Further to the previous post...
'Mr. Sharansky considers the right to make a buck or travel freely as important as political freedoms. His Gulag-mates were almost all "economic prisoners"; the dissident campaign in the 1970s was to let Soviet Jewry emigrate, not bring down the Imperium. With a power like China, the West doesn't need to play down the freedom agenda, he says: Deng Xiaoping's market reforms brought a fair measure of liberty, defusing nationalism and making Beijing easier to work with, and China can be encouraged further down this road. In his view, international donors erred by not pushing the Palestinian Authority to open the economy of the territories for business. '
China is an interesting case. China's power distribution system is tremendously tenuous. At the top you have a tiny cadre of ostensible Communists- some politicians, some Generals. They hold very powerful levers of coercive power. But all the rest of the power in the country is wielded by local politicians. This vast cohort are corrupt, and growing more corrupt by the day. The tiny cadre at the top execute a few of the vast cohort to try to stem the tide but the corruption is vast and just keeps growing. There is nothing tying the vast cohort of local officials to the tiny cadre than habit and fear of the army/secret police. The force keeping the whole ediface in place appears to be inertia and long custom. Thats not very much. One big shock and the whole thing would fly to pieces. Whether the big shock will come nobody knows. But I confidently assert that over the medium term the Chinese system is not sustainable. In a system where no institutions exist to hand legitimate power to new groups of people, pressure will build up in the system, just like it did in Russia in the early 20th century. The new wealthy and even the respectably off in China will want to assert their legitimate right to some power- and there is no mechanism to give it to them. How long they will wait before getting really het up is anybodies guess- but I don't suppose they are more patient than the Russians.
An interesting case!
Sunday, November 04, 2007
Going over old ground
http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010819
'The war in Iraq and the rise of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, aided by the ballot box, are Exhibits A and B in the case against the Bush Doctrine and its contention that democracy can put down roots in Arab soil.'
Is there really a debate going on along such wizened and constrained lines? Are there really highly paid, highly esteemed intellectuals and politicians who still see things in such trivial ways?
The idea that somehow having political parties and elections will make Gaza into Canada is so simplistic and clumsy that even small children would have trouble giving it serious attention. I think of the real situation like this- power courses through societies like blood through a body. In a healthy body-politic, power runs through the 'legitimate' and purpose-designed channels, and make the body powerful and successful. In an unhealthy one, power runs through secret and 'illegitimate' channels made by the people who want power more than they want a healthy society. They drastically weaken society, make it inefficient and wasteful, but they don't care, because they mostly end up with whatever power is available. Britain, America, France and all the other successful nations benefit hugely from power being channeled through the public and legitimate channels- the whole nation feels that it is successfully connected to power, even in tiny ways like going to the ballot box and voting.
In some countries, like Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria, there was a time in the past when power did get channeled through the public and legitimate channels. In other countries like Syria and Egypt, there has never been a transition of power that wasn't based on simple brute force. Both sets of countries are inherently less stable than the successful nations, as a lot of energy is spent by the small ruling classes fighting to maintain control of people who don't consider their rulers legitimate, who are disconnected from the blood-flow of power completely. Nations with healthy power distribution systems consequentially build a corporate identity which includes everyone, and leverage all that goodwill and energy into growth and beneficial activity. Its obvious that without an intact and healthy power distribution system, no state can really thrive.
So what do you ACTUALLY need to be successful? You need rulers and ruled who are willing to play within the rules. You need a dispassionate and powerful system of justice to decide when the rules have been broken and effectively punish the rulebreaker. You need rules that recognise the real way that things happen, which are not simply utopian. You need a way to transfer power from one set of rulers to another which is publicly agreed by all parties. You need long-term systems of bureaucracy which enable rulers to direct activity in their societies effectively and in a timely manner. You need at least some form of public representation, so there is a visible and concrete manifestation of the great mass of the ruled.
And last of all, you need the above to be institutionalised, so they can live on through many generations.
There is no reason why Arabs can't have the above, or indeed eskimos or Mongolians or Hottentots. There is no intrinsic reason why every nation on earth can't have them. But there is always habit, and the presence of tiny but powerful groups of men who just won't allow these institutions to grow. Like Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. So sometimes, America and Britain and the other healthy, successful countries will have to kill the Saddam Husseins and the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads so they can't impinge on the growth of these institutions any more. Sad but true.
And then there's Pakistan, but thats a whole nother story...
'The war in Iraq and the rise of Hamas in the Palestinian territories, aided by the ballot box, are Exhibits A and B in the case against the Bush Doctrine and its contention that democracy can put down roots in Arab soil.'
Is there really a debate going on along such wizened and constrained lines? Are there really highly paid, highly esteemed intellectuals and politicians who still see things in such trivial ways?
The idea that somehow having political parties and elections will make Gaza into Canada is so simplistic and clumsy that even small children would have trouble giving it serious attention. I think of the real situation like this- power courses through societies like blood through a body. In a healthy body-politic, power runs through the 'legitimate' and purpose-designed channels, and make the body powerful and successful. In an unhealthy one, power runs through secret and 'illegitimate' channels made by the people who want power more than they want a healthy society. They drastically weaken society, make it inefficient and wasteful, but they don't care, because they mostly end up with whatever power is available. Britain, America, France and all the other successful nations benefit hugely from power being channeled through the public and legitimate channels- the whole nation feels that it is successfully connected to power, even in tiny ways like going to the ballot box and voting.
In some countries, like Zimbabwe, Kenya and Nigeria, there was a time in the past when power did get channeled through the public and legitimate channels. In other countries like Syria and Egypt, there has never been a transition of power that wasn't based on simple brute force. Both sets of countries are inherently less stable than the successful nations, as a lot of energy is spent by the small ruling classes fighting to maintain control of people who don't consider their rulers legitimate, who are disconnected from the blood-flow of power completely. Nations with healthy power distribution systems consequentially build a corporate identity which includes everyone, and leverage all that goodwill and energy into growth and beneficial activity. Its obvious that without an intact and healthy power distribution system, no state can really thrive.
So what do you ACTUALLY need to be successful? You need rulers and ruled who are willing to play within the rules. You need a dispassionate and powerful system of justice to decide when the rules have been broken and effectively punish the rulebreaker. You need rules that recognise the real way that things happen, which are not simply utopian. You need a way to transfer power from one set of rulers to another which is publicly agreed by all parties. You need long-term systems of bureaucracy which enable rulers to direct activity in their societies effectively and in a timely manner. You need at least some form of public representation, so there is a visible and concrete manifestation of the great mass of the ruled.
And last of all, you need the above to be institutionalised, so they can live on through many generations.
There is no reason why Arabs can't have the above, or indeed eskimos or Mongolians or Hottentots. There is no intrinsic reason why every nation on earth can't have them. But there is always habit, and the presence of tiny but powerful groups of men who just won't allow these institutions to grow. Like Saddam Hussein and the Ba'ath Party. So sometimes, America and Britain and the other healthy, successful countries will have to kill the Saddam Husseins and the Mahmoud Ahmadinejads so they can't impinge on the growth of these institutions any more. Sad but true.
And then there's Pakistan, but thats a whole nother story...
Saturday, November 03, 2007
Journalists keep the stupid policemen honest
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7077212.stm
'For police investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance on 3 May this year, the six-month anniversary will simply draw attention, yet again, to just how little they have managed to ascertain. '
How would you like to have your work scrutinized like the press scrutinizes the Police? In America, milk cartons have pictures of missing children on them. There are many many pictures. I guess that means all the Police in America are complete garbage. Or perhaps it means that finding missing people is extraordinarily difficult. But being a journalist is easy. Being a Policeman is hard. But don't expect the journalists to give the policemen any slack. No no- that would be just and reasonable.
'For police investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance on 3 May this year, the six-month anniversary will simply draw attention, yet again, to just how little they have managed to ascertain. '
How would you like to have your work scrutinized like the press scrutinizes the Police? In America, milk cartons have pictures of missing children on them. There are many many pictures. I guess that means all the Police in America are complete garbage. Or perhaps it means that finding missing people is extraordinarily difficult. But being a journalist is easy. Being a Policeman is hard. But don't expect the journalists to give the policemen any slack. No no- that would be just and reasonable.
Tough love
http://www.mediainstitute.org/banquet2007/speeches/snow_20071016.pdf
This is a superb speech. As someone who works in the meeeja, I can attest to the truth of this mans words. The press in Britain is different from that in the US- it is much broader, coarser and closer to the world of the person reading it. US newspapers are crap- especially local ones. British newspapers are still more interesting, although I'd say that is falling away somewhat as some of the same processes that tamed the US newspapers arrive on our shores. But as Mr Snow says, none of the problems are critical, and none are irreversable.
Hail to the Chief (s Ex-Press Secretary)!
This is a superb speech. As someone who works in the meeeja, I can attest to the truth of this mans words. The press in Britain is different from that in the US- it is much broader, coarser and closer to the world of the person reading it. US newspapers are crap- especially local ones. British newspapers are still more interesting, although I'd say that is falling away somewhat as some of the same processes that tamed the US newspapers arrive on our shores. But as Mr Snow says, none of the problems are critical, and none are irreversable.
Hail to the Chief (s Ex-Press Secretary)!
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Yes, yes and yes
I know this is a bit old, but I only just found it. It says many of the things I believe to be true.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2673
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow Americans, a handful of you this week have listened in on what passes for Congressional hearings. You’ve endured the speeches of politicians who arrived with their minds set in concrete, as bulwarks against the truth. You have watched as one of our nation’s brave, devoted, valiant soldiers was ignored and described (in so many words) as a liar.
These broadcasts brought joy to the caves of al Qaeda, the halls of al-Jazeera, and to the streets of places where 9/11 is celebrated with dancing as the day America was devastated.
If you have watched or listened to these hearings, you can bear witness now that many so-called ‘representatives of the people’ have no clue what the people believe.
These sessions should have brought the nation together to focus on victory and to sound a warning to our enemies that we are united — committed to defend freedom and to defeat freedom’s opponents.
Instead we watched as career fund-raisers and clever lawyers used the opportunity to make moves on a political chessboard.
In Arlington National Cemetery, just a few miles from here, you can visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where the unidentified body of a brave soul rests and receives daily visitors on pilgrimage to honor his sacrifice. On the side of the sarcophagus you can read this inscription:HERE RESTS INHONORED GLORYAN AMERICANSOLDIERKNOWN BUT TO GOD
The Tomb of the Unknowns symbolizes a nation from which millions have arisen to fight for freedom around the world at the cost of their own comfort, safety and even breath. These are folks who know there’s something more precious than this fleeting life. With eternity in their hearts, and pictures of loved ones in their wallets, they thrust themselves into the breach where evil had threatened to break out and overwhelm. They showed themselves willing to go the distance, even to go to a nameless grave, in order to preserve something with blood that can’t be bought with money, or negotiated with subtle speech.
You can search all of the cemeteries, public parks and national monuments across this land and never find a marble or bronze tribute to a soldier who fled the field of battle because his courage failed, his hope gave out, or political expediency drove him to retreat.
You’ll find no statues honoring those who succumbed to public pressure, steered a middle course to safety, sacrificed their honor in order to achieve unprincipled consensus.
There is no tomb of the unknown politician, because the politician’s stock-in-trade is to make himself known at all costs, even if it hurts the anonymous citizen whom he is called to represent…even if it steals the glory from the unknown soldier by yanking the rug on the doorstep of victory.
There are no such memorials because Americans are a people who pay tribute to valor, boldness, integrity and victory against all odds. We are a people who treasure the rough-and-ready attitude of men who train to kill in order to protect — men who conquer in order to restore, and who never claim an inch of subdued territory for themselves.
This week’s congressional hearings might lead you to believe that the important issues in this current conflict are body counts, troop counts and withdrawal dates.
For the United States military and the people in whose name they fight, the important issue is always and only victory.
But the cynics in Congress and their publicists in the news media have seemingly convinced us that this war is un-winnable and the best we can hope for is so-called ‘peace with honor’, which is synonymous with retreat. This mindset demonstrates a colossal ignorance of history.
Rarely have we engaged in a battle whose outcome was certain from the beginning. Often war has taken us to the brink, and stretched us beyond all known human limits. Yet, by the grace of God, we have prevailed.
And in this current battle in Iraq, part of the larger war on Islamic jihad, we shall prevail…not because it seems from today’s vantage point that we can, but because we must. The alternative is too bleak for words.
Two thousand one hundred and ninety days have slipped by since lower Manhattan slipped below the cloud of dust and smoke thrown up by the falling towers. The initial shock, outrage, grief and unity have begun to fade. As a result, we now face a threat worse than any individual attack. It’s called complacency. It’s the attitude that since nothing has happened to us here since 9/11, nothing will. It’s a suicide potion that politicians, pundits and pollsters dispense, and that far too many Americans have drunk.
If you think Iraq is just a trivial civil war that we have gone to referee, then ponder what your life will be like when the kind of people who blew up and crushed 3,000 Americans in a single morning have access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves.
If they could plan 9/11 from caves and primitive mountain training camps, what will they do when they possess a land of 25 million people with factories, farms, airports, barracks and huge numbers of munitions.
This is not an intramural scrimmage. This is the most important contest the world will ever see.
We must win.
That’s not a topic for debate, or a political position. It is the most compelling fact of our time: We must win.
My fellow politicians in Congress, as we enjoy the luxury of playing the electoral game, seeking power, influence and fame; please realize that we can do that only because our military has surrounded us with a blanket of protection. The terrorists who plant roadside bombs in Iraq are eager to see how those explosive devices work against Congressional limousines here in the streets of D.C.. Shall we let them?
This week, some in Congress have appeared on global TV and questioned the integrity of a four-star general, and told our enemies that the U.S. Commander in Chief has sent his lackey to Congress to lie for him.
Whose cause do you advance with those verbal tactics?
Which side rejoices to hear such words?
What great objective can be accomplished through such speech?
They say history is written by the victors. When you envision this page of history being recorded, thanks to a grant from the National History Foundation of the Islamic Republic of America, no doubt you can already hear the accolades.
Recent polls show that 64 percent of Americans oppose the war. Let me tell you, on behalf of Gen. David Petraeus and the men and women who fight under the banner of freedom, 100 percent of our troops oppose the war. Our troops would rather be home holding their babies, mowing their lawns, taking the boys to football practice, eating a home-cooked meal.
But war has been declared on us. In time of war you do what you hate to preserve what you love.
In time of war, the question is never, ‘How soon can we bring the troops home?’ The question is: ‘How can we win?’ The question is: ‘What will it take to crush the enemy to the point of absolute surrender or impotent insignificance?’
Our troops understand what they signed up for. It’s about time our politicians figured it out.
May God continue to bless America with clear minds, selfless love, and the freedom to exercise both.
http://www.scrappleface.com/?p=2673
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow Americans, a handful of you this week have listened in on what passes for Congressional hearings. You’ve endured the speeches of politicians who arrived with their minds set in concrete, as bulwarks against the truth. You have watched as one of our nation’s brave, devoted, valiant soldiers was ignored and described (in so many words) as a liar.
These broadcasts brought joy to the caves of al Qaeda, the halls of al-Jazeera, and to the streets of places where 9/11 is celebrated with dancing as the day America was devastated.
If you have watched or listened to these hearings, you can bear witness now that many so-called ‘representatives of the people’ have no clue what the people believe.
These sessions should have brought the nation together to focus on victory and to sound a warning to our enemies that we are united — committed to defend freedom and to defeat freedom’s opponents.
Instead we watched as career fund-raisers and clever lawyers used the opportunity to make moves on a political chessboard.
In Arlington National Cemetery, just a few miles from here, you can visit the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, where the unidentified body of a brave soul rests and receives daily visitors on pilgrimage to honor his sacrifice. On the side of the sarcophagus you can read this inscription:HERE RESTS INHONORED GLORYAN AMERICANSOLDIERKNOWN BUT TO GOD
The Tomb of the Unknowns symbolizes a nation from which millions have arisen to fight for freedom around the world at the cost of their own comfort, safety and even breath. These are folks who know there’s something more precious than this fleeting life. With eternity in their hearts, and pictures of loved ones in their wallets, they thrust themselves into the breach where evil had threatened to break out and overwhelm. They showed themselves willing to go the distance, even to go to a nameless grave, in order to preserve something with blood that can’t be bought with money, or negotiated with subtle speech.
You can search all of the cemeteries, public parks and national monuments across this land and never find a marble or bronze tribute to a soldier who fled the field of battle because his courage failed, his hope gave out, or political expediency drove him to retreat.
You’ll find no statues honoring those who succumbed to public pressure, steered a middle course to safety, sacrificed their honor in order to achieve unprincipled consensus.
There is no tomb of the unknown politician, because the politician’s stock-in-trade is to make himself known at all costs, even if it hurts the anonymous citizen whom he is called to represent…even if it steals the glory from the unknown soldier by yanking the rug on the doorstep of victory.
There are no such memorials because Americans are a people who pay tribute to valor, boldness, integrity and victory against all odds. We are a people who treasure the rough-and-ready attitude of men who train to kill in order to protect — men who conquer in order to restore, and who never claim an inch of subdued territory for themselves.
This week’s congressional hearings might lead you to believe that the important issues in this current conflict are body counts, troop counts and withdrawal dates.
For the United States military and the people in whose name they fight, the important issue is always and only victory.
But the cynics in Congress and their publicists in the news media have seemingly convinced us that this war is un-winnable and the best we can hope for is so-called ‘peace with honor’, which is synonymous with retreat. This mindset demonstrates a colossal ignorance of history.
Rarely have we engaged in a battle whose outcome was certain from the beginning. Often war has taken us to the brink, and stretched us beyond all known human limits. Yet, by the grace of God, we have prevailed.
And in this current battle in Iraq, part of the larger war on Islamic jihad, we shall prevail…not because it seems from today’s vantage point that we can, but because we must. The alternative is too bleak for words.
Two thousand one hundred and ninety days have slipped by since lower Manhattan slipped below the cloud of dust and smoke thrown up by the falling towers. The initial shock, outrage, grief and unity have begun to fade. As a result, we now face a threat worse than any individual attack. It’s called complacency. It’s the attitude that since nothing has happened to us here since 9/11, nothing will. It’s a suicide potion that politicians, pundits and pollsters dispense, and that far too many Americans have drunk.
If you think Iraq is just a trivial civil war that we have gone to referee, then ponder what your life will be like when the kind of people who blew up and crushed 3,000 Americans in a single morning have access to one of the world’s largest oil reserves.
If they could plan 9/11 from caves and primitive mountain training camps, what will they do when they possess a land of 25 million people with factories, farms, airports, barracks and huge numbers of munitions.
This is not an intramural scrimmage. This is the most important contest the world will ever see.
We must win.
That’s not a topic for debate, or a political position. It is the most compelling fact of our time: We must win.
My fellow politicians in Congress, as we enjoy the luxury of playing the electoral game, seeking power, influence and fame; please realize that we can do that only because our military has surrounded us with a blanket of protection. The terrorists who plant roadside bombs in Iraq are eager to see how those explosive devices work against Congressional limousines here in the streets of D.C.. Shall we let them?
This week, some in Congress have appeared on global TV and questioned the integrity of a four-star general, and told our enemies that the U.S. Commander in Chief has sent his lackey to Congress to lie for him.
Whose cause do you advance with those verbal tactics?
Which side rejoices to hear such words?
What great objective can be accomplished through such speech?
They say history is written by the victors. When you envision this page of history being recorded, thanks to a grant from the National History Foundation of the Islamic Republic of America, no doubt you can already hear the accolades.
Recent polls show that 64 percent of Americans oppose the war. Let me tell you, on behalf of Gen. David Petraeus and the men and women who fight under the banner of freedom, 100 percent of our troops oppose the war. Our troops would rather be home holding their babies, mowing their lawns, taking the boys to football practice, eating a home-cooked meal.
But war has been declared on us. In time of war you do what you hate to preserve what you love.
In time of war, the question is never, ‘How soon can we bring the troops home?’ The question is: ‘How can we win?’ The question is: ‘What will it take to crush the enemy to the point of absolute surrender or impotent insignificance?’
Our troops understand what they signed up for. It’s about time our politicians figured it out.
May God continue to bless America with clear minds, selfless love, and the freedom to exercise both.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Charity caught in 'trying to help children' horror
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7070882.stm
You could not make this shit up-
'The BBC's Stephanie Hancock in Abeche says angry crowds took to the streets to vent their anger about the affair.
Some women hurled stones at foreign journalists and shouted anti-French slogans, AFP news agency reports.
"No to the slave trade! No trafficking in children!" they are quoted as saying.
Our correspondent says hundreds of protesters converged at the home of the governor of Abeche waving placards.
"We are here to see that justice will be done in transparency, and here in Abeche, not anywhere else. And to see that children and their parents get their rights," one woman said. '
Every child SHOULD have the right to die in squalor. It is disgusting- here you have rich, educated Europeans going to Africa to try to bring Darfurian orphans back to France so they can be adopted and live healthy, happy lives- who do they think they are? They obviously deserve 20 years in prison for wanting to help desperate African children.
No to the slave trade? What fucking century are these people living in? How many slaves are there in France again? Sometimes it doesn't seem worth trying to do anything good in this world.
You could not make this shit up-
'The BBC's Stephanie Hancock in Abeche says angry crowds took to the streets to vent their anger about the affair.
Some women hurled stones at foreign journalists and shouted anti-French slogans, AFP news agency reports.
"No to the slave trade! No trafficking in children!" they are quoted as saying.
Our correspondent says hundreds of protesters converged at the home of the governor of Abeche waving placards.
"We are here to see that justice will be done in transparency, and here in Abeche, not anywhere else. And to see that children and their parents get their rights," one woman said. '
Every child SHOULD have the right to die in squalor. It is disgusting- here you have rich, educated Europeans going to Africa to try to bring Darfurian orphans back to France so they can be adopted and live healthy, happy lives- who do they think they are? They obviously deserve 20 years in prison for wanting to help desperate African children.
No to the slave trade? What fucking century are these people living in? How many slaves are there in France again? Sometimes it doesn't seem worth trying to do anything good in this world.
Stupid CIA guy
'Like Nazism, Islam is an ideology one chooses to adhere to. Were there "good" or "moderate" Nazis? If not, then no one can claim that there are good or moderate Muslims as they are voluntarily subscribing to an ideology that advocates murder, torture and jihad and does not permit its follower to cherry-pick which parts they believe in. The requirement to accept the Koran as the literal word of God also carries with it the obligation to accept it all. And as you say, the Koran instructs all Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims and all schools of Islamic thought instruct the subjugation of the non-Muslim world through jihad. Therefore, I do not believe it wise to attempt to create artificial distinctions between Muslims that don't really as far as their attitudes towards non-Muslims is concerned.'
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AF613BFA-8E34-4A07-8DB4-20D89DE3D84B
How is it that after all the time this guy has supposedly spent studying Islam, he is still making elementary errors? Mainstream Shia and Sunni Islam DO have large bodies of rulings which 'interpret' i.e. change what the Koran says. Because many things in the Koran run counter to normal human life, many of its injunctions were 'interpreted' so that Moslems could lead productive, peaceful lives. The radical thing about Wahhabism is it throws away that enormous body of accumulated wisdom, and says that the Koran and only the Koran dictates how a Moslem should live. Everything else is a false idol and is against 'true' Islam. How did this crucial distinction pass Mr Tefft by?
Comparing mainstream Islam with Nazism is dangerous and wrong. The period where Islam sprouted from the Hijaz and stormed the mediterraenean world is in the distant past. The last 'adventures' for Islam were the Ottoman empire-building wars, and the Ottomans were traditional imperialists. They did what they did for secular glory, not on behalf of Islam. To pretend that the masses of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iraq and Egypt want to take the banner of Islam into Paris and Washington DC is just hokum. The Wahhabists are vanguardists- they don't represent a mass movement at all. They represent the small percentage of young violent men to be found in many societies who believe they are right and that murdering the people who are wrong will end up with their eventual victory. It hasn't happened before (and Wahhabist ideology has been around since ca 1300) and it won't happen this time.
Just from simple common humanity, we in the West should help Islam divest itself of the Wahhabist scourge. We are not doing a very good job at the moment, and we really need to start soon, as the Wahhabists have a state sponsor and vast sums of money, neither of which they ever possessed before at the same time. It makes me sick to see our Royal Family and government welcoming in Abdullah. Saudi Arabia should be a pariah state, no matter how much oil they have. It is their propaganda, their institutions of state, their seminaries and their overtly gigantist mosque building which are adding great heft to the Wahhabist takeover bid.
People like Mr Tefft really annoy me. The first task in any contest is to define your enemy, and not just fight whoever comes into view. The Wahhabists are a small but formidable foe, growing on the margins but still easily defeatable right now as long as we don't tarry and get into a completely unnecessary general war with Islam. I don't happen to like what Islam preaches, but then I don't like what a lot of religions teach. That is neither here nor there. Mr Tefft worries me- is that the calibre of person populating the CIA? Poor America...
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=AF613BFA-8E34-4A07-8DB4-20D89DE3D84B
How is it that after all the time this guy has supposedly spent studying Islam, he is still making elementary errors? Mainstream Shia and Sunni Islam DO have large bodies of rulings which 'interpret' i.e. change what the Koran says. Because many things in the Koran run counter to normal human life, many of its injunctions were 'interpreted' so that Moslems could lead productive, peaceful lives. The radical thing about Wahhabism is it throws away that enormous body of accumulated wisdom, and says that the Koran and only the Koran dictates how a Moslem should live. Everything else is a false idol and is against 'true' Islam. How did this crucial distinction pass Mr Tefft by?
Comparing mainstream Islam with Nazism is dangerous and wrong. The period where Islam sprouted from the Hijaz and stormed the mediterraenean world is in the distant past. The last 'adventures' for Islam were the Ottoman empire-building wars, and the Ottomans were traditional imperialists. They did what they did for secular glory, not on behalf of Islam. To pretend that the masses of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Iraq and Egypt want to take the banner of Islam into Paris and Washington DC is just hokum. The Wahhabists are vanguardists- they don't represent a mass movement at all. They represent the small percentage of young violent men to be found in many societies who believe they are right and that murdering the people who are wrong will end up with their eventual victory. It hasn't happened before (and Wahhabist ideology has been around since ca 1300) and it won't happen this time.
Just from simple common humanity, we in the West should help Islam divest itself of the Wahhabist scourge. We are not doing a very good job at the moment, and we really need to start soon, as the Wahhabists have a state sponsor and vast sums of money, neither of which they ever possessed before at the same time. It makes me sick to see our Royal Family and government welcoming in Abdullah. Saudi Arabia should be a pariah state, no matter how much oil they have. It is their propaganda, their institutions of state, their seminaries and their overtly gigantist mosque building which are adding great heft to the Wahhabist takeover bid.
People like Mr Tefft really annoy me. The first task in any contest is to define your enemy, and not just fight whoever comes into view. The Wahhabists are a small but formidable foe, growing on the margins but still easily defeatable right now as long as we don't tarry and get into a completely unnecessary general war with Islam. I don't happen to like what Islam preaches, but then I don't like what a lot of religions teach. That is neither here nor there. Mr Tefft worries me- is that the calibre of person populating the CIA? Poor America...
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Peace, peace at last
I had a very interesting discussion about the Palestinians and their dogged determination to screw up their own fate with a Jewish person a couple of days ago. I couldn't help thinking about some of his comments while reading this recent AP news wire.
ATLANTA (AP) - The Palestinian people have plunged into a deep depression
with unemployment and poverty at record levels, and peace with Israel is the
only answer, a longtime Palestinian lawmaker said. Palestinians are experiencing "one of the most difficult phases in our history," [under the Ottomans, for instance, everybody had two-car garages and shares in PalestineCo] said Hanan Ashrawi, an elected member of the Palestinian
Legislative Council and an active voice in the Mideast peace process.
"Now we see not just a political and economic battle but a battle over the soul of Palestine," [we tried the military battle 487 times, and lost every one, which is why we've switched to these lesser battles. We think we'll probably lose these too] she told an audience of about 200 gathered at Emory University. "We find ourselves in the grip of ... the deconstruction of
Palestine." [ah, deconstruction. All the post-modernists love the deconstruction. A few of them might wonder when the construction of Palestine happened, as it doesn't appear in the history books at all, nada, rien, nix]
Nearly 75 percent of Palestinians living in Gaza are dependent on welfare
and the territory's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 50 percent, she
said. Conditions have worsened in Gaza since the militant Islamic group Hamas
seized control in June. [What? Those guys promised a land flowing with milk and honey? Oh, right, a land flowing with Jews blood and zionist guts... sorry]
Ashrawi's lecture was part of a series of speeches on the Emory campus focusing on peace building in wartorn regions. [Always get in the experts. Ashrawi's track record is second to ... well everyone actually] One of the more controversial lectures was by former President Jimmy Carter, who spoke there about his much-criticized book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." [Because insulting and lying about the Israelis is obviously going to bring about peace, innit?]
The book was condemned by critics and Jewish groups [read: the usual liars and apologists for racism] for comparing Israeli actions in Palestine to the oppression of blacks under South Africa's apartheid regime. [Its an obvious comparison, apart from all the manifold ways in which its bollocks]
Ashrawi praised Carter as a "prophet" and a "man of conscience," and one of a dwindling number of people who still believe peace is possible in the Mideast. [read: are willing to shill for the Palestinians despite the latters fanatical devotion to screwing up their own future]
She noted that peace talks must move forward as opposed to waiting for the violence to subside. [If these bloody Israelis won't negotiate with a gun to their heads, they're just pussies]
"You cannot hold peace hostage and say, 'Until every single Palestinian becomes peaceful, I'm not going to have talks,"' Ashrawi said. [Really? Why not again?] "You have to talk in order to bring about peace." [Really? I thought you had to stop killing people to have peace?]
The United States is planning to host a conference in late November or early December to relaunch long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. [gotta look like you're not just sitting on your hands...] U.S. officials have had a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent weeks aiming to push Israel and the Palestinians into consensus on the substance of the conference's joint declaration, which would outline a way for the two sides to return to the negotiating table. [one day, we will definitely agree on the possibility of sitting down to discuss the things which we might discuss in talks... I give up]
ATLANTA (AP) - The Palestinian people have plunged into a deep depression
with unemployment and poverty at record levels, and peace with Israel is the
only answer, a longtime Palestinian lawmaker said. Palestinians are experiencing "one of the most difficult phases in our history," [under the Ottomans, for instance, everybody had two-car garages and shares in PalestineCo] said Hanan Ashrawi, an elected member of the Palestinian
Legislative Council and an active voice in the Mideast peace process.
"Now we see not just a political and economic battle but a battle over the soul of Palestine," [we tried the military battle 487 times, and lost every one, which is why we've switched to these lesser battles. We think we'll probably lose these too] she told an audience of about 200 gathered at Emory University. "We find ourselves in the grip of ... the deconstruction of
Palestine." [ah, deconstruction. All the post-modernists love the deconstruction. A few of them might wonder when the construction of Palestine happened, as it doesn't appear in the history books at all, nada, rien, nix]
Nearly 75 percent of Palestinians living in Gaza are dependent on welfare
and the territory's unemployment rate has skyrocketed to 50 percent, she
said. Conditions have worsened in Gaza since the militant Islamic group Hamas
seized control in June. [What? Those guys promised a land flowing with milk and honey? Oh, right, a land flowing with Jews blood and zionist guts... sorry]
Ashrawi's lecture was part of a series of speeches on the Emory campus focusing on peace building in wartorn regions. [Always get in the experts. Ashrawi's track record is second to ... well everyone actually] One of the more controversial lectures was by former President Jimmy Carter, who spoke there about his much-criticized book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid." [Because insulting and lying about the Israelis is obviously going to bring about peace, innit?]
The book was condemned by critics and Jewish groups [read: the usual liars and apologists for racism] for comparing Israeli actions in Palestine to the oppression of blacks under South Africa's apartheid regime. [Its an obvious comparison, apart from all the manifold ways in which its bollocks]
Ashrawi praised Carter as a "prophet" and a "man of conscience," and one of a dwindling number of people who still believe peace is possible in the Mideast. [read: are willing to shill for the Palestinians despite the latters fanatical devotion to screwing up their own future]
She noted that peace talks must move forward as opposed to waiting for the violence to subside. [If these bloody Israelis won't negotiate with a gun to their heads, they're just pussies]
"You cannot hold peace hostage and say, 'Until every single Palestinian becomes peaceful, I'm not going to have talks,"' Ashrawi said. [Really? Why not again?] "You have to talk in order to bring about peace." [Really? I thought you had to stop killing people to have peace?]
The United States is planning to host a conference in late November or early December to relaunch long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. [gotta look like you're not just sitting on your hands...] U.S. officials have had a flurry of diplomatic activity in recent weeks aiming to push Israel and the Palestinians into consensus on the substance of the conference's joint declaration, which would outline a way for the two sides to return to the negotiating table. [one day, we will definitely agree on the possibility of sitting down to discuss the things which we might discuss in talks... I give up]
Superb satire - this guy deserves an oscar or a Nobel
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/10/how_to_get_the_world_to_like_u.php
To paraphrase Dr Johnson, the only thing worse than saving the world is saving the world and STILL being hated.
To paraphrase Dr Johnson, the only thing worse than saving the world is saving the world and STILL being hated.
Wriggling on the hook
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123195.html
What does an honest lefty anti-imperialist do when America wins a war?
'Anti-warriors are sometimes accused of wanting the U.S. to lose in Iraq, just so they can be right. Not so. But they do want America to stop waging unnecessary wars.'
And strangely enough, they always know which ones are necessary and which aren't.
' The question preceding any decision to go to war shouldn’t be as simple as: “Might some long-term good occur out of this?” '
Thats right. The enormously subversive idea might flourish that warfare and violence can actually have positive effects, sometimes world-changingly positive effects. And we wouldn't want that. What would we do with all those bumper-stickers and t-shirts?
'The real question before a war needs to be: “is this absolutely necessary given a fair consideration of the horrors and unpredictability of war and the purpose of the U.S. military?” '
Thankfully, lefty nitwits writing on the web know all the relevant information about whether something is absolutely necessary or not. They have access to all the nasty, grubby intelligence about what the evil people in the world are getting up to: how many ostensibly clean politicians have been paid off by the evil people, how big and sophisticated the networks of the evil people have become, what extraordinarily disgusting things are being done by the evil people, etc. Fortunately, they know more about that than the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Obviously.
So what about Rwanda? What about DR Congo? What about Bosnia? And East Timor? And Chechnya? And Burma? Sitting around on your arse, drinking your martini and glorying your immense power and wealth while people around the world are being shot and chopped to bits when you COULD DO SOMETHING is morally disgusting. George W Bush believes that, Tony Blair believes that. I believe that.
What does an honest lefty anti-imperialist do when America wins a war?
'Anti-warriors are sometimes accused of wanting the U.S. to lose in Iraq, just so they can be right. Not so. But they do want America to stop waging unnecessary wars.'
And strangely enough, they always know which ones are necessary and which aren't.
' The question preceding any decision to go to war shouldn’t be as simple as: “Might some long-term good occur out of this?” '
Thats right. The enormously subversive idea might flourish that warfare and violence can actually have positive effects, sometimes world-changingly positive effects. And we wouldn't want that. What would we do with all those bumper-stickers and t-shirts?
'The real question before a war needs to be: “is this absolutely necessary given a fair consideration of the horrors and unpredictability of war and the purpose of the U.S. military?” '
Thankfully, lefty nitwits writing on the web know all the relevant information about whether something is absolutely necessary or not. They have access to all the nasty, grubby intelligence about what the evil people in the world are getting up to: how many ostensibly clean politicians have been paid off by the evil people, how big and sophisticated the networks of the evil people have become, what extraordinarily disgusting things are being done by the evil people, etc. Fortunately, they know more about that than the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Obviously.
So what about Rwanda? What about DR Congo? What about Bosnia? And East Timor? And Chechnya? And Burma? Sitting around on your arse, drinking your martini and glorying your immense power and wealth while people around the world are being shot and chopped to bits when you COULD DO SOMETHING is morally disgusting. George W Bush believes that, Tony Blair believes that. I believe that.
Thermopylae joke
Best Thermopylae-related joke in 1400 years-
Leonidas: Try not to think of it as being vastly outnumbered. Be positive, what we have is a really target-rich environment.
Leonidas: Try not to think of it as being vastly outnumbered. Be positive, what we have is a really target-rich environment.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Judging people by your own standards
'Mr Deby has promised "severe punishment" for what he has described as a "kidnapping" or "child-trafficking" operation. "Their aim is to kidnap the children from their parents, to steal the children from their parents and sell them to paedophile organisations in Europe, and even perhaps to kill them and sell their organs," Mr Deby said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7066770.stm
Hilarious though Mr Deby's comments are, they do give us an insight into North African life. Slavery and murder-for-profit are still very much a part of life there, presumably. And you know that if the Prime Minister of the country talks like this, those lower down the totem pole are probably a bit less well-informed and civilised. Eeek.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7066770.stm
Hilarious though Mr Deby's comments are, they do give us an insight into North African life. Slavery and murder-for-profit are still very much a part of life there, presumably. And you know that if the Prime Minister of the country talks like this, those lower down the totem pole are probably a bit less well-informed and civilised. Eeek.
King Abdullah- what a comedian
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7066867.stm
'Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has accused Britain of not doing enough to fight international terrorism, which he says could take 20 or 30 years to beat. '
The man has a career in stand-up awaiting him. Its a bit like Russia accusing the US of human rights violations at Gitmo. You would only know the depth of that irony if you'd ever been to a Russian prison. They don't have their own personal copies of the Koran in those hell-holes...
'Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has accused Britain of not doing enough to fight international terrorism, which he says could take 20 or 30 years to beat. '
The man has a career in stand-up awaiting him. Its a bit like Russia accusing the US of human rights violations at Gitmo. You would only know the depth of that irony if you'd ever been to a Russian prison. They don't have their own personal copies of the Koran in those hell-holes...
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Motes and Beams
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7065941.stm
'Only MPs representing constituencies in England could be allowed to legislate on English matters under proposals being considered by the Conservatives.
The plan aims to address a perceived constitutional imbalance caused by Scottish and Welsh devolution.
The blueprint, drawn up by Tory ex-minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind, would involve a Grand Committee voting on areas such as education and health.
The government said such moves would threaten the existence of the UK. '
...Unlike creating a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, of course. Which just bind us all together as happy Britons...
'Only MPs representing constituencies in England could be allowed to legislate on English matters under proposals being considered by the Conservatives.
The plan aims to address a perceived constitutional imbalance caused by Scottish and Welsh devolution.
The blueprint, drawn up by Tory ex-minister Sir Malcolm Rifkind, would involve a Grand Committee voting on areas such as education and health.
The government said such moves would threaten the existence of the UK. '
...Unlike creating a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, of course. Which just bind us all together as happy Britons...
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Compare and contrast II
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=277510023350955
The big press outlets in Britain and America are very keen to downplay jihad in its midst.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,,206293,00.html
It was the guys abusive childhood, he hated his wife, maybe it was some bad sushi... anything but the fact that he was a recent and gung-ho convert to Islam.
Neo-nazi crime on the other hand is blazoned from the rooftoops. We don't mind if they get lynched!
So what happens when something like this occurs?
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/06/neo-nazi-becomes-fanatical-muslim.html
Its an interesting case because it points to something which very few left/Islamo-fascist convergence commentators want to talk about- that the psychological underpinning of Islamo-fascism is the identical one to ordinary fascists: the will to dominate and subjugate. There have been enough cross-overs that the public are starting to twig, even if the big media types are determined not to let evidence override prejudice.
The big press outlets in Britain and America are very keen to downplay jihad in its midst.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/racism/Story/0,,206293,00.html
It was the guys abusive childhood, he hated his wife, maybe it was some bad sushi... anything but the fact that he was a recent and gung-ho convert to Islam.
Neo-nazi crime on the other hand is blazoned from the rooftoops. We don't mind if they get lynched!
So what happens when something like this occurs?
http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/06/neo-nazi-becomes-fanatical-muslim.html
Its an interesting case because it points to something which very few left/Islamo-fascist convergence commentators want to talk about- that the psychological underpinning of Islamo-fascism is the identical one to ordinary fascists: the will to dominate and subjugate. There have been enough cross-overs that the public are starting to twig, even if the big media types are determined not to let evidence override prejudice.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Robust predictive powers
History is often instructive. Whilst reading up on the forthcoming England vs South Africa rugby world cup final game, I found these polls on http://www.rugby365.com/, a reputable rugby website. 
RESPECT!!!
I thought the vote was not a reasonable weighing up of the factors involved in both teams coming into this game, so I thought I'd have a look at the results from previous polls.
First, I looked at this one. A whopping 62% of respondents didn't believe England could beat France.
Then, I hit upon this one. According to the genii at rugby365, England had a 3.13% chance of winning the world cup.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Get over yourselves
'The "survival of the world" is at stake if Muslims and Christians do not make peace with each other, leaders of the Muslim world will warn the Pope and other Christian leaders today.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spell out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301116,00.html
I think we can all agree that the survival of the world is not at stake due to any putative contest between Christianity and Islam. The survival of Islam may be at stake, but not the world. Lets face it, the combined might of the the muzzy world can't take back Israel, the teeny weeny country right in the middle of Islamdom. So I'm guessing Poland, Canada and Peru aren't much at threat...
Most Islamic countries have trouble defending their own territory (see Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia) and keeping hold of it (see Pakistan), let alone providing any threat to us. But grandiosity is a bequest of Arab culture to Islam in general. It gives us all light relief and a chance to look into a closed and feeble world. I won't be digging myself an air-raid shelter just yet, if you don't mind.
In an unprecedented open letter signed by 138 leading scholars from every sect of Islam, the Muslims plead with Christian leaders "to come together with us on the common essentials of our two religions" and spell out the similarities between passages of the Bible and the Koran.'
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301116,00.html
I think we can all agree that the survival of the world is not at stake due to any putative contest between Christianity and Islam. The survival of Islam may be at stake, but not the world. Lets face it, the combined might of the the muzzy world can't take back Israel, the teeny weeny country right in the middle of Islamdom. So I'm guessing Poland, Canada and Peru aren't much at threat...
Most Islamic countries have trouble defending their own territory (see Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia) and keeping hold of it (see Pakistan), let alone providing any threat to us. But grandiosity is a bequest of Arab culture to Islam in general. It gives us all light relief and a chance to look into a closed and feeble world. I won't be digging myself an air-raid shelter just yet, if you don't mind.
An Apology to LTG (Ret) Ricardo S. Sanchez
'WHILE THE POLITICIANS ESPOUSE THEIR RHETORIC DESIGNED TO PRESERVE THEIR REPUTATIONS AND THEIR POLITICAL POWER -OUR SOLDIERS DIE! OUR NATIONAL LEADERSHIP IGNORED THE LESSONS OF WWII AS WE ENTERED INTO THIS WAR AND TO THIS DAY CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT VICTORY CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH THE APPLICATION OF MILITARY POWER ALONE. OUR FOREFATHERS UNDERSTOOD THAT TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CAPACITY HAD TO BE MOBILIZED, SYNCHRONIZED AND APPLIED IF WE WERE TO ACHIEVE VICTORY IN A GLOBAL WAR. THAT HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE THE KEY TO VICTORY IN IRAQ. CONTINUED MANIPULATIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR MILITARY STRATEGY WILL NOT ACHIEVE VICTORY. THE BEST WE CAN DO WITH THIS FLAWED APPROACH IS STAVE OFF DEFEAT. '
http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html
I just knew I shouldn't have commented on the comments of this senior American officer without having read them first hand. The US media, in full propaganda mode, selected this mans words to make them appear to say the absolute opposite of what he intended by them. This is the behaviour of people on the same moral level as the Soviet propaganda merchants- people whose only concern is effect and never truth. Time and again the US media do this, and yet maintain that they are professionals with extremely high ethical standards. That is rot, and rot must be cleared out if democracy is to prosper and sustain itself.
Saying that, in this case the blame falls squarely on my shoulders for not having attempted to find out whether Ricardo Sanchez said what the media reported. I apologize unreservedly to him.
http://www.militaryreporters.org/sanchez_101207.html
I just knew I shouldn't have commented on the comments of this senior American officer without having read them first hand. The US media, in full propaganda mode, selected this mans words to make them appear to say the absolute opposite of what he intended by them. This is the behaviour of people on the same moral level as the Soviet propaganda merchants- people whose only concern is effect and never truth. Time and again the US media do this, and yet maintain that they are professionals with extremely high ethical standards. That is rot, and rot must be cleared out if democracy is to prosper and sustain itself.
Saying that, in this case the blame falls squarely on my shoulders for not having attempted to find out whether Ricardo Sanchez said what the media reported. I apologize unreservedly to him.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Moonbats in the army
'But Gen Sanchez branded this so-called "surge" strategy a "desperate attempt" to make up for years of shortcomings.
"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," he warned. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7042805.stm
My mother used to say, if you can't say anything good, don't say anything. I guess Ricardo Sanchez's mom told him that the best way to help out was say we can't win, we are wasting our time and our decision-makers are corrupt. Thanks Ric!
"The best we can do with this flawed approach is stave off defeat," he warned. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7042805.stm
My mother used to say, if you can't say anything good, don't say anything. I guess Ricardo Sanchez's mom told him that the best way to help out was say we can't win, we are wasting our time and our decision-makers are corrupt. Thanks Ric!
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Is there anything Israel can do right?
'The International Court of Justice has argued that the barrier should not be allowed to become Israel's new border because it would constitute the expansion of Israeli territory by force.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7036945.stm
Hilarious. How many times have Arab armies and militias tried to wipe out all trace of Jewish occupancy of any land in Israel? Hamas has as a plank in its constitution committing it to the destruction of the 'Zionist entity'. But when Israel builds a wall to protect its people from murderous criminals it is 'expanding Israeli territory by force'. If Israel decided to, it could sweep all the Arabs out of Gaza, the West Bank and Israel proper in an afternoon. But it doesn't want to do that. Its use of power is selective, judicious and at least tries to be just in its actions. Which is far more than you can say for the Palestinians, who just want the Jews gone, preferably dead.
What reward do you get for restraint, equitability and openness?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7036945.stm
Hilarious. How many times have Arab armies and militias tried to wipe out all trace of Jewish occupancy of any land in Israel? Hamas has as a plank in its constitution committing it to the destruction of the 'Zionist entity'. But when Israel builds a wall to protect its people from murderous criminals it is 'expanding Israeli territory by force'. If Israel decided to, it could sweep all the Arabs out of Gaza, the West Bank and Israel proper in an afternoon. But it doesn't want to do that. Its use of power is selective, judicious and at least tries to be just in its actions. Which is far more than you can say for the Palestinians, who just want the Jews gone, preferably dead.
What reward do you get for restraint, equitability and openness?
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Bushitler and the first draft of history
'Imagine an administration that has persuaded one of the world's most opaque and troublesome regimes to negotiate the dismantling of its nukes.
President Bush has had to engage in the art of compromise
Imagine an administration has given more than $15bn towards treating HIV/Aids, mainly in Africa; that has hinted it might boycott the Beijing Olympics if China doesn't intervene to stop Burmese monks from getting slaughtered; that has tried - and failed - to force immigration reform down the throats of its own party; that obsesses about alternative fuels and talks climate change.
Imagine an administration that prefers a diplomatic to a military option in Iran, is in bed with the French, on the sofa with the Germans and in the cooler with the Brits.
Stop imagining. What I have described is the White House of George W Bush in October 2007.' Matt Frei
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027166.stm
Absolutely fascinating. Journalism has been called 'the first draft of history' but is very often nothing of the sort. Very often it is the 'groupthink' of large numbers of 'right thinking' journalists who believe they know the real story and are willing to change facts, ignore facts that don't fit and hunt down the few facts that do fit their narrative in the cause of their shared conviction. The George W Bush case is a perfect example. Bush hatred is endemic in both the British and American large-scale media. They believe he's a hard-right moron who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, dedicated to killing brown-skinned people for oil. The facts don't bear this out at all, but the vast hordes of uppity journo's confident in their own superior intellects are just not willing to accept that.
Until now, that is. Matt Frei is a good journalist. He's never struck me as a fan of George W., but as this piece points out, a simple recitation of what George W has done over the last seven years shows that the caricature of him is so far from the truth thats its laughable.
Mr Frei goes on to note 'It's true, his instincts may still hail from Texas. But his actions have been moulded by Washington's Beltway. Even the most ardent Bush-basher has to admit that W has evolved.' Actually, he hasn't evolved- he was always what reasonable American commentators call a 'Broad-tent Republican'. Not mentioned for instance in Mr Frei's list is George W's consistent appeal to Latino-Americans, something which bugs the hell out of the right wing of the Republican party, who generally wish that the Latino's would all go home. The caricature of George W has not become innacurate recently- it was always wrong.
As William James said, there is nothing so absurd that it cannot be believed as truth if repeated often enough. The truth for the lazy journo's who populate our big newspapers and tv stations is that Bushitler is a raving right-wing loony bent on world domination and stealing the resources of the world. But when history comes to be written, as with Mr Frei's first draft, the story will be very different.
President Bush has had to engage in the art of compromise
Imagine an administration has given more than $15bn towards treating HIV/Aids, mainly in Africa; that has hinted it might boycott the Beijing Olympics if China doesn't intervene to stop Burmese monks from getting slaughtered; that has tried - and failed - to force immigration reform down the throats of its own party; that obsesses about alternative fuels and talks climate change.
Imagine an administration that prefers a diplomatic to a military option in Iran, is in bed with the French, on the sofa with the Germans and in the cooler with the Brits.
Stop imagining. What I have described is the White House of George W Bush in October 2007.' Matt Frei
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7027166.stm
Absolutely fascinating. Journalism has been called 'the first draft of history' but is very often nothing of the sort. Very often it is the 'groupthink' of large numbers of 'right thinking' journalists who believe they know the real story and are willing to change facts, ignore facts that don't fit and hunt down the few facts that do fit their narrative in the cause of their shared conviction. The George W Bush case is a perfect example. Bush hatred is endemic in both the British and American large-scale media. They believe he's a hard-right moron who couldn't think his way out of a paper bag, dedicated to killing brown-skinned people for oil. The facts don't bear this out at all, but the vast hordes of uppity journo's confident in their own superior intellects are just not willing to accept that.
Until now, that is. Matt Frei is a good journalist. He's never struck me as a fan of George W., but as this piece points out, a simple recitation of what George W has done over the last seven years shows that the caricature of him is so far from the truth thats its laughable.
Mr Frei goes on to note 'It's true, his instincts may still hail from Texas. But his actions have been moulded by Washington's Beltway. Even the most ardent Bush-basher has to admit that W has evolved.' Actually, he hasn't evolved- he was always what reasonable American commentators call a 'Broad-tent Republican'. Not mentioned for instance in Mr Frei's list is George W's consistent appeal to Latino-Americans, something which bugs the hell out of the right wing of the Republican party, who generally wish that the Latino's would all go home. The caricature of George W has not become innacurate recently- it was always wrong.
As William James said, there is nothing so absurd that it cannot be believed as truth if repeated often enough. The truth for the lazy journo's who populate our big newspapers and tv stations is that Bushitler is a raving right-wing loony bent on world domination and stealing the resources of the world. But when history comes to be written, as with Mr Frei's first draft, the story will be very different.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Irans fingers in the pie
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2007/10/captured_iranian_qod.php
Much greater detail in this article than you will find elsewhere about the nuts and bolts of Iranian skulduggery in Iraq.
Much greater detail in this article than you will find elsewhere about the nuts and bolts of Iranian skulduggery in Iraq.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The Widening Gyre of MSM prattling
This weekends Herald Tribune has two articles about Iraq under a common heading- The Widening Gyre. The first is 'Chaos and Unity in a fragmented Iraq' by Roger Owen, the second 'What They're Saying in Anbar' by Gary Langer. Your first thought, as was mine, was probably What is a gyre? Well, its either:
1. a ring or circle.
2. a circular course or motion.
3. Oceanography. a ringlike system of ocean currents rotating clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
So God only knows what they intend to mean...
This was my first indication that little clarity or useful information was on offer here. I don't know how Iraqs current situation will work end up, but I do know lots about what is going on right now. And I know one thing for absolute sure- either everything I know is wrong or both the authors of these pieces are wrong.
Lets take a very short prefatory wizz through Iraqi history. Iraq is comprised of three old Vilayets of the Ottoman empire- the Vilayet of Basra, the Vilayet of Baghdad and the Vilayet of Mosul, plus bits of Diyarbekir. All were ruled by beys of some type (sanjak beyis, beylerbeyi and mutasarrifs). These men were direct appointees of the Ottoman Sultan. Underneath the beys, there was a merchant class, tribal kingships and the top-end clergy (either Shia or Sunni depending on the area). Roughly speaking, the same system existed up until 2003. The Sultan was Saddam Hussein, his placemen ruled the vilayets and underneath them pretty much the same tribal and clergy leaderships. I don't want to underestimate the changes that took place during the 20th century, just to point out the substantial continuities.
If you lop off the Sultan, what happens to the structure? We've been finding that out over the last four years. Roger Owens piece is very confused. Its not clear what he believes is bad about the current situation in Iraq, just that it must be bad because Bush did it. Amongst his various points are that leaders in Iraq often seem not to have followers, the British and Americans have contributed to Iraq's chaos by handing control to local militias and tribes, the central government doesn't control local areas, criminality has come in the wake of decentralisation and a there now exists a patchwork of local groups and alliances that are not neat. His assumption is that these things are new, and that they are bad. I consider them to be normal given the absence of the all-important components, the Sultan and his large army. Lets consider the recent past.
Iraq was part of someone elses empire, and politics was therefore ALL local. By this I mean, if all the big decisions are made in Istanbul, local leaders only get to squabble over local resources. Even in the absence of a 'Sultan'/Saddam/American Viceroy, thats exactly what they are doing now. There is an underlying psychological expectation on the part of most Iraqi's that they are now part of the American empire, just as they were in Saddams empire and before him the Ottoman one; and that therefore they can go back to the way of life they have become accustomed to over many hundreds of years. Being an imperial subject is the template and backdrop for much of middle eastern thought.
While Roger Owen is factually not innaccurate, his analysis does nothing to provide an understanding of the mechanics and the system properties of the Iraq situation. He says "... Bush is right to believe that the presence of a large American military force is all that now holds the country together. But, by the same token, it cannot succeed in uniting Iraq behind a strong central government because the forces of disintegration unleashed by the occupation are now far too strong." Since about 1530, the 'only thing holding together' Iraq was the large Turkish army of the Ottomans, which it managed to do until 1920, or four hundred years. Mr Owen, Iraq is (becoming) united behind a strong central government, the one in Washington D.C.
There is a tri-partite mismatch of expectations here- first, the expectations of the political class in the US, which has virtually no direct knowledge of people outside the US. US politicians imagined that Iraqi's were pretty much like Iowans, just with funny clothes. The Iraqi's, for their part, expected that the US would come in and replace the Ottoman empire and rule it by massive force and coercion. As soon as it became obvious that they weren't, Iraqi's became worried and perplexed. The third set of expectations was that of the left in America and Britain: they thought this was a simple case of imperial overreach which would end up a military meat-grinder like Vietnam, with the plucky locals fighting tooth and nail for their independence.
Two out of three of these groups of people have tried to adjust their views to what the events in Iraq indicate is the true state of affairs. Pro-Bush Republicans and the executive branch itself have started to come to terms with the fact that Iraqi's respond better to clear-cut imperial domination than the warm-fuzzy disaster of 2003-2005; hence the surge, which has worked beyond all expectation. Iraqi's have begun to adjust to the idea that an overwhelmingly dominant military nation might not just be selfish and greedy, but have genuine aspirations of humanitarianism. Because this is a novelty in Iraq, it has taken quite a long time for ordinary people to start believing it might be true.
Only the third group of people, the lefties in America and Britain, are still exactly where they were in 2003 (and 2001 and every year dating back to at least the early nineteenth century). They have a rigid template for viewing events in the world, and no amount of detailed knowledge can change its terms of reference. Afghanistan and Iraq were both considered to be plain cases of patently obvious disasters-in-waiting. The Afghan war never went the way the lefties said it would, and what happened? It utterly disappeared for six years from our tv screens and our newspapers, because the large-scale media is dominated by lefties. Iraq was much more to their taste- it has never left our tv screens and newspapers, because although the violence was 90% Sunni moslem vs Shia moslem it was still violence and could therefore be passed off as America's fault. Its true, America is responsible, in the sense that once they took over Iraq it was their job to stop psychotic Sunni's from trying to murder shia and vice versa. But that is not the sense in which the vast majority of US newspapers and tv networks have portrayed the violence. America has been portrayed as the actual agent of the violence- the root cause and the main player in it. This despite the fact that dead Iraqi's murdered by other Iraqi's are on a vast scale in comparison with those killed in combat with US forces.
The impact of the Iraq intervention on American politics I contend will be enormous. What Vietnam started, I believe Iraq will end. The American left managed to achieve a US defeat in Vietnam despite the US military winning all the battles- three years AFTER the US pulled out, South vietnam was still free and non-communist. They got away with it that time, because they managed to cloud the extent their actions had bringing about the ultimate disaster. But this time is different. A large chunk of mainstream Democrats have been agitating for a US defeat for years- at every available opportunity on any platform they could find. They have nailed their colours to the mast of leaving Iraq to its terrible fate, and there's no hiding it this time. Not only that, but the ignorance shown by them this time around is more scandalous and shameful than even the Vietnam-era. As Mark Steyn recently pointed out, the US education system still educated people in the sixties.
When the US brings complete tranquillity to Iraq, the American people are going to ask some hard questions. Was four years and 4,000 lives too long and too much to spend on bringing about a vastly more hopeful future for the residents of Iraq? Why were the hyperventilators of the Democrat party so convinced American couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't win? Should America care whether the Europeans, so recently empire-builders themselves, despise it for doing the same thing? Should America care whether socialists/communists all over the world hate them, when the latter spend a goodly portion of their time shilling on behalf of murderous despots like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mugabe? Should America care that it is regularly abused and trash-talked in the UN, when large sections of the General Assembly are dictators, kleptocrats and tyrants? Should America apologise for doing in Iraq what many of its worst critics are calling on it to do in Darfur? Do America's critics in fact have any consistent or interesting criticisms at all?
Gary Langer's piece (I bet you thought I'd forgotten about the Herald Tribune) uses a poll of 2000 Iraqi's to show that the US is unpopular in Iraq, especially amongst Sunnis in Anbar and Diyala. Did the Ottomans ever run polls amongst the populace, one wonders... I don't know how much it matters whether Iraqis love America. 155,000 American soldiers gives them the abiding impression that like them or not, they can't get rid of the by force. And that gives the US administrators and diplomats time to work out a reasonable de facto dispensation, rebuild the basic infrastructure and start to create an Iraq that can work long term. Thats all we need.
1. a ring or circle.
2. a circular course or motion.
3. Oceanography. a ringlike system of ocean currents rotating clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and counterclockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.
So God only knows what they intend to mean...
This was my first indication that little clarity or useful information was on offer here. I don't know how Iraqs current situation will work end up, but I do know lots about what is going on right now. And I know one thing for absolute sure- either everything I know is wrong or both the authors of these pieces are wrong.
Lets take a very short prefatory wizz through Iraqi history. Iraq is comprised of three old Vilayets of the Ottoman empire- the Vilayet of Basra, the Vilayet of Baghdad and the Vilayet of Mosul, plus bits of Diyarbekir. All were ruled by beys of some type (sanjak beyis, beylerbeyi and mutasarrifs). These men were direct appointees of the Ottoman Sultan. Underneath the beys, there was a merchant class, tribal kingships and the top-end clergy (either Shia or Sunni depending on the area). Roughly speaking, the same system existed up until 2003. The Sultan was Saddam Hussein, his placemen ruled the vilayets and underneath them pretty much the same tribal and clergy leaderships. I don't want to underestimate the changes that took place during the 20th century, just to point out the substantial continuities.
If you lop off the Sultan, what happens to the structure? We've been finding that out over the last four years. Roger Owens piece is very confused. Its not clear what he believes is bad about the current situation in Iraq, just that it must be bad because Bush did it. Amongst his various points are that leaders in Iraq often seem not to have followers, the British and Americans have contributed to Iraq's chaos by handing control to local militias and tribes, the central government doesn't control local areas, criminality has come in the wake of decentralisation and a there now exists a patchwork of local groups and alliances that are not neat. His assumption is that these things are new, and that they are bad. I consider them to be normal given the absence of the all-important components, the Sultan and his large army. Lets consider the recent past.
Iraq was part of someone elses empire, and politics was therefore ALL local. By this I mean, if all the big decisions are made in Istanbul, local leaders only get to squabble over local resources. Even in the absence of a 'Sultan'/Saddam/American Viceroy, thats exactly what they are doing now. There is an underlying psychological expectation on the part of most Iraqi's that they are now part of the American empire, just as they were in Saddams empire and before him the Ottoman one; and that therefore they can go back to the way of life they have become accustomed to over many hundreds of years. Being an imperial subject is the template and backdrop for much of middle eastern thought.
While Roger Owen is factually not innaccurate, his analysis does nothing to provide an understanding of the mechanics and the system properties of the Iraq situation. He says "... Bush is right to believe that the presence of a large American military force is all that now holds the country together. But, by the same token, it cannot succeed in uniting Iraq behind a strong central government because the forces of disintegration unleashed by the occupation are now far too strong." Since about 1530, the 'only thing holding together' Iraq was the large Turkish army of the Ottomans, which it managed to do until 1920, or four hundred years. Mr Owen, Iraq is (becoming) united behind a strong central government, the one in Washington D.C.
There is a tri-partite mismatch of expectations here- first, the expectations of the political class in the US, which has virtually no direct knowledge of people outside the US. US politicians imagined that Iraqi's were pretty much like Iowans, just with funny clothes. The Iraqi's, for their part, expected that the US would come in and replace the Ottoman empire and rule it by massive force and coercion. As soon as it became obvious that they weren't, Iraqi's became worried and perplexed. The third set of expectations was that of the left in America and Britain: they thought this was a simple case of imperial overreach which would end up a military meat-grinder like Vietnam, with the plucky locals fighting tooth and nail for their independence.
Two out of three of these groups of people have tried to adjust their views to what the events in Iraq indicate is the true state of affairs. Pro-Bush Republicans and the executive branch itself have started to come to terms with the fact that Iraqi's respond better to clear-cut imperial domination than the warm-fuzzy disaster of 2003-2005; hence the surge, which has worked beyond all expectation. Iraqi's have begun to adjust to the idea that an overwhelmingly dominant military nation might not just be selfish and greedy, but have genuine aspirations of humanitarianism. Because this is a novelty in Iraq, it has taken quite a long time for ordinary people to start believing it might be true.
Only the third group of people, the lefties in America and Britain, are still exactly where they were in 2003 (and 2001 and every year dating back to at least the early nineteenth century). They have a rigid template for viewing events in the world, and no amount of detailed knowledge can change its terms of reference. Afghanistan and Iraq were both considered to be plain cases of patently obvious disasters-in-waiting. The Afghan war never went the way the lefties said it would, and what happened? It utterly disappeared for six years from our tv screens and our newspapers, because the large-scale media is dominated by lefties. Iraq was much more to their taste- it has never left our tv screens and newspapers, because although the violence was 90% Sunni moslem vs Shia moslem it was still violence and could therefore be passed off as America's fault. Its true, America is responsible, in the sense that once they took over Iraq it was their job to stop psychotic Sunni's from trying to murder shia and vice versa. But that is not the sense in which the vast majority of US newspapers and tv networks have portrayed the violence. America has been portrayed as the actual agent of the violence- the root cause and the main player in it. This despite the fact that dead Iraqi's murdered by other Iraqi's are on a vast scale in comparison with those killed in combat with US forces.
The impact of the Iraq intervention on American politics I contend will be enormous. What Vietnam started, I believe Iraq will end. The American left managed to achieve a US defeat in Vietnam despite the US military winning all the battles- three years AFTER the US pulled out, South vietnam was still free and non-communist. They got away with it that time, because they managed to cloud the extent their actions had bringing about the ultimate disaster. But this time is different. A large chunk of mainstream Democrats have been agitating for a US defeat for years- at every available opportunity on any platform they could find. They have nailed their colours to the mast of leaving Iraq to its terrible fate, and there's no hiding it this time. Not only that, but the ignorance shown by them this time around is more scandalous and shameful than even the Vietnam-era. As Mark Steyn recently pointed out, the US education system still educated people in the sixties.
When the US brings complete tranquillity to Iraq, the American people are going to ask some hard questions. Was four years and 4,000 lives too long and too much to spend on bringing about a vastly more hopeful future for the residents of Iraq? Why were the hyperventilators of the Democrat party so convinced American couldn't, wouldn't and shouldn't win? Should America care whether the Europeans, so recently empire-builders themselves, despise it for doing the same thing? Should America care whether socialists/communists all over the world hate them, when the latter spend a goodly portion of their time shilling on behalf of murderous despots like Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin and Mugabe? Should America care that it is regularly abused and trash-talked in the UN, when large sections of the General Assembly are dictators, kleptocrats and tyrants? Should America apologise for doing in Iraq what many of its worst critics are calling on it to do in Darfur? Do America's critics in fact have any consistent or interesting criticisms at all?
Gary Langer's piece (I bet you thought I'd forgotten about the Herald Tribune) uses a poll of 2000 Iraqi's to show that the US is unpopular in Iraq, especially amongst Sunnis in Anbar and Diyala. Did the Ottomans ever run polls amongst the populace, one wonders... I don't know how much it matters whether Iraqis love America. 155,000 American soldiers gives them the abiding impression that like them or not, they can't get rid of the by force. And that gives the US administrators and diplomats time to work out a reasonable de facto dispensation, rebuild the basic infrastructure and start to create an Iraq that can work long term. Thats all we need.
Reaping the whirlwind
A crime of the 'insurgent traitors' sprouting up all over Iraq:
“8.) Their continuing proclamations that the dangers posed by the Islamic State are greater than those posed by the Americans and apostates.”
http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefabaghdadi0907.pdf , Page 2
That, my friends, is called reaping the whirlwind.
“8.) Their continuing proclamations that the dangers posed by the Islamic State are greater than those posed by the Americans and apostates.”
http://nefafoundation.org/miscellaneous/FeaturedDocs/nefabaghdadi0907.pdf , Page 2
That, my friends, is called reaping the whirlwind.
Our sonafabitch
Artists and writer and actors. Why is it that they get politics so appallingly wrong all the time? I'm starting to develop a unified theory which says that people whose whole life revolves around the creation of novelties and unbound fictions find real stuff like accounting systems, budgeting and who the President of Burkina Faso is terribly terribly dull and so to 'brighten things up' they intrude fantasies and visions.
'DBC Pierre:
You don't have to travel far to see that political boundaries ill-fit the new world. Never in history have more people been in armed conflict, mostly over territory; seismic shifts among tiny cultural plates. I feel it's not a question of good dictators, but least worst: they're a naturally occurring phenomenon, organic, and having gained power, are often by definition the only ones who will maintain order.
Also, we imagine democracy can be sold off-the-rack, when the history and culture of a place won't yet support it. Take Iraq's implosion after Saddam. One good thing about dictatorships: you know exactly where you stand. Anyway, a purely academic question, as we Anglos traditionally support any dictator who kisses arse.'
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/vox_pop/2007/09/are_dictators_ever_good.html
To get so many things wrong in so small a space, to interpolate complete nonsenses into the mix for good measure is an achievement of note. The flippancy is very very poor judgement- 'One good thing about dictatorships: you know exactly where you stand.' That's disgusting and inaccurate at the same time. '...We support any dictator who kisses arse', apart from the multitudinous counter-examples of course. It used to be that in America, if you were an entertainer that was it- that was your full time job. Now, everybody from Sheryl Crow to George Clooney via Goldie 'moms don't cause wars' Hawn have to flash their political credentials like a little red book. I try not to pay attention, but they keep thrusting their stupid views in my face and its getting a bit tiresome.
My own answer to the question? As Mark Steyn says, the problem with supporting dictators is 'He may be our sonafabitch, but he's a sonafabitch'. Giving succour and support to evil men is never right, at any time in any place. Fighting them is right- even if the cost is high.
'DBC Pierre:
You don't have to travel far to see that political boundaries ill-fit the new world. Never in history have more people been in armed conflict, mostly over territory; seismic shifts among tiny cultural plates. I feel it's not a question of good dictators, but least worst: they're a naturally occurring phenomenon, organic, and having gained power, are often by definition the only ones who will maintain order.
Also, we imagine democracy can be sold off-the-rack, when the history and culture of a place won't yet support it. Take Iraq's implosion after Saddam. One good thing about dictatorships: you know exactly where you stand. Anyway, a purely academic question, as we Anglos traditionally support any dictator who kisses arse.'
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/vox_pop/2007/09/are_dictators_ever_good.html
To get so many things wrong in so small a space, to interpolate complete nonsenses into the mix for good measure is an achievement of note. The flippancy is very very poor judgement- 'One good thing about dictatorships: you know exactly where you stand.' That's disgusting and inaccurate at the same time. '...We support any dictator who kisses arse', apart from the multitudinous counter-examples of course. It used to be that in America, if you were an entertainer that was it- that was your full time job. Now, everybody from Sheryl Crow to George Clooney via Goldie 'moms don't cause wars' Hawn have to flash their political credentials like a little red book. I try not to pay attention, but they keep thrusting their stupid views in my face and its getting a bit tiresome.
My own answer to the question? As Mark Steyn says, the problem with supporting dictators is 'He may be our sonafabitch, but he's a sonafabitch'. Giving succour and support to evil men is never right, at any time in any place. Fighting them is right- even if the cost is high.
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Well, they did have a debate
'Gore's reluctance to go toe-to-toe with global warming skeptics may have something to do with the - from the standpoint of climate change alarmists - unfortunate outcome of a global warming debate in New York last March. In the debate, a team of global warming skeptics composed of MIT scientist Richard Lindzen, University of London emeritus professor of biogeology Philip Stott, and physician-turned novelist/filmmaker Michael Crichton handily defeated a team of climate alarmists headed by NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt. Before the start of the nearly two-hour debate, the audience of several thousand polled 57.3 percent to 29.9 percent in favor of the proposition that global warming is a "crisis." At the end of the debate, the numbers had changed dramatically, with 46.2 percent favoring the skeptical point of view and 42.2 percent siding with the alarmists.'
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092707B
Of course, this doesn't prove anything either way- but it does put the lie to the claim that 'all the scientists with any credibility believe in anthropogenic global warming'.
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092707B
Of course, this doesn't prove anything either way- but it does put the lie to the claim that 'all the scientists with any credibility believe in anthropogenic global warming'.
Friday, September 28, 2007
We may all get there in the end
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ali_eteraz/2007/09/the_islamic_reformation.html
I don't want to sound pompous or uppity, but when you're right you're right.
'Since 2001 a plethora of writers have made calls for an Islamic "Reformation". Many hopes (and careers) are pinned on the idea, but there is no such thing coming. The Islamic reformation has already happened. The Muslim equivalent of nailing the 95 theses was the desecration of a graveyard and the stoning of a woman for adultery.'
It is worth reading all of this article, as it synthesises a number of things I've been saying for the last year or so. For those who imagine that all religions are bound by some hidden rule of history to follow the same patterns through their history, I present this counter-evidence.
'Wahhab's "reformation" started Sunnism's unmooring from traditionalism. The Quran and the hadith, long bound together in a legal system (and hierarchy) so complex that, according to the orientalist John Makdisi, it gave birth to British Common Law, were now left wide open for Wahhab and his followers to access. What they now had was the power to do ijtihad. Except, in their distaste of Ottoman scholarship, they made up their "method" as they went along. It was a mixture of Quranic literalism and deference to Hanbal's hadith corpus (which was much larger than competing versions).'
For those attentive readers of my blog (I'm estimating in the low hundreds of thousands at this point) you may have noticed I have stopped parroting the Robert Spencer line that Islam Is At War With The West. It isn't. Both mainstream Sunni and Shia Islam have co-existed relatively well with their neighbors for a very long time, at least since the breaking up of the original Arab empires of the seventh century. The Ottoman empire was always more to do with empire than it was to do with Islam, although it used (and abused) Islam for its own purposes while that was useful. The people who ARE at war with the west are the Wahhabis. And they are taking over a mosque near you right now.
Unless we help normal, average Muslims fight the taking over of their mosques by these noxious apostates, expect a lot more backpack bombers and 'lads' from Yorkshire trying to kill large numbers of us. Like I said before, first you identify the enemy. THEN you kill him.
I don't want to sound pompous or uppity, but when you're right you're right.
'Since 2001 a plethora of writers have made calls for an Islamic "Reformation". Many hopes (and careers) are pinned on the idea, but there is no such thing coming. The Islamic reformation has already happened. The Muslim equivalent of nailing the 95 theses was the desecration of a graveyard and the stoning of a woman for adultery.'
It is worth reading all of this article, as it synthesises a number of things I've been saying for the last year or so. For those who imagine that all religions are bound by some hidden rule of history to follow the same patterns through their history, I present this counter-evidence.
'Wahhab's "reformation" started Sunnism's unmooring from traditionalism. The Quran and the hadith, long bound together in a legal system (and hierarchy) so complex that, according to the orientalist John Makdisi, it gave birth to British Common Law, were now left wide open for Wahhab and his followers to access. What they now had was the power to do ijtihad. Except, in their distaste of Ottoman scholarship, they made up their "method" as they went along. It was a mixture of Quranic literalism and deference to Hanbal's hadith corpus (which was much larger than competing versions).'
For those attentive readers of my blog (I'm estimating in the low hundreds of thousands at this point) you may have noticed I have stopped parroting the Robert Spencer line that Islam Is At War With The West. It isn't. Both mainstream Sunni and Shia Islam have co-existed relatively well with their neighbors for a very long time, at least since the breaking up of the original Arab empires of the seventh century. The Ottoman empire was always more to do with empire than it was to do with Islam, although it used (and abused) Islam for its own purposes while that was useful. The people who ARE at war with the west are the Wahhabis. And they are taking over a mosque near you right now.
Unless we help normal, average Muslims fight the taking over of their mosques by these noxious apostates, expect a lot more backpack bombers and 'lads' from Yorkshire trying to kill large numbers of us. Like I said before, first you identify the enemy. THEN you kill him.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Another pseudo debate about blogging
'When Andrew Keen attacks bloggers, saying, "No one wants to know what you had for breakfast," he's ignoring the fact that many bloggers are professional journalists, and many others come to the party perfectly well-equipped to promulgate an idea or construct an opinion. Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo has been published in Time; Duncan Black of Eschaton has a Ph.D. in Economics; Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos is an Army veteran, an accomplished pianist, and boasts a law degree from Boston College; libertarian Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit teaches law at Tennessee; Glenn Greenwald of Salon is a veteran constitutional lawyer; and conservative Atlantic Monthly blogger Andrew Sullivan is the former editor of the New Republic.'
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/09/25/columnists/calvin_ross/iq_4135639.txt
Linked to this from Instapundit. What I find strange about the 'debate' about blogs is that some bloggers feel the need to defend themselves from comments like 'No one wants to know what you had for breakfast'. By now, most people have worked out that of the 70 million blogs, at least 69 million are crap, and are no interest to anyone but the author and their immediate friends and family. You would notice the same sort of statistical pattern if you walked up to 70 million people and chatted with them for half an hour. But does that mean the 69 million people are ruining the internet? Thats ludicrous. Does that mean that the hundreds of thousands of really good, thoughtful, interesting blogs are discredited by the presence of the other 69 million? Also ludicrous. In fact, the whole 'debate' is ludicrous.
Would someone aver that all newspapers are crap because the Daily Sport exists? No, I don't imagine anyone has, or will. So why do we have to keep coming back to this psuedo-debate about whether all blogs are amateur rubbish that just distracts people from the superb, deeply thoughtful New York Times? A couple of years ago, I thought blogging was all teenage girls writing about the onset of an amazingly obvious zit and nerdy guys laying out in vast detail their latest conspiracy theory. But it isn't. And that should be obvious by now.
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/articles/2007/09/25/columnists/calvin_ross/iq_4135639.txt
Linked to this from Instapundit. What I find strange about the 'debate' about blogs is that some bloggers feel the need to defend themselves from comments like 'No one wants to know what you had for breakfast'. By now, most people have worked out that of the 70 million blogs, at least 69 million are crap, and are no interest to anyone but the author and their immediate friends and family. You would notice the same sort of statistical pattern if you walked up to 70 million people and chatted with them for half an hour. But does that mean the 69 million people are ruining the internet? Thats ludicrous. Does that mean that the hundreds of thousands of really good, thoughtful, interesting blogs are discredited by the presence of the other 69 million? Also ludicrous. In fact, the whole 'debate' is ludicrous.
Would someone aver that all newspapers are crap because the Daily Sport exists? No, I don't imagine anyone has, or will. So why do we have to keep coming back to this psuedo-debate about whether all blogs are amateur rubbish that just distracts people from the superb, deeply thoughtful New York Times? A couple of years ago, I thought blogging was all teenage girls writing about the onset of an amazingly obvious zit and nerdy guys laying out in vast detail their latest conspiracy theory. But it isn't. And that should be obvious by now.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Columbia univeristy- high-ups should be committed
'Columbia's president Lee Bollinger defended the decision to invite Mr Ahmadinejad, saying the university was "committed to confronting ideas", AFP news agency reported. '
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7009731.stm
Shaped charges are not ideas. Latest model Chinese anti-aircraft missiles are not ideas. These things kill and maim British and American troops in wars being fought right now. Ahmadinejad heads a government that is committed to destroying Israel, has subverted two and a half middle-eastern countries already, and is in the processes of subverting Iraq. The leaders of all the non-subverted countries in the middle east understand this. How is it that the Columbia great and good don't?
What ideas are they expecting to encounter? The soft-left talking points that Ahmadinejad wheels out every time he thinks a western journo is writing down his words? What a bunch of morons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7009731.stm
Shaped charges are not ideas. Latest model Chinese anti-aircraft missiles are not ideas. These things kill and maim British and American troops in wars being fought right now. Ahmadinejad heads a government that is committed to destroying Israel, has subverted two and a half middle-eastern countries already, and is in the processes of subverting Iraq. The leaders of all the non-subverted countries in the middle east understand this. How is it that the Columbia great and good don't?
What ideas are they expecting to encounter? The soft-left talking points that Ahmadinejad wheels out every time he thinks a western journo is writing down his words? What a bunch of morons.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Insane mofo's
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/9/22/204036/016
I can have perfectly nice discussion with lefties. I do it all the time, being surrounded by them in my office. But the left in America are moving beyond their normal hunting grounds into territory that only the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Rote Army Faction and the Red Brigade occupied before. This Kos article gives precise instructions for making an IED. I'm not kidding.
It may well be time for America to react to its internal terrorists, as the British security services have since the 7/7 bombings in London. For 25 years, we sat by while these people propagandized and stated clearly and publicly their murderous and treacherous intentions. Enough is enough.
I can have perfectly nice discussion with lefties. I do it all the time, being surrounded by them in my office. But the left in America are moving beyond their normal hunting grounds into territory that only the Baader-Meinhof Gang, the Rote Army Faction and the Red Brigade occupied before. This Kos article gives precise instructions for making an IED. I'm not kidding.
It may well be time for America to react to its internal terrorists, as the British security services have since the 7/7 bombings in London. For 25 years, we sat by while these people propagandized and stated clearly and publicly their murderous and treacherous intentions. Enough is enough.
The Media war is ours to lose
http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/200791823648.aspx
'By the first week of October 2001, American's chit-chat class had lost patience with America's new war in Afghanistan. Television's hype-drenched talk shows claimed the Pentagon had botched it. The gloomiest prognosticators (most of them from the political left) foresaw a Himalayan defeat, with U.S. soldiers outsmarted by wily, inspired "resistance fighters." As fighting raged and Afghan winter blizzards arrived, millions would starve.'
Not just the chit-chat class either- I talked to numerous people who mentioned the two 19th century British defeats in Afghanistan and knew therefore that the intervention was doomed from the start. But thats the trouble with a little knowledge. If we used the talking points of public debate as a tool for determining foreign policy, we would be persistantly make catastrophic judgements. A case in point- the 'Blackhawk Down' intervention in Somalia. By military standards, the incident involving US special forces and the private armies of a couple of warlords was not even worthy of being called a battle. It was a skirmish, involving a few dozen combatants on the US side. Neither side can really claim to have won, although vastly greater numbers of Somalis died. But because the US removed its forces directly afterwards, it became a cause celebre amongst those who like to see America fail. It became mythologised as a US defeat and has appeared in Wahhabist/Deobandi propaganda all over the world as such ever since.
Now that the world watches the same news/propaganda from Cape Town to Kathmandu, the need to fight the media war has become widely recognised. Making sure that your real victories become visible, and the defeats of your enemies even more so is a high priority. The various insurgent groups in Iraq have been shredded, pulverised and at times completely wiped out, but you'd never guess from the media coverage. The only statistics you ever hear are the US troops deaths and the number of car bombs. If you read only the New York Times or the BBC news website, the fact that many thousands of jihadis, criminals and death squad members have been killed by the US/UK forces could have easily escaped your notice.
And when we win, it will come as a huge surprise to many millions of lefties in Britain and America. Because the victories have gone largely unreported, winning must seem like a distant dream. Michael Totten, just returned from Ramadi and Baghdad, would be able to set them straight, if they were open-minded enough to allow it. But the point is despite our amazing skill in killing people, winning military contests and ending up victorious, we are terrible at the public drama of showing off our victories to the world. The Romans staged huge processions led by the leaders of the defeated people in chains which would pass by the assembled great and good and the proles too. No one was in any doubt what happened and who won and who lost. That kind of triumphalism is seen as bad taste and unpleasant in the modern world- but most people in the world understand what it is for. Just like the honours system, public recognition is essential to the health of a society which values success and honour.
Will the American officers who have presided over the triumphs in Iraq get a ticker-tape parade down 5th Avenue? And if not, why not?
'By the first week of October 2001, American's chit-chat class had lost patience with America's new war in Afghanistan. Television's hype-drenched talk shows claimed the Pentagon had botched it. The gloomiest prognosticators (most of them from the political left) foresaw a Himalayan defeat, with U.S. soldiers outsmarted by wily, inspired "resistance fighters." As fighting raged and Afghan winter blizzards arrived, millions would starve.'
Not just the chit-chat class either- I talked to numerous people who mentioned the two 19th century British defeats in Afghanistan and knew therefore that the intervention was doomed from the start. But thats the trouble with a little knowledge. If we used the talking points of public debate as a tool for determining foreign policy, we would be persistantly make catastrophic judgements. A case in point- the 'Blackhawk Down' intervention in Somalia. By military standards, the incident involving US special forces and the private armies of a couple of warlords was not even worthy of being called a battle. It was a skirmish, involving a few dozen combatants on the US side. Neither side can really claim to have won, although vastly greater numbers of Somalis died. But because the US removed its forces directly afterwards, it became a cause celebre amongst those who like to see America fail. It became mythologised as a US defeat and has appeared in Wahhabist/Deobandi propaganda all over the world as such ever since.
Now that the world watches the same news/propaganda from Cape Town to Kathmandu, the need to fight the media war has become widely recognised. Making sure that your real victories become visible, and the defeats of your enemies even more so is a high priority. The various insurgent groups in Iraq have been shredded, pulverised and at times completely wiped out, but you'd never guess from the media coverage. The only statistics you ever hear are the US troops deaths and the number of car bombs. If you read only the New York Times or the BBC news website, the fact that many thousands of jihadis, criminals and death squad members have been killed by the US/UK forces could have easily escaped your notice.
And when we win, it will come as a huge surprise to many millions of lefties in Britain and America. Because the victories have gone largely unreported, winning must seem like a distant dream. Michael Totten, just returned from Ramadi and Baghdad, would be able to set them straight, if they were open-minded enough to allow it. But the point is despite our amazing skill in killing people, winning military contests and ending up victorious, we are terrible at the public drama of showing off our victories to the world. The Romans staged huge processions led by the leaders of the defeated people in chains which would pass by the assembled great and good and the proles too. No one was in any doubt what happened and who won and who lost. That kind of triumphalism is seen as bad taste and unpleasant in the modern world- but most people in the world understand what it is for. Just like the honours system, public recognition is essential to the health of a society which values success and honour.
Will the American officers who have presided over the triumphs in Iraq get a ticker-tape parade down 5th Avenue? And if not, why not?
Monday, September 17, 2007
The Lib Dems sorry state
Tim Hames has a comment piece in todays Times advising the Lib Dems not to get rid of Ming Campbell. I'm not sure why he cares, as he doesn't seem to be a Lib Dem himself, but never mind. His argument regarding the general state of the Lib Dems seems sound though. They have been squeezed because both the Tories and Labour have new leaders, and both of those leaders are natural non-risk-takers. Ok, in his words the latter are centre-ground occupiers, but there is no centre ground in politics. There are the wise things to do, and there are the stupid ones. Often the wise things annoy a great many people, and are therefore ignored. Also, large numbers of people often want politicians to do a stupid thing, and to garner their votes, non-risk-taking politicians promise to do it. Risk-taking politicians go with the wise actions, and put up with the flak. The Lib-Dems are comprised completely of non-risk-takers. They promise the electorate many stupid things, because they understand that they will never actually be in a position do them.
At the moment, both Labour and the Conservatives are led by men who will promise things to their potential electors which they won't follow through on after the election. This gives the Lib-Dems no room for maneuver. Everybody in British politics is promising to stop global warming (totally impossible), improve public services (almost impossible) and make us all happier (don't even go there). In a situation where the sober gentlemen are offering these miracles, what hope do the dorks from dweebville have of getting our votes?
What we DON'T have in Britain is a Spartan party- a voice of harsh reason and unstinting honesty. One which will approach Britains problems with a genuine commitment to solving them, and then drive on determinedly until that is done. Nobody wants to be that party. They'd all rather promise a new ford cortina in every garage, and a fondue set in every parlour.
At the moment, both Labour and the Conservatives are led by men who will promise things to their potential electors which they won't follow through on after the election. This gives the Lib-Dems no room for maneuver. Everybody in British politics is promising to stop global warming (totally impossible), improve public services (almost impossible) and make us all happier (don't even go there). In a situation where the sober gentlemen are offering these miracles, what hope do the dorks from dweebville have of getting our votes?
What we DON'T have in Britain is a Spartan party- a voice of harsh reason and unstinting honesty. One which will approach Britains problems with a genuine commitment to solving them, and then drive on determinedly until that is done. Nobody wants to be that party. They'd all rather promise a new ford cortina in every garage, and a fondue set in every parlour.
The domino effect?
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001516.html
Amazing news via Michael Totten. The Awakenings in Iraq have only been a Sunni phenomenon in the last year and a half. But because of the criminality and disgusting behaviour of the Shia militias, it looks like the Shia sheiks are copying the model. This is fantastic news for the US, for Iraq and for everyone in the world who wishes the Iraqi nation well. If the militia's are defeated, there will be no entry point into Iraqi politics for the Iranians and the Syrians, and for groups like AQiI. Long may this continue.
As an afterthought- did Muqtada Al-Sadr know that this development was imminent when he declared his unilateral ceasefire a couple of weeks back? If so, it shows how important it is to the future development of Iraq.
Amazing news via Michael Totten. The Awakenings in Iraq have only been a Sunni phenomenon in the last year and a half. But because of the criminality and disgusting behaviour of the Shia militias, it looks like the Shia sheiks are copying the model. This is fantastic news for the US, for Iraq and for everyone in the world who wishes the Iraqi nation well. If the militia's are defeated, there will be no entry point into Iraqi politics for the Iranians and the Syrians, and for groups like AQiI. Long may this continue.
As an afterthought- did Muqtada Al-Sadr know that this development was imminent when he declared his unilateral ceasefire a couple of weeks back? If so, it shows how important it is to the future development of Iraq.
Anbar Awakening in no danger of collapse
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=2&article_id=85299
Hey, BBC.
'Angry and grieving mourners carried Abu Risha's body to a local cemetery in Ramadi, capital of the western desert province, in a procession amid tight security by Iraqi and US forces.
"Revenge on Al-Qaeda," mourners shouted. "There is no God but God, and Al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah. Abdel-Sattar is the pride of Ramadi."'
What was that crap about Abdel-Sattar Abu Risha's death being a disaster for America and a huge setback for their efforts to get the Sunni Arabs to fight Al-Q? Kill one, make deadly enemies of thousands. That's not a winning tactic. The Anbar Awakening, indeed all the Sunni Arab tribal cohorts, are now committed enemies of Al-Qaeda. They are not going away, no matter how much the BBC's collection of old hippies wish they would. The Sunni have been ruling Iraq for many generations- they aren't stupid and they aren't suicidal, and thats why they know they have to cooperate with both the Americans and the Shia government.
Hey, BBC.
'Angry and grieving mourners carried Abu Risha's body to a local cemetery in Ramadi, capital of the western desert province, in a procession amid tight security by Iraqi and US forces.
"Revenge on Al-Qaeda," mourners shouted. "There is no God but God, and Al-Qaeda is the enemy of Allah. Abdel-Sattar is the pride of Ramadi."'
What was that crap about Abdel-Sattar Abu Risha's death being a disaster for America and a huge setback for their efforts to get the Sunni Arabs to fight Al-Q? Kill one, make deadly enemies of thousands. That's not a winning tactic. The Anbar Awakening, indeed all the Sunni Arab tribal cohorts, are now committed enemies of Al-Qaeda. They are not going away, no matter how much the BBC's collection of old hippies wish they would. The Sunni have been ruling Iraq for many generations- they aren't stupid and they aren't suicidal, and thats why they know they have to cooperate with both the Americans and the Shia government.
Friday, September 14, 2007
Are you a real man?
http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/home_journal_news/4221635.html
If you can't do these things, you ain't no man (allegedly):
The List: How to...
1. Patch a radiator hose
2. Protect your computer
3. Rescue a boater who as capsized
4. Frame a wall
5. Retouch digital photos
6. Back up a trailer
7. Build a campfire
8. Fix a dead outlet
9. Navigate with a map and compass
10. Use a torque wrench
11. Sharpen a knife
12. Perform CPR
13. Fillet a fish
14. Maneuver a car out of a skid
15. Get a car unstuck
16. Back up data
17. Paint a room
18. Mix concrete
19. Clean a bolt-action rifle
20. Change oil and filter
21. Hook up an HDTV
22. Bleed brakes
23. Paddle a canoe
24. Fix a bike flat
25. Extend your wireless network
I would add one of my own-
26. Put together a flat-pack cupboard (without doing damage to yourself requiring a visit to the emergency room)
If you can do all of these, If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
If you can't do these things, you ain't no man (allegedly):
The List: How to...
1. Patch a radiator hose
2. Protect your computer
3. Rescue a boater who as capsized
4. Frame a wall
5. Retouch digital photos
6. Back up a trailer
7. Build a campfire
8. Fix a dead outlet
9. Navigate with a map and compass
10. Use a torque wrench
11. Sharpen a knife
12. Perform CPR
13. Fillet a fish
14. Maneuver a car out of a skid
15. Get a car unstuck
16. Back up data
17. Paint a room
18. Mix concrete
19. Clean a bolt-action rifle
20. Change oil and filter
21. Hook up an HDTV
22. Bleed brakes
23. Paddle a canoe
24. Fix a bike flat
25. Extend your wireless network
I would add one of my own-
26. Put together a flat-pack cupboard (without doing damage to yourself requiring a visit to the emergency room)
If you can do all of these, If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds' worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it, And--which is more--you'll be a Man, my son!
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Any bad news is good news
'Abu Risha's assassination will be a severe blow to the "Awakening" in Anbar, says the BBC's Hugh Sykes in Baghdad.'
'This [the Anbar Awakening] is a spontaneous popular uprising against al-Qaeda, because, as you know, al-Qaeda killed our people' Abdul Sattar Abu Risha
The BBC make me laugh. Talk about not being able to follow the most straightforward plot developments. The Awakenings in Sunni Arab provinces of Iraq have occured because the Al Qaeda wahhabist geniuses over-rode two very important local cultural practises- you don't screw their women, and you don't kill their relatives. Al-Qaeda operatives care nothing about other peoples cultures, and believe only in a grotesquely simplified Moslem utopia. If you don't share their views, they'll kill you. If you are Moslem, they'll take your women as wives as of right. Both of these strategies have ruined their chances of existing long-term in Iraq.
Once enough Sunni tribesmen had had relatives murdered and daughters pro-rogued by AQ operatives, the kick-back was pretty much inevitable.
So, just to recap the BBC argument: the murder of yet another Sunni sheikh who wouldn't tow the AQ party line by AQ is a blow to the Sunni tribes and the US... somebody get these guys a dunces cap.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq are going nowhere. They are going to kill a lot of people, but as day follows night they are going to be destroyed root and brunch in Iraq, and mainly by Arab Iraqi's rather than Americans. I'm sure the BBC will work all this out eventually. Then again, perhaps not.
'This [the Anbar Awakening] is a spontaneous popular uprising against al-Qaeda, because, as you know, al-Qaeda killed our people' Abdul Sattar Abu Risha
The BBC make me laugh. Talk about not being able to follow the most straightforward plot developments. The Awakenings in Sunni Arab provinces of Iraq have occured because the Al Qaeda wahhabist geniuses over-rode two very important local cultural practises- you don't screw their women, and you don't kill their relatives. Al-Qaeda operatives care nothing about other peoples cultures, and believe only in a grotesquely simplified Moslem utopia. If you don't share their views, they'll kill you. If you are Moslem, they'll take your women as wives as of right. Both of these strategies have ruined their chances of existing long-term in Iraq.
Once enough Sunni tribesmen had had relatives murdered and daughters pro-rogued by AQ operatives, the kick-back was pretty much inevitable.
So, just to recap the BBC argument: the murder of yet another Sunni sheikh who wouldn't tow the AQ party line by AQ is a blow to the Sunni tribes and the US... somebody get these guys a dunces cap.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq are going nowhere. They are going to kill a lot of people, but as day follows night they are going to be destroyed root and brunch in Iraq, and mainly by Arab Iraqi's rather than Americans. I'm sure the BBC will work all this out eventually. Then again, perhaps not.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
How do we get the picture?
'I wrote recently that Baghdad, while dangerous and mind-bogglingly dysfunctional, isn’t as bad as it looks on TV. Almost everywhere I have been in the Middle East is more “normal” than it appears in the media. Nowhere is this more true than in Beirut, but it is true to a lesser extent in Baghdad as well. Baghdad isn’t a normal city, but it appears normal in most places most of the time. Ramadi, in my experience, is the great exception. Ramadi was worse than it appeared in the media. '
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html
As someone who works in the 'media', it is a perennial concern of mine that the news which gets to the consumer is such a poor replica of the world as it is constituted. Given the amazing tools at our disposal, isn't it time that we gave people all the information, rather than just tiny, hugely pre-digested nuggets? Nuggets which together form an idiotic whole. A 'whole' which not only distorts the world, but carries with it a heavy cargo of ideological content.
As the war between western propaganda and Wahhabist propaganda hots up, a massive gap in the market is becoming apparent- for a comprehensive, trustworthy, well-resourced news provider. Not a provider with the appearance of being one of those- we already have CNN, the BBC, FOX and quite a lot more. On my recent trip to the Netherlands, I had a chance to watch BBC World. Because it is not available in the UK, I don't get to see it much. Zienab Badawi, who seems to be permanently glued to the presenters chair at BBC World, is very much in the mainstream of lefty, UN-loving, America-hating, John Bolton-loathing BBC presenters. Speaking of whom, I was privileged to fly home with the latter today from Amsterdam. God Bless him, and keep his tongue as sharp as ever, and his brain as fast.
It may come as some surprise to my reader that I include FOX in my list of baddies, it being right-wing and all. Well, I may be partisan, but I'm not stupid. Sound journalism and accurate, honest, comprehensive reporting need to always come before propaganda-generation. Not that the latter isn't necessary, just much less important. What has happened at the BBC in particular is that agitation for the lefty-greeny world-view has gradually supplanted the primary task of getting the facts out for public viewing. The world, especially the lazy, rich western world, needs a trustworthy bearer of the facts. At the moment, we don't really have an excellent example of that.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001514.html
As someone who works in the 'media', it is a perennial concern of mine that the news which gets to the consumer is such a poor replica of the world as it is constituted. Given the amazing tools at our disposal, isn't it time that we gave people all the information, rather than just tiny, hugely pre-digested nuggets? Nuggets which together form an idiotic whole. A 'whole' which not only distorts the world, but carries with it a heavy cargo of ideological content.
As the war between western propaganda and Wahhabist propaganda hots up, a massive gap in the market is becoming apparent- for a comprehensive, trustworthy, well-resourced news provider. Not a provider with the appearance of being one of those- we already have CNN, the BBC, FOX and quite a lot more. On my recent trip to the Netherlands, I had a chance to watch BBC World. Because it is not available in the UK, I don't get to see it much. Zienab Badawi, who seems to be permanently glued to the presenters chair at BBC World, is very much in the mainstream of lefty, UN-loving, America-hating, John Bolton-loathing BBC presenters. Speaking of whom, I was privileged to fly home with the latter today from Amsterdam. God Bless him, and keep his tongue as sharp as ever, and his brain as fast.
It may come as some surprise to my reader that I include FOX in my list of baddies, it being right-wing and all. Well, I may be partisan, but I'm not stupid. Sound journalism and accurate, honest, comprehensive reporting need to always come before propaganda-generation. Not that the latter isn't necessary, just much less important. What has happened at the BBC in particular is that agitation for the lefty-greeny world-view has gradually supplanted the primary task of getting the facts out for public viewing. The world, especially the lazy, rich western world, needs a trustworthy bearer of the facts. At the moment, we don't really have an excellent example of that.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
I'll be sticking to BA
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6979292.stm
'Nepal's state-run airline has confirmed that it sacrificed two goats to appease a Hindu god, following technical problems with one of its aircraft.'
At least Fletch thought it was the ball-bearings...
'Nepal's state-run airline has confirmed that it sacrificed two goats to appease a Hindu god, following technical problems with one of its aircraft.'
At least Fletch thought it was the ball-bearings...
Monday, September 03, 2007
Gods Warriors on CNN
http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2007/gods.warriors/
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=1354
I watched the first part of this series a week or two back. It is from the 'A plague on all their houses' school of secular critique of religion. It is not journalism at all, but an attempt to derive the causation of war in religious belief. Very few wars in history have been caused by religious belief- vast numbers have been caused by ambition, greed, tribal/national prestige and jealousy. Was the Arab conquest of the middle east, Asia and north Africa in the seventh century about spreading religion, or about building a huge and lucrative empire? History tells us it was the latter. Was the Spanish conquest of central and south America for spreading Catholicism or to gain a huge and lucrative empire? 99% of the evidence points to the latter motivation. Even wars that are ostensibly about religion turn out not to be; the Crusades were supposed to be about freeing the Holy Places from Muslim control, but the Crusader kingdoms that were formed as a result were all about worldly gain and political maneuvering. Quite often, the rulers of Crusader kingdoms cooperated with the Muslims against the Byzantines, fellow Christians.
The common canard that all wars and problems in the world can conveniently be blamed on religion is long-overdue being debunked. Its true that cultures which encourage peoples and nations to go out and conquer because they are holders of the ultimate truth often include a religious component. But it is also true that imperial ambition often feels it must hide its true nature with the fig leaf of religion. I believe that the core motivations for human behaviour are roughly constant throughout history, and the desire to be top dog, to dominate and rule and possess are the ones which really drive men to act. Religion is useful for controlling and ordering people, and giving them purpose and morals and high morale. It is much less useful for giving them the motivation to go out and conquer the world. Both Christianity and Judaism, if adhered to in the proper spirit, preclude the building of worldly empires. Christians and Jews who strive to do that do not do so with the blessing of their religions. They do so in spite of religious strictures against doing so. Islam is a slightly different case- before the Greater Jihad replaced the Lesser Jihad as a Muslims primary goal in life, you could have argued that warfare with the aim of taking over non-Muslim countries was justified. But as the Greater Jihad is nothing to do with the outside world, but is about the internal state of goodness of the Muslim individual, Lesser Jihad (the violent one) is no longer an imperative. Which is why there haven't been any religiously motivated Islamic invasions for a very long time. The Ottoman empire was a turkic enterprise running on the same lines as the other great empires, with the same goals- money, prestige and control. It had the fig leaf of the Caliphate, but ditched it in 1919 as soon as it no longer served a useful function (ie when Turkish nationalism replaced Ottoman empire islamism).
Most of the arguments proffered that 'most wars are caused by religion' return to the same few events- the Catholic-Protestant wars of the 16th century, the Spanish invasion of Mexico, the Islamic invasions of the seventh century and the Crusades of the eleventh and twelth centuries. As I have argued, none of these cases properly evidences religion as the prime motivating cause. For every Catholic-Protest war, there were twenty English-Dutch (protestant vs protestant) or Spanish -French (catholic vs catholic) wars. The Catholic church itself behaved for much of the middle ages like an uber-empire, a multi-territorial empire where the pope had the ultimate say-so. It was perfectly happy to have Christians die fighting other Christians if the purposes of the universal church were served. So thats not really about religion, but about ostensibly religious organisations which actually have completely earth-bound secular concerns and motivations.
I hope one day people will stop abusing religion both by stealing its clothes to disguise their true motivations, and by blaming it for events completely outside its purview.
http://camera.org/index.asp?x_context=3&x_outlet=14&x_article=1354
I watched the first part of this series a week or two back. It is from the 'A plague on all their houses' school of secular critique of religion. It is not journalism at all, but an attempt to derive the causation of war in religious belief. Very few wars in history have been caused by religious belief- vast numbers have been caused by ambition, greed, tribal/national prestige and jealousy. Was the Arab conquest of the middle east, Asia and north Africa in the seventh century about spreading religion, or about building a huge and lucrative empire? History tells us it was the latter. Was the Spanish conquest of central and south America for spreading Catholicism or to gain a huge and lucrative empire? 99% of the evidence points to the latter motivation. Even wars that are ostensibly about religion turn out not to be; the Crusades were supposed to be about freeing the Holy Places from Muslim control, but the Crusader kingdoms that were formed as a result were all about worldly gain and political maneuvering. Quite often, the rulers of Crusader kingdoms cooperated with the Muslims against the Byzantines, fellow Christians.
The common canard that all wars and problems in the world can conveniently be blamed on religion is long-overdue being debunked. Its true that cultures which encourage peoples and nations to go out and conquer because they are holders of the ultimate truth often include a religious component. But it is also true that imperial ambition often feels it must hide its true nature with the fig leaf of religion. I believe that the core motivations for human behaviour are roughly constant throughout history, and the desire to be top dog, to dominate and rule and possess are the ones which really drive men to act. Religion is useful for controlling and ordering people, and giving them purpose and morals and high morale. It is much less useful for giving them the motivation to go out and conquer the world. Both Christianity and Judaism, if adhered to in the proper spirit, preclude the building of worldly empires. Christians and Jews who strive to do that do not do so with the blessing of their religions. They do so in spite of religious strictures against doing so. Islam is a slightly different case- before the Greater Jihad replaced the Lesser Jihad as a Muslims primary goal in life, you could have argued that warfare with the aim of taking over non-Muslim countries was justified. But as the Greater Jihad is nothing to do with the outside world, but is about the internal state of goodness of the Muslim individual, Lesser Jihad (the violent one) is no longer an imperative. Which is why there haven't been any religiously motivated Islamic invasions for a very long time. The Ottoman empire was a turkic enterprise running on the same lines as the other great empires, with the same goals- money, prestige and control. It had the fig leaf of the Caliphate, but ditched it in 1919 as soon as it no longer served a useful function (ie when Turkish nationalism replaced Ottoman empire islamism).
Most of the arguments proffered that 'most wars are caused by religion' return to the same few events- the Catholic-Protestant wars of the 16th century, the Spanish invasion of Mexico, the Islamic invasions of the seventh century and the Crusades of the eleventh and twelth centuries. As I have argued, none of these cases properly evidences religion as the prime motivating cause. For every Catholic-Protest war, there were twenty English-Dutch (protestant vs protestant) or Spanish -French (catholic vs catholic) wars. The Catholic church itself behaved for much of the middle ages like an uber-empire, a multi-territorial empire where the pope had the ultimate say-so. It was perfectly happy to have Christians die fighting other Christians if the purposes of the universal church were served. So thats not really about religion, but about ostensibly religious organisations which actually have completely earth-bound secular concerns and motivations.
I hope one day people will stop abusing religion both by stealing its clothes to disguise their true motivations, and by blaming it for events completely outside its purview.
Thursday, August 30, 2007
Frank Field already told us this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/29/do2901.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_29082007
So what are we going to do about it?
So what are we going to do about it?
Pure gold reporting on Iraq
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/08/anatomy-of-a-tribal-revolt/
This is the single best piece I've ever read on Iraq. If you didn't know a damn thing about the Iraq situation, and just read this, you'd still know more than a lot of newspaper editors and TV news reporters. I presume that the author is a US spy/intelligence officer. Its very clear, very well reported, and full of new information. I am particularly proud that although 'The implications of the tribal revolt have been somewhat overlooked by the news media and in the public debate in Coalition capitals' they have not been overlooked by this blog. His point that 'the strongest positive implications are the possibility that the revolt might help create a self-sustaining local security architecture' is crucial. In a not-particularly-centralised future Iraq, local security guaruntees will be pivotal. If all parts of the population can live peaceably, many of the other problems that will have to be thrashed out between the tribes, religious constituencies and races become negotiable and soluble.
I predicted some weeks back that the 'insurgency' could well be over in three to six months. That is on course right now. That is not to say that all operations will cease- Iran will no doubt try to find willing Shia patsies to fight for them in Shia communities up and down Iraq, but the overall situation in Iraq will be completely transformed. Once the Sunni/AQiI are neutralised, all other combat becomes manageable and relatively easy. The signs appear to be that the Shia population are becoming disenchanted with armed militias, as the Sunni have been for probably at least a year now. Once the militias become more trouble than they are worth to the populace they are extremely vulnerable, and can be picked off at leisure by special forces task groups.
All in all, the positive signs are getting harder and harder to ignore, and large parts of the 'we've lost, lets just admit it and come home' chorus have fallen silent.
This is the single best piece I've ever read on Iraq. If you didn't know a damn thing about the Iraq situation, and just read this, you'd still know more than a lot of newspaper editors and TV news reporters. I presume that the author is a US spy/intelligence officer. Its very clear, very well reported, and full of new information. I am particularly proud that although 'The implications of the tribal revolt have been somewhat overlooked by the news media and in the public debate in Coalition capitals' they have not been overlooked by this blog. His point that 'the strongest positive implications are the possibility that the revolt might help create a self-sustaining local security architecture' is crucial. In a not-particularly-centralised future Iraq, local security guaruntees will be pivotal. If all parts of the population can live peaceably, many of the other problems that will have to be thrashed out between the tribes, religious constituencies and races become negotiable and soluble.
I predicted some weeks back that the 'insurgency' could well be over in three to six months. That is on course right now. That is not to say that all operations will cease- Iran will no doubt try to find willing Shia patsies to fight for them in Shia communities up and down Iraq, but the overall situation in Iraq will be completely transformed. Once the Sunni/AQiI are neutralised, all other combat becomes manageable and relatively easy. The signs appear to be that the Shia population are becoming disenchanted with armed militias, as the Sunni have been for probably at least a year now. Once the militias become more trouble than they are worth to the populace they are extremely vulnerable, and can be picked off at leisure by special forces task groups.
All in all, the positive signs are getting harder and harder to ignore, and large parts of the 'we've lost, lets just admit it and come home' chorus have fallen silent.
Mahdi army details
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/08/sadr_calls_for_mahdi.php
This piece on The Fourth Rail provides a breakdown of the Mahdi army factions, for those of you who haven't been keeping up. Dealing with an 'organisation' as diverse as the Mahdi army has been and will be enormously difficult for the US and the Iraqi govmt. But now that the threat from the Sunni Baathists/nationalists has receded, the last three major threats to a decent life for Iraqi's are Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigades. All of them will have to be neutralised as military organisations before the real task of creating civic institutions and a genuine economy can gather momentum. Sadr must be aware that the most dangerous thing to do with a private army is use it- hence his 'freezing' of operations for six months. Whether that will remove the sword of Damocles from the Mahdi army is a different question. For the US, there can be no deviation from the task at hand- and that is the demilitarisation of Iraqi society.
This piece on The Fourth Rail provides a breakdown of the Mahdi army factions, for those of you who haven't been keeping up. Dealing with an 'organisation' as diverse as the Mahdi army has been and will be enormously difficult for the US and the Iraqi govmt. But now that the threat from the Sunni Baathists/nationalists has receded, the last three major threats to a decent life for Iraqi's are Al-Qaeda in Iraq, the Mahdi army and the Badr Brigades. All of them will have to be neutralised as military organisations before the real task of creating civic institutions and a genuine economy can gather momentum. Sadr must be aware that the most dangerous thing to do with a private army is use it- hence his 'freezing' of operations for six months. Whether that will remove the sword of Damocles from the Mahdi army is a different question. For the US, there can be no deviation from the task at hand- and that is the demilitarisation of Iraqi society.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Really not funny
The mainstream press is just now noticing that while the American surge is having manifold effects and a serious impact on the various baddies in central Iraq, the British anti-surge is losing the Shia south. In todays Financial Times, Stephen Fidler and Alex Barker lay out the case against the British government and the British army (Run out of Town: How the British Army lost Basra). The overall impact of the article is that the British government never really bought into the Iraq invasion, never solidly took on its responsibilities, didn't spend any money on reconstruction, and never devised any decent strategy for running its areas. It also castigates the British army for being blase about the Shia militias. The British army actually allied itself with various of the latter occasionally, scotching any possibility of being seen by the Shia public as honest brokers. It also used 'lessons' from Ireland which were completely inapplicable in the Iraqi situation. As the authors point out, there were never more than a few hundred active IRA gunmen and bombers at any one time, whereas all three of the Shia militias in Basra field thousands of gunmen each. Not only that, civil society in Northern Ireland, while battered and abused, had not been completely corrupted and perverted by 27 years of Ba'ath party tyranny.
For the British occupation to succeed, millions of pounds was needed to rebuild infrastructure, the militias should have been destroyed by force, and a troop level of around 30,000 maintained so that the militias could not regroup. Britain would have needed to draw up a comprehensive plan to rebuild Shia society in the south free of the various afflictions which now beset it: gangsterism, fanatical religious mafias, venal public officials and policemen who cannot be trusted. Sadly, the Labour party was almost completely uninterested in the tasks at hand. The groups which were set up by the UK government to control British policy in southern Iraq were soon sidelined by US policy-setting groups and the Pentagon. British troop strength in Iraq is now 5,000. As the article points out, that's just about enough troops for the British to defend their two bases.
The geopolitical situation in Iraq is such that if the Shia south is made available for Iran and the shia militias, there is no hope of peace in the centre. The British government now have a painful choice- bring down Iraq because of their parsimony and pandering to stupid lefty parochialists, or beef up the contingent in Iraq again and have a surge of their own. The US effort shows what boots on the ground does- it suffocates and strangles the insurgency which lives and breathes on room to maneuver. Will the British government suck it up, find the will and complete the task it took on, or like the English football team tonight, show up for half an hour and then wander off pathetically?
For the British occupation to succeed, millions of pounds was needed to rebuild infrastructure, the militias should have been destroyed by force, and a troop level of around 30,000 maintained so that the militias could not regroup. Britain would have needed to draw up a comprehensive plan to rebuild Shia society in the south free of the various afflictions which now beset it: gangsterism, fanatical religious mafias, venal public officials and policemen who cannot be trusted. Sadly, the Labour party was almost completely uninterested in the tasks at hand. The groups which were set up by the UK government to control British policy in southern Iraq were soon sidelined by US policy-setting groups and the Pentagon. British troop strength in Iraq is now 5,000. As the article points out, that's just about enough troops for the British to defend their two bases.
The geopolitical situation in Iraq is such that if the Shia south is made available for Iran and the shia militias, there is no hope of peace in the centre. The British government now have a painful choice- bring down Iraq because of their parsimony and pandering to stupid lefty parochialists, or beef up the contingent in Iraq again and have a surge of their own. The US effort shows what boots on the ground does- it suffocates and strangles the insurgency which lives and breathes on room to maneuver. Will the British government suck it up, find the will and complete the task it took on, or like the English football team tonight, show up for half an hour and then wander off pathetically?
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Does it matter?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5335740.stm
'More than half of people in the UK think the "war on terror" is being lost, a survey for the BBC suggests.
It found 53% believed the UK government was losing the "war on terror" and 56% thought it was being lost by other western governments.
Four out of 10 people questioned said they felt less safe now than when the so-called war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, while 11% felt safer.'
Do I believe we are winning? Does it matter if more than half the population (of this sample group) think we're losing? Will this perception matter in the final analysis? In the clear sense that the government departments, the British Security Service, the British Army and the Police will fight the fight against global terrorism no matter what any particular poll says, it doesn't matter. That is not to say this poll means nothing- the Spanish voted out the Conservatives immediately after the Madrid bombs and have been heartily dhimmified ever since. It matters quite a lot in a representative democracy how the electorate perceive the big issues like the fight against Wahhabism.
What heartens me is the process currently going on in America. The US population are gradually realising that the surge is having concrete, discernible, genuine effects- and hope is returning. The deep dismay of the US population was always disproportionate to the situation in Iraq; there was never a time when the US wasn't in overall control. But now that serious headway is visible, people who long ago gave up on Iraq are gradually coming back to a position more aligned with the facts. The same can happen here in Britain regarding the war on Wahhabism.
For that to happen, though, a number of things must change. The BBC, which is only interested in the Iraq situation desultorily, reports only large explosions and casualty statistics. Everything else just doesn't pique their curiosity. Most mainstream media outlets have been reporting the Iraq situation as a lost war for so long, they seem unable to take any other position. ITV news in particular has to the best of my knowledge never reported any good news from Iraq. The mainstream media are happy to leave the Iraq situation blurred, suffused with myth, and never challenge any of the prevailing misconceptions people have. Its true that Iraq is a complex, many-sided fight, but its not beyond the wit of the average man to comprehend. By now, most people have heard of Sunni and Shia, but thats probably it in terms of detail. How many people in Britain know that there are two bitter rivals for Shia loyalties, currently fighting it out in Basra? And that attacks on British troops are a way for these two groups to gain credibility and support with locals? And that neither group is a genuine proxy of Iran (yet)?
The politicians of Britain can't seem to be bothered to really get to grips with Iraqi politics either, and certainly don't pass any knowledge they may have on to their electors. So its up to us bloggers to get the knowledge out and keep telling people the devil thats in the details.
'More than half of people in the UK think the "war on terror" is being lost, a survey for the BBC suggests.
It found 53% believed the UK government was losing the "war on terror" and 56% thought it was being lost by other western governments.
Four out of 10 people questioned said they felt less safe now than when the so-called war on terror began after the 9/11 attacks, while 11% felt safer.'
Do I believe we are winning? Does it matter if more than half the population (of this sample group) think we're losing? Will this perception matter in the final analysis? In the clear sense that the government departments, the British Security Service, the British Army and the Police will fight the fight against global terrorism no matter what any particular poll says, it doesn't matter. That is not to say this poll means nothing- the Spanish voted out the Conservatives immediately after the Madrid bombs and have been heartily dhimmified ever since. It matters quite a lot in a representative democracy how the electorate perceive the big issues like the fight against Wahhabism.
What heartens me is the process currently going on in America. The US population are gradually realising that the surge is having concrete, discernible, genuine effects- and hope is returning. The deep dismay of the US population was always disproportionate to the situation in Iraq; there was never a time when the US wasn't in overall control. But now that serious headway is visible, people who long ago gave up on Iraq are gradually coming back to a position more aligned with the facts. The same can happen here in Britain regarding the war on Wahhabism.
For that to happen, though, a number of things must change. The BBC, which is only interested in the Iraq situation desultorily, reports only large explosions and casualty statistics. Everything else just doesn't pique their curiosity. Most mainstream media outlets have been reporting the Iraq situation as a lost war for so long, they seem unable to take any other position. ITV news in particular has to the best of my knowledge never reported any good news from Iraq. The mainstream media are happy to leave the Iraq situation blurred, suffused with myth, and never challenge any of the prevailing misconceptions people have. Its true that Iraq is a complex, many-sided fight, but its not beyond the wit of the average man to comprehend. By now, most people have heard of Sunni and Shia, but thats probably it in terms of detail. How many people in Britain know that there are two bitter rivals for Shia loyalties, currently fighting it out in Basra? And that attacks on British troops are a way for these two groups to gain credibility and support with locals? And that neither group is a genuine proxy of Iran (yet)?
The politicians of Britain can't seem to be bothered to really get to grips with Iraqi politics either, and certainly don't pass any knowledge they may have on to their electors. So its up to us bloggers to get the knowledge out and keep telling people the devil thats in the details.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
How to write about the Surge
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200708/POL20070809c.html
We have been accused of being whingers- a terrible slur against all us dedicated writers at 'The House of War'. If you want to hear whingeing, read this article.
Whinge 1:
'Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, with the U.S. Military Academy, noted that his parameters for measuring success in Iraq last year were flawed, in retrospect. He looked at (1) enemy kills; (2) protecting his troops; and (3) minimizing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by enemy forces. Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy pursues those goals in opposite order, Gentile said.'
Whinge 2:
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow with the libertarian Independent Institute, told Cybercast News Service that insurgencies defy efforts to measure success.
Whinge 3:
"The enemies only have to wait for the powerful democracy to become war-weary and go home," Eland said.
Whinge 4:
Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is regarded as one of the architects of the administration's new strategy. He claims that other measurements of success Iraq - the political "benchmarks" set by Congress in the Defense supplemental appropriations bill passed this spring - were ineffective.
Whinge 5:
"And so the question is, at the same time as you have people demanding that we change our military strategy from month to month, they're insisting that we continue to pursue the same political strategy all through without any changes and any accounting for variations in the situation in Iraq. It doesn't make sense."
Whinge 6:
But Ivan Eland told Cybercast News Service that even if all of the political benchmarks mandated by Congress are met, "they are still on paper." The fractured Iraqi society will prevent them from ever being implemented, he said."If the administration is smart, they would say that the Iraqis didn't meet them...and use it as an excuse to withdraw."
Whinge 7:
The troop surge -- introducing another 20,000-30,000 troops -- "doesn't even begin to close the gap [in what is needed]," said Preble. "By concentrating forces in one key city, this gives an opportunity for insurgents to move their operations elsewhere, as we are seeing in Basra, for example. In short, I fear that this is a case of too little, too late. But the same can be said of Bush administration policy since the very beginning."
Conclusion:
Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top general in Iraq, will report to Congress on the U.S. military progress in Iraq. Even before he presents his conclusions, many Democrats are demanding a troop withdrawal.
This is how modern journalism works: First of all, write your conclusion, based on your absolute belief in your own opinions. Second, cadge all the quotes you can from friends or enemies to support your conclusion. Third, write a headline that makes people think you actually put genuine thought and effort into your piece. Voila! You and your Democrap editor can put your feet up and wait for WASP America to die in the bubbling cauldron of its own contradictions. Hurrah!
By the way, a brief perusal of the military and counter-terrorism websites reveals the unfortunate fact that the surge is, in fact, working. Never mind, Evan, better luck next war.
We have been accused of being whingers- a terrible slur against all us dedicated writers at 'The House of War'. If you want to hear whingeing, read this article.
Whinge 1:
'Lt. Col. Gian Gentile, with the U.S. Military Academy, noted that his parameters for measuring success in Iraq last year were flawed, in retrospect. He looked at (1) enemy kills; (2) protecting his troops; and (3) minimizing the number of Iraqi civilians killed by enemy forces. Gen. David Petraeus's counterinsurgency strategy pursues those goals in opposite order, Gentile said.'
Whinge 2:
Ivan Eland, a senior fellow with the libertarian Independent Institute, told Cybercast News Service that insurgencies defy efforts to measure success.
Whinge 3:
"The enemies only have to wait for the powerful democracy to become war-weary and go home," Eland said.
Whinge 4:
Frederick Kagan, a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, is regarded as one of the architects of the administration's new strategy. He claims that other measurements of success Iraq - the political "benchmarks" set by Congress in the Defense supplemental appropriations bill passed this spring - were ineffective.
Whinge 5:
"And so the question is, at the same time as you have people demanding that we change our military strategy from month to month, they're insisting that we continue to pursue the same political strategy all through without any changes and any accounting for variations in the situation in Iraq. It doesn't make sense."
Whinge 6:
But Ivan Eland told Cybercast News Service that even if all of the political benchmarks mandated by Congress are met, "they are still on paper." The fractured Iraqi society will prevent them from ever being implemented, he said."If the administration is smart, they would say that the Iraqis didn't meet them...and use it as an excuse to withdraw."
Whinge 7:
The troop surge -- introducing another 20,000-30,000 troops -- "doesn't even begin to close the gap [in what is needed]," said Preble. "By concentrating forces in one key city, this gives an opportunity for insurgents to move their operations elsewhere, as we are seeing in Basra, for example. In short, I fear that this is a case of too little, too late. But the same can be said of Bush administration policy since the very beginning."
Conclusion:
Next month, Gen. David Petraeus, the top general in Iraq, will report to Congress on the U.S. military progress in Iraq. Even before he presents his conclusions, many Democrats are demanding a troop withdrawal.
This is how modern journalism works: First of all, write your conclusion, based on your absolute belief in your own opinions. Second, cadge all the quotes you can from friends or enemies to support your conclusion. Third, write a headline that makes people think you actually put genuine thought and effort into your piece. Voila! You and your Democrap editor can put your feet up and wait for WASP America to die in the bubbling cauldron of its own contradictions. Hurrah!
By the way, a brief perusal of the military and counter-terrorism websites reveals the unfortunate fact that the surge is, in fact, working. Never mind, Evan, better luck next war.
The SADC are not the cavalry
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/6948813.stm
'A senior Zambian official said Sadc had grown tired of the deepening political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe but he did not have a resolution, saying Mr Mbeki's progress report would determine a course of action...
Observers say there is a new mood of realism developing in the region, with Zimbabwe now seen as more than just a domestic problem.'
Its only taken seven years, millions of wasted lives, and the transformation of a pretty decent little country into one of the worlds worst basketcases for the intellectual giants of the SADC and the other utterly fraudulent trans-African bodies to wake up to Zimbabwe's tragedy. Still, they can't leave behind all the tired tropes about neo-colonialism and a plot by Britain and America to destroy Zimbabwe. These are so far past their sell-by that its surprising the media bothers to report them.
The unnamed senior Zambian official rightly points out that 'they did not have a resolution'. A resolution to Zimbabwe's problem, which is Robert Mugabe and the kleptocrats of ZANU PF, would implicate all the other Robert Mugabe's of southern Africa, and their equally kleptocratic cronies. The last thing a resident of a den of theives will do is bring the house crashing down on all their heads. The abysmal cynicism of these people is enough to make you gag- 'Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has called on the people of Zimbabwe to maintain peace at all costs.' Effectively, he is telling them to shut up, stay quiet and die without bothering the people in the air-conditioned Mercs and BMW's. So far, he has had his wish. For how much longer?
'A senior Zambian official said Sadc had grown tired of the deepening political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe but he did not have a resolution, saying Mr Mbeki's progress report would determine a course of action...
Observers say there is a new mood of realism developing in the region, with Zimbabwe now seen as more than just a domestic problem.'
Its only taken seven years, millions of wasted lives, and the transformation of a pretty decent little country into one of the worlds worst basketcases for the intellectual giants of the SADC and the other utterly fraudulent trans-African bodies to wake up to Zimbabwe's tragedy. Still, they can't leave behind all the tired tropes about neo-colonialism and a plot by Britain and America to destroy Zimbabwe. These are so far past their sell-by that its surprising the media bothers to report them.
The unnamed senior Zambian official rightly points out that 'they did not have a resolution'. A resolution to Zimbabwe's problem, which is Robert Mugabe and the kleptocrats of ZANU PF, would implicate all the other Robert Mugabe's of southern Africa, and their equally kleptocratic cronies. The last thing a resident of a den of theives will do is bring the house crashing down on all their heads. The abysmal cynicism of these people is enough to make you gag- 'Zambian President Levy Mwanawasa has called on the people of Zimbabwe to maintain peace at all costs.' Effectively, he is telling them to shut up, stay quiet and die without bothering the people in the air-conditioned Mercs and BMW's. So far, he has had his wish. For how much longer?
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Matt Damon pontificates
Matt Damons Moonbat rant in full:
'The actor, who appears in the Bourne thrillers, said: "The Bond character will always be anchored in the 1960s and in the values of the 1960s."
The suave spy was "so anachronistic when you put it in the world we live in today", he said, but added that Bourne was no better or worse than Bond.
Damon was speaking in London, where The Bourne Ultimatum, the third film in the franchise, is having its UK premiere.
"Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist who kills people and laughs about it, and drinks Martinis and cracks jokes," he told reporters.
"Bourne is a serial monogamist whose girlfriend is dead and he does nothing but think about her."
He added that Bourne "doesn't have the support of gadgets, and he feels guilty for what he's done". [I thought you said Bourne was 'no better and no worse than Bond'?]
The first two Bourne outings - The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy - made more than $500 (£250m) at the worldwide box office.
The latest instalment went straight to the top of the North American box office chart.
Damon said he had not ruled out returning for a fourth film - provided that the British director Paul Greengrass also returned to the project.
Greengrass said: "The Bourne franchise is not about wearing Prada suits and looking at women coming out of the sea with bikinis on. It's about essence and truth, not frippery and surface."
It used to be enough to make movies about cool killers and the women who wanted to shag them, but now each movie is also a platform for the stars own personal sociology-cum-film criticism lecture. Actually, if Damon was a little more forthcoming, he'd admit that the whole Bourne series is a moonbat fantasy about crazed spymasters kidnapping and drugging up beautiful young Americans and turning them into robot killers for the fascist American state. And then Frankensteins monster turns on the spymasters and all the moonbats get to cheer him on as Bourne murders them all in beautiful technicolour. See, as long as you murder the right folks, murderin' is fine!
'The actor, who appears in the Bourne thrillers, said: "The Bond character will always be anchored in the 1960s and in the values of the 1960s."
The suave spy was "so anachronistic when you put it in the world we live in today", he said, but added that Bourne was no better or worse than Bond.
Damon was speaking in London, where The Bourne Ultimatum, the third film in the franchise, is having its UK premiere.
"Bond is an imperialist and a misogynist who kills people and laughs about it, and drinks Martinis and cracks jokes," he told reporters.
"Bourne is a serial monogamist whose girlfriend is dead and he does nothing but think about her."
He added that Bourne "doesn't have the support of gadgets, and he feels guilty for what he's done". [I thought you said Bourne was 'no better and no worse than Bond'?]
The first two Bourne outings - The Bourne Identity and The Bourne Supremacy - made more than $500 (£250m) at the worldwide box office.
The latest instalment went straight to the top of the North American box office chart.
Damon said he had not ruled out returning for a fourth film - provided that the British director Paul Greengrass also returned to the project.
Greengrass said: "The Bourne franchise is not about wearing Prada suits and looking at women coming out of the sea with bikinis on. It's about essence and truth, not frippery and surface."
It used to be enough to make movies about cool killers and the women who wanted to shag them, but now each movie is also a platform for the stars own personal sociology-cum-film criticism lecture. Actually, if Damon was a little more forthcoming, he'd admit that the whole Bourne series is a moonbat fantasy about crazed spymasters kidnapping and drugging up beautiful young Americans and turning them into robot killers for the fascist American state. And then Frankensteins monster turns on the spymasters and all the moonbats get to cheer him on as Bourne murders them all in beautiful technicolour. See, as long as you murder the right folks, murderin' is fine!
Not another Hezbollah
'“Is there anything you can do to protect yourself?” I asked the young Iraqi.
“What can I do?” he said. “No one can stop Jaysh al Mahdi. They live in the 16th Century. Everyone I know in Sadr City hates Moqtada al Sadr, but they can do nothing. Many people want the Americans to invade.”'
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001504.html
If you get right up to the Iraq situation, and look it squarely in the eye, you can see the big things that the US has not done. In any situation both diplomatic or military, you have to work out who you are going to be able to do business with and who not. The Jaysh Al Mahdi or Mahdi Army were never going to be an effective or trustworthy partner in governance. As this article points out, the proxy model Iran established when it created Hezbollah is very effective. The Jaysh al Mahdi now runs along the same lines that Hezbollah, Hamas and a shadowy nascent group in Syria do.
Are we already too late? All the signs are that if you don't destroy these organisations utterly, they quickly reconstitute. Hezbollah has been pummelled a few times but it is currently flourishing. It is now far more lethal and dangerous than at any time in its existence, and Israel will need to work a lot harder next time to break its back. The Clinton doctrine (put off until tomorrow what you can't be bothered to think about today) is very dangerous with Hezbollah-like organisations. The JAM (Jaysh al Mahdi) are already well along the route to being a state within a state. Before the US leaves Iraq, there will have to be a showdown with it, or risk the recreation of the disaster that is Hezbollah, where the tail wags the Lebanese dog. Iraqis, including the majority of Shia, understand this basic fact. Unless JAM is destroyed, it will destroy the Iraqi state like an enormous cancer.
Why the US is toying about with it, I can't imagine. Grasping the nettle doesn't seem to be a US trait any more. Sadly, the longer they wait, the more young Americans and young Iraqi's will die when the balloon goes up. Perhaps the idea is to pick off one 'problem group' in Iraq at a time. Sometimes, though, you don't have the luxury to work on such a leisurely schedule. Israels generals could give them a pretty vivid rundown of why not.
“What can I do?” he said. “No one can stop Jaysh al Mahdi. They live in the 16th Century. Everyone I know in Sadr City hates Moqtada al Sadr, but they can do nothing. Many people want the Americans to invade.”'
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001504.html
If you get right up to the Iraq situation, and look it squarely in the eye, you can see the big things that the US has not done. In any situation both diplomatic or military, you have to work out who you are going to be able to do business with and who not. The Jaysh Al Mahdi or Mahdi Army were never going to be an effective or trustworthy partner in governance. As this article points out, the proxy model Iran established when it created Hezbollah is very effective. The Jaysh al Mahdi now runs along the same lines that Hezbollah, Hamas and a shadowy nascent group in Syria do.
Are we already too late? All the signs are that if you don't destroy these organisations utterly, they quickly reconstitute. Hezbollah has been pummelled a few times but it is currently flourishing. It is now far more lethal and dangerous than at any time in its existence, and Israel will need to work a lot harder next time to break its back. The Clinton doctrine (put off until tomorrow what you can't be bothered to think about today) is very dangerous with Hezbollah-like organisations. The JAM (Jaysh al Mahdi) are already well along the route to being a state within a state. Before the US leaves Iraq, there will have to be a showdown with it, or risk the recreation of the disaster that is Hezbollah, where the tail wags the Lebanese dog. Iraqis, including the majority of Shia, understand this basic fact. Unless JAM is destroyed, it will destroy the Iraqi state like an enormous cancer.
Why the US is toying about with it, I can't imagine. Grasping the nettle doesn't seem to be a US trait any more. Sadly, the longer they wait, the more young Americans and young Iraqi's will die when the balloon goes up. Perhaps the idea is to pick off one 'problem group' in Iraq at a time. Sometimes, though, you don't have the luxury to work on such a leisurely schedule. Israels generals could give them a pretty vivid rundown of why not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)