to the EU and the UN for help in saving at least something out of the Iraq debacle.
But the man in charge in Iraq now, Lieutenant-General David Petraeus, is a student of history. He wants to remodel the US intervention in Iraq on the British counter-insurgencies in Malaya and Ulster, both in the end highly successful. He can deliver success to President Bush by the application of tried and tested methods. Whether he can do that in two years is highly uncertain, but the Democrats, despite all bleatings to the contrary, are highly unlikely to disengage in Iraq especially if the next eighteen months show a sharp turn-around in fortunes for the Iraqi government. The drama of the next eighteen months will be played out before an audience of billions- so the 22,000 Americans sent into theatre seem like a slender thread to hang the fate of US fortunes on.
I personally would be happier if the troop numbers were more like the 35,000 mooted by Frederick Kagan, who brought to President Bush's attention L-G Petraeus and the Malay/Ulster model. We saw after the assault on Fallujah what happens if you don't apply pressure on all parts of the insurgency/militia gangs at the same time- the cream of the insurgency just pack up and move to another town. There is absolutely no question that any insurgency can be beaten- but the key is the average Joe and his missus. They must be certain that they have more to fear from the insurgents than from the Government forces, and must be confident that should they need direct firepower protection they will get it. The writ of the government forces must hold everywhere and at all times. Its a tough task, but the prize of committing to it is almost guarunteed success.
For as long as US forces kept almost completely remote and separated from the ordinary folk of Ba'qubah and Najaf and Fallujah, they really had no prospect of protecting average Joe. They had very little chance of uncovering terror cells, and were really simply protecting themselves and nothing more. In Mosul, where a very different set of tactics was used, with many joint foot patrols of US and Iraqi forces, the insurgency was virtually eliminated. But those tactics have to be in force everywhere if you hope to keep places like Mosul permanently clear of insurgents. We now have the real prospect of that happening.
Whether direct warfare with Iran can be avoided is definitely not certain. Given how much investment Iran has in destabilising Iraq, if the Iranians lose all capability for causing grief in the latter by covert means, they may well try more overt methods. After all, the shaky Tehran government has very few fig leaves at its disposal- presenting the US as a toothless tiger in Iraq has been pretty much their only one in recent times, along with their grand Nuclear program.
As for Syria- a much easier nut to crack. It would be a couple of days work for the US to reduce all of Bashar Al-Assads residences and workplaces to smouldering rubble, and that would be that. Syria is not in itself a major problem to the security of the middle east; only its role as cheerleader for Iran and conduit to Hezbollah make it annoying and problematical. Given that Syria is a quite modern, well-organised state, if its government could be replaced with something like representative democracy, it could quite rapidly emerge as a useful ally and friend to Iraq. It has no history of tolerance of rabid Islamism, and is in many respects a secular state.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Interesting article about Iraq on the Beeb website.
"History does not repeat itself exactly, so what happened in Vietnam might not happen in Iraq, but there are parallels that are interesting to note
First there is the realisation in Washington that it is not winning. Mr Bush has admitted this himself
As students of History, and anybody who has ever played a strategic computer game know, winning requires set goals, or winning conditions. The mainstream media do not seem even vaguely interested in what the US winning conditions are. Here are some of my questions: would the MSM consider the US to be 'winning' if no US soldiers were being killed, but 100 Iraqis were dying every day? would they consider the US to be 'winning' if Iraq were completely peaceful but controlled by a Shia government that used militias as its means of exerting its power over all the other constituent groups in Iraq? would they consider the US to be 'winning' if the Sunni tribes regained control of Iraq, and a proto-Saddam re-imposed the kind of 'peace' that Iraq had under Saddam? Whereas the US government and President Bush have explained many times what their goals are for Iraq, it is completely unclear what the MSM want.
Second, there is a policy of trying to hand over responsibility to the local government in the midst of battle, not after it - this happened in Vietnam with the policy of Vietnamisation
There is no North Vietnam in Iraq. The South Vietnamese government was almost completely successful, but was destroyed by conventional and guerilla attack from the north. North Vietnam was sponsored by both Russia and China. The Shia are sponsored by Iran, who currently aren't even a regional power.
Third, there is the belief by the US administration that more troops are an important part of the answer
Yes? And? Anybody who can read, and takes a broadsheet newspaper could have told you that. More importantly than this belief, is what the US government wants to DO with the new troops. And that is break the back of the psychopathic religio/political militias ruining life in Iraq
Fourth, there is an opposite belief by others that the enterprise cannot work and that disengagement must be sought - US public doubt is a theme common to both conflicts
Why can't the 'enterprise' work? Such nation building exercises have been tried and succeeded all over the world. Of course it can work. It might fail, because thats how life is. But there is every reason to try. As for US public opinion, a large majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was directly linked to Al-Qaeda and 9/11. Virtually no informed person believes that to be the case. American public opinion is highly volatile, and prone to swallowing naive and nonsensical propositions. But hey, its called democracy, and as Winston Churchill pointed out "Democracy is the worst of all forms of government, apart from the other ones that are tried from time to time".
Fifth, in Vietnam too the president consulted an outside group - they were called the Wise Men and, like the Iraq Study group, they too urged a policy designed to lead to withdrawal "
I can't discern any useful parallel from that at all. If America were a genuine empire, it might consider NOT leaving, but because it isn't every single plan devised by US politicians will envisage a day when US forces leave. Its not about if, but when. Every single US politician and high-rank military officer should understand the psychological importance of WHEN. Currently, many do not. If the US leaves now, they will be percieved by most of the world as losers and bail-out cowards. Thats what happened in Somalia. Only 18 US service personnel were killed, but because directly after those tiny skirmishes the US pulled out, it was presented by America-haters all across the globe as a humiliating disaster. Because the war on Islamism is much more about perception of strength and weakness than it is about who is actually strong, to leave Iraq before it is demonstrably a successful and viable state will be to present America-haters with a Somalia of gigantic proportions. As Mark Steyn says, the American moment would be over.
Of course, US success in Iraq is now clearly predicated on humiliating and neutralising Iran, the relatively frail and feeble sponsor of intra-community murder in Iraq. The main difference between Vietnam and Iraq is who is backing the continuation of conflict. There was no hope the US could 'take out' Russia and China, whereas there is every prospect of taking out Iran. Without its prospective nuclear weapons, Iran is a toothless beast with a flagging and inept economy, bolstered solely by its oil revenues. It only has lukewarm allies in Russia and China, both of whom do not want Iran stirring up Islamist insurrections within Russian and Chinese territory should Iraq fall under Irans orbit. When the stealth bombers start taking out the Iranian nukes, I imagine the Russians and Chinese will suddenly find they are very busy with other state matters, and won't be able to take Ahmadinejads phone calls.
Granted, the BBC article does go on to point out some of the objections to the 'parallels' that I have pointed out.
After many twists and turns, the Americans did withdraw, in 1973. On 30 April 1975, North Vietnam tanks entered Saigon and the South Vietnamese were defeated.
The policy of Vietnamisation had its limits.
But this conclusion fails to identify the single crucial fact- if North Vietnam had been beaten, and invaded and re-integrated into South Vietnam, Vietnam would be a non-communist, successful state today, probably broadly similar to South Korea. The reason that 'The policy of Vietnamisation had its limits' was that the North was never taken out of the war. If the US had gone full bore and conquered physically the North, they would have won. But it would have come at a much greater price than the actual US dead of 58,000. And the US was not willing to pay that price. Will it be willing to win this time?
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
'Mr Page was arrested on suspicion of inciting racial hatred after a pro-hunting speech he made in Frampton-on-Severn.
He said supporters of the traditional country way of life "should be given the same rights as blacks, Muslims and gays".'
I can hear a huge chorus of groans up and down Britain as people read and digest this story on the BBC website.
But will the groaning be because an Englishman is being suppressed from expressing what seems a perfectly sensible and normal opinion about country life? Or because it shows up the Police to be unutterable morons?
I am mostly in the latter camp. We don't have a complete transcript of what Mr Page said, but if the basis of the Police action was saying country folk should get the same rights as blacks, muslims and gays, we are surely in very perilous straits. Equal rights before the law is a foundation stone of our society. Re-iterating your support for it is both worthy and positive. To be arrested and have the CPS consider taking action against you for indicating your support for equal rights before the law is astonishing and disastrous.
Should we infer from this that you merely have to mention blacks, muslims and gays in a speech to be considered for incitement to racial hatred?
I would say this reflects very badly on the intelligence and education of our law-enforcers. We need policemen and women who are capable of discriminating between perfectly acceptable discourse about problematic social conditions, and hate speech. I detest the latter notion anyway, but there is such a concept currently in British law, and the law must be upheld. But these pathetic attempts to sniff out the presumed latent hatred in middle England are a disgrace, and intellectually shameful.
What happened to our wise and worldly constabulary? Is public education in Britain so bad that ordinary PC's can't even make simple judgements? I hope its not true.
In 1948, the United Nations partitioned Israel and parts of Trans-Jordan (now just Jordan) into two parts, one for Arabs and one for Jews. This was to ensure that both large ethnic groups got a fair shake. The Jews celebrated, and the Arabs cleaned their rifles and prepared for slaughter. How is it that in 2007 the Palestinians still have humanitarian needs? They lost a succession of wars, and instead of being wiped out by a vengeful enemy, were largely left to their own devices. But every single time they were given any breathing space they use it to plot the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel. I give them an 'A' for perseverance, but an 'F-' for smarts. At some point the fact that the Palestinians are the losing side in a pretty even (well in 1948 anyway) contest, rather than a put-upon minority will become public knowledge.
As such, they should have got on with their lives in whatever way was possible for them; moved to Canada or whatever. But it seems that they will not be satisfied until Israel wipes them all out. If you keep tweaking the tail of the tiger, eventually he'll do for you. And it really really narks me that the Palestinians expect Britain and America to fund their self-indulgent, utterly revenge-based lifestyle. They lost their homeland- ok. It was a throw of the dice in 1948 that lost it for them, but gamblers should learn from their disasters, and not keep throwing the die.
I suggest that if the poison being continuously fed into the systems of Palestinian youths is not staunched and cut off, Israel will be forced to take much more heavy-handed measures when it comes to the fourth Intifada and the fifth Intifada. The Palestinians are the ultimate welfare problem family- four million people dedicated to a non-sustainable lifestyle, paid for by the nitwits of the international community. But if Iran or Syria or Saudi Arabia arm them with decent weapons, Israel will have to get quite scary.
It all could have been so different if the Palestinians had celebrated too in 1948.
Monday, January 08, 2007
Ok, I just made that title up, but it can't be long now.
"Beijing accuses some groups of links to al-Qaeda, but human rights groups say the Chinese authorities are using the fight against terrorism as a way of cracking down on the independence movement and suppressing religious freedom."
Ah, the amazing worldwide victim-production program grinds into gear. If it weren't for identical 'independence and religious freedom' movements murdering and blowing things up in virtually every country where muslims live with non-muslims, I'd be slightly more inclined to believe the human rights groups. Weirdly, the pattern cannot be traced in any other religion. Its almost like the religion and the bloody insurrections have something to do with each other.
"During his trip to Turkey in November, Pope Benedict XVI refrained from praying or crossing himself when he visited the Hagia Sophia. "
Matthew 26: 31-34
31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.
32 But after I am risen again, I will go before you into Galilee.
33 Peter answered and said unto him, Though all men shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended.
34 Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice.
This is not a Pope I can respect.
According to this thread on Strategypage.com, the push against the Shia militias has already started, although they have not got around to the Sadr Brigade 'Officials' yet, nor with the main cohorts of the Mahdi Army. January will be a tough month for the Iranian proxy army methinks.
Excellent article about the two most oft-heard arguments for NOT bombing Irans nuclear facilities. I don't know Edward Luttwak, but he makes confident, coherent arguments. I would like to hear what the most persuasive arguments are for not bombing Iran. I can't think of any myself, but I'm always open to new thoughts.
Sunday, January 07, 2007
This kind of news never seems to make it onto the Beeb or CBS or NBC. Fortunately, we don't have to rely solely on them for news anymore. It shows that slowly the Iraqi forces are growing in competance and confidence, and stiffened with semi-permanent mentoring from much better trained US forces will soon be capable of taking on many if not most roles in providing security for all Iraqis.
The prevalent mode of mainstream US media commentary on the war in Iraq is griping, niggling and determinedly glass-half-empty. I picked this story pretty much at random, but it contains all the elements that characterise the US medias war.
'WHEN IS a surge not a surge? The American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank in Washington, issued a report yesterday calling for a "sustained surge of US troops to secure and protect critical areas of Baghdad."'
'Unfortunately, the proposal only provides a temporary bump in troops while jeopardizing the readiness of an American Army that is already stretched too thin.'
What is the concern of the author? That the surge in troops is only temporary, or that a real surge in troop numbers in Iraq will stretch the capacity of the US in other theatres? Does he really care either way? My guess is no. There is really just the desire to sound off in negative fashion about the Bush administration and the execution of the war in Iraq.
What concerns me is that very few of the articles I ever read on the mainstream News websites in the US try to understand the nature of what the US trying to achieve in Iraq, and any leeway for making mistakes in the execution thereof which are inevitable with such a massive undertaking. As numerous commentators have said before me, if the US military had been held to the ludicrous benchmarks that modern critics hold them to during WWII, Hitler would be Emperor of Europe right now. We all WANT a perfect war, conducted with no civilian casualties, and finished in two weeks by the application of precise force, but no reasonable individual expects that to happen. The best that can be hoped for is that given the practical problems of extracting peace and a workable political dispensation in Iraq, only a few thousand more Iraqis and Americans have to die, and that nobody pushes the situation into full-scale intra-community annihilation mode.
My guess is, a concerted effort against the Shia militias is about to happen. They are the main tool of Iran, and no possible political settlement can succeed before they are destroyed root and branch. I believe it is possible a surgical strike may be attempted to take out Ahmadinejad and his cronies also, perhaps combined with a strike on the most accessible parts of the Iranian nuclear program. Thats why 30,000 more US troops are necessary. Iran may respond by trying a conventional incursion into Iraq, and the ground troops would ensure that would fail.
I believe, as I'm sure many in the west do, that Iraq is still in a state of war because Saudi Arabia are sponsoring the Sunni militias and Iran is sponsoring the Shia ones. That situation must be negated if the heat is to be removed from Iraqs nasty little war. How President Bush chooses to change that formulation is a very interesting question for the next few months.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media in the US will continue to entertain itself with whingeing and sniping, oblivious to any larger purpose or duty. Thanks for not caring, guys.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
Its an astonishing world we live in. Well, at least according to Paul Joseph Watson. Here are some of the things Mr Watson takes as self-evidently true
- in every single major terror bust or terror alert, the evidence is flawed and the charges are cooked up nonsense
- The Pakistani ISI is controlled by the CIA and British intelligence
- the plot to blow up multiple transatlantic airliners using liquid explosives was orchestrated by an MI5 mole within the group
- insider speculators with informants inside the British intelligence apparatus took advantage of their foreknowledge of the announcement of the foiled terror plot to place put options on airline stocks, reaping the benefits of their subsequent fall
- The geopolitical agenda of the U.S., Britain and Israel depends on the proliferation of phony terror threats in order to continue the farcical war on terror and take more of our innate freedoms at home to stifle dissent against the plot for worldwide hegemony
Flipping heck! I am having trouble keeping track of the motivations and machinations of the vast right-wing/Zionist conspiracy. Thank God we have this hardy breed of (mainly American) citizen truth-tellers to reveal the world-encompassing evil enterprise to us. Which, by the way, they seem to be able to do with shocking ease, from their bedrooms in Wichita and Sacramento. Something must be terribly wrong with the Zionist/Federal Govmt enemy-eliminator mechanism though, to allow the thousands of websites revealing their dastardly plans to keep pumping out the truth.
Wait!!! Could it be that these truther websites are actually run and funded by the Zionist occupier regime itself? Could it be a kind of double-bluff? Maybe Paul Joseph Watson is actually Paul Josephus Watsonstein? Actually, its all starting to make sense! Yes, Paul Josephus Watsonstein is actually a mossad agent placed cunningly among the naive citizens of America to promote stories about the Zionist/Federal Govmt to distract them away from what the latter are ACTUALLY doing. And the Pakistanis are playing along for laughs. At last, I am beginning to trace the lines of the REAL conspiracy! Hurrah!!!
Mr Watsonstein, your secret is safe with me. I also work for Mossad, as do 59,999,999 other Englishmen. Amazing what those Jews can do. Next year in Jerusalem?
The famously non-AntiSemitic middle east! Fortunately, we are organised in Britain to fight against such anti-semitism!
"The Sugar Plum Fairy in English National Ballet’s production of The Nutcracker had to confront angry colleagues before yesterday’s matinee performance after she was revealed to be a member of the British National Party. Simone Clarke, 36, was named by a newspaper that had infiltrated the party and obtained a membership list."
Thank God! Britain is saved from the scourge that is fascist ballerinas.
"BB: Should we be on record about Iran? I mean, that we would like regime change in Iran?
JM: Sure. We should be encouraging the forces of democracy in Iran, just as we have in other countries throughout the world. It’s not unique. Those students recently showed their distaste for the president of Iran. We need to have a radio free Iran, we need to do a better job in encouraging and assisting the forces of democracy in a repressive and oppressive regime."
JM is John McCain, one of the top three contenders for the Republican nomination for President in 2008. I don't know how much commitment Mr McCain has to his own words, but if I was American, I'd want to hear pretty much the same from all the possible contenders. It is time for the US to stop gazing at its navel, and decide whether it is going to commit itself to pursuing its goals around the globe. When you have the capability that the US has, you have the luxury of knowing that if you do commit yourself to something, there's a very high probability you will succeed. The rest of the world that currently holds the same values as the US: of Christianity, of societies based on tolerance, on freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of thought and freedom to create and enjoy the fruits of your labour; they need to hear from American presidents a constant refrain that those values will be promoted and protected all around the world. It is not enough just to form a laager around western Europe and America, and try to protect them from islamist depredations. We need to go on the offensive, and stay on the offensive.
And a clear message must be sent out to paper tigers like Russia, that they need to get onside, or pay a heavy price.
Thursday, January 04, 2007
An excellent review of Mark Steyns recent book "America Alone: The End of the World as we Know It". And a conclusion that I agree with wholeheartedly. My job entails sitting in the virtual epicentre of the vanguard of the 'tentative post-nationalist cringingly apologetic European identity'. I hear every day their nullities and their pious amorality, their barbaric and crude take on the most important aspects of life, and their dedication to self-pleasure and swingeing hatred of duty and sacrifice. They abhor religion- although strangely Christianity is always the butt of their 'satire' rather than Islam- except bizarre cults and satan worship.
When I was about 11, I read the "Just William" books, just like huge swathes of the rest of my generation. It is only now, looking back, that I see the roots of this post-European identity in Williams elder sister. Not just her! But her generation. Weird, but true. She was extremely cynical about life, cared not a jot about her parents, lived to party, and scorned the religious. She felt that those older than her were 'stuffy', which I now understand to mean 'rooted in a genuine tradition'. I don't know when people like that reached a critical mass in Britain, but if some countervailing force does not emerge soon, all English and British culture will decay to nothing, to be replaced by this dreary modishness which has no concern for the elderly, no concern for children, no moral imperative beyond the self, and no idea how to keep individuals bound within a viable society. There will be freedom, certainly. The kind of freedom available on islands run by brigands and pirates.
And unlike the "Pirates of the Caribbean", real pirates were bestial, greedy psychopaths who often murdered for pleasure. But then, I guess if they enjoyed it, it must be ok. Right?
At least a dozen times over the last two or three days, I've read on lefty websites that Ethiopia and the rest of the Christian world would be facing another insurgency like Iraq (Thailand, Phillipines, Kashmir, Afghanistan etc etc) in Somalia, as soon as the United Islamic Courts clowns could stop fleeing like old women away from the tanks and helicopter gunships of the Ethiopian army.
But Kenya shut the door to the west with a big clang, and the US navy blocked the escape route south, and now there is a patch of far SouthEastern Somalia about the size of a postage stamp still controlled by the UIC. It is currently under sustained attack, and there should be zero of these guys within about a day from now.
So, who exactly is going to be in this insurgency again?
Protesters in Lebanon have a simple message for Britain and the US: you cannot expect Arab democracies to operate on western terms.'
'When the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas (another western and Israeli favourite), called for early elections last week, Tony Blair himself was in the West Bank to support the decision despite the fact that early elections were not only unconstitutional but had come after months during which the Palestinians had been literally starved as the US and Israel imposed an embargo on all funding to the Hamas government. Most Palestinians have not been paid for months and many are facing extreme economic hardships. Why? Because the Palestinian people had elected members from a group deemed "terrorist" by western standards. In the Arab world where I live, we usually refer to both Hamas and Hizbullah as "national liberation movements".'
I keep reading the same arguments, arguments that never seem to be rebutted anywhere. '...Most Palestinians have not been paid for months and many are facing extreme economic hardships. Why?' Because they don't make anything, they don't build anything, they don't create businesses, and therefore every penny they get is handouts from daddy. Then later, they elect a government of islamo-supremacist murderers masqerading as a political party, because their politics is shambolic and is a loose mix of 99% bullshit, ludicrous mis-statements of fact, lies, ancient grievances and self-deceptions and 1% religious nuttery. Weirdly, daddy doesn't understand or like the new pseudo-government, and cuts off the allowance.
And in the real world where I live, I call that fair enough. Oh and by the way, there is no qualitative difference between a Western Democracy and a democracy.