http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh?currentPage=1
This loooooooooonnnnnnnnnnnnggggggggg article about the preparations for a military strike against Iran by George W Bush's White House is detailed but flawed by its assumptions.
Its primary assumption is that there is no need to do what the current administration is doing. There is no need for a military option. Lets just talk!
The author could have skipped all the prattle and just gone with-
'When I spoke to him last week, [Joschka] Fischer, who has extensive contacts in the diplomatic community, said that the latest European approach includes a new element: the willingness of the U.S. and the Europeans to accept something less than a complete cessation of enrichment as an intermediate step. “The proposal says that the Iranians must stop manufacturing new centrifuges and the other side will stop all further sanction activities in the U.N. Security Council,” Fischer said, although Iran would still have to freeze its enrichment activities when formal negotiations begin. “This could be acceptable to the Iranians—if they have good will.”'
Well, they don't have good will. Over and over and over again, the Iranians have said that they want nuclear power (which would give them very easy access to enriched uranium) and they deserve nuclear power and nobody is going to deny them nuclear power. What part of that do you New Yorker morons not understand? For the Iranians, have long, hazy, imprecise talks is a perfect way of passing the time while they get their nuclear processes right. Once they get them right, the talking will stop. Barack can phone Ahmedinejad every day, he won't get talks. Once Nuclear Iran is a fact, nobody will return his calls.
Those in the US military who oppose military action in Iran are participating in politics- something they just don't get to do. The US constitution is clear about who gets to decide US foreign policy, and its not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, CENTCOM or every two-bit Colonel. It is the Presidents prerogative, and secondarily the State Department. The fact is, the US definitely has the power to destroy Irans nuclear facilities, and not only that, it must. Iran is not a country any sane person wants to have nuclear-armed. That does not mean declaring war on the Iranian people, and indeed it means killing very few of them. It will be a big insult to the manhood of the average Iranian man in the street, but they'll get over it.
I would much rather have a nation of indignant Iranians than a sulphurous hole in the ground where Israel used to be.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Even clowns can kill
'We were meant to figure out the guest list for an upcoming party, but she said, “That's a great trial you've got going there,” and off we went, soon discussing our shared frustration with those who persist in believing that youthful goofiness or general haplessness are incompatible with terrorist aims and missions. They never have been with ordinary criminals – that's why most of them get caught most of the time – so why would it be any different with terrorist criminals?
To illustrate this, Rosie mentioned a book she was reading which notes that two of those wanted in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack by an al-Qaeda cell on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden are also wanted in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to blow up the USS The Sullivans in the same harbour, an attack averted only because the thugs – oh, those goofy kids! – overloaded their small boat such that it sank.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.blatch28/BNStory/specialComment/home
I blogged about this long ago, but its still one of my most hated Guardian-reader arguments. Being buffoonish and incompetent doesn't mean a) you aren't dangerous and b) that you get a moral pass. It means nothing at all of consequence. Criminals who practise get to be better criminals. Terrorists who practise and get training become better terrorists. How could that not be obviously true?
It partly goes back to the Rousseauian 'Noble Savage', who is governed only by simple instincts and 'doesn't know better', but mainly lefties will use just about any weak argument to protect their 'side'.
To illustrate this, Rosie mentioned a book she was reading which notes that two of those wanted in the Oct. 12, 2000, attack by an al-Qaeda cell on the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden are also wanted in an earlier unsuccessful attempt to blow up the USS The Sullivans in the same harbour, an attack averted only because the thugs – oh, those goofy kids! – overloaded their small boat such that it sank.'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080627.blatch28/BNStory/specialComment/home
I blogged about this long ago, but its still one of my most hated Guardian-reader arguments. Being buffoonish and incompetent doesn't mean a) you aren't dangerous and b) that you get a moral pass. It means nothing at all of consequence. Criminals who practise get to be better criminals. Terrorists who practise and get training become better terrorists. How could that not be obviously true?
It partly goes back to the Rousseauian 'Noble Savage', who is governed only by simple instincts and 'doesn't know better', but mainly lefties will use just about any weak argument to protect their 'side'.
Thursday, June 26, 2008
What you sow you shall also reap
'"My husband isn't a terrorist," says Nada, shaking her head.
"He worked for a humanitarian organisation. It's very difficult to be a Muslim nowadays. The whole world is anti-Islamic."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7474794.stm
Why would the whole world be anti-Islamic? I can't think of a single reason.
"He worked for a humanitarian organisation. It's very difficult to be a Muslim nowadays. The whole world is anti-Islamic."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7474794.stm
Why would the whole world be anti-Islamic? I can't think of a single reason.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Another installment of propaganda
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7451691.stm
'"The settlers gave us a 10-minute warning to clear off from the land," she told me, her voice a tired, cracked whisper.
She and her husband had stood their ground. It is at this point that her voice grows louder.
"They don't want us to stay on our land. But we won't leave. We'll die here. It's ours," she added.
Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory.
Those settlements have been a large part of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis for the last 41 years. The daily confrontation is not often caught on camera. That, now, is beginning to change.'
I don't think anyone can read this whole article, and then look me in the eye and say that the BBC is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian Arab. Compare the BBC coverage of China, and what China has done to Tibet with the treatment it metes out to Israel. China has no historic claim to Tibet at all; Tibet has had a long history of independence as a nation; China has asset stripped Tibet and planted millions of Han Chinese in it. The Jews have a strong historic claim to the the land of Israel, which was taken from them by force of arms; the Palestinian Arabs have NO history of independence as a nation; most of the 'occupied territory' is still in the hands of the Palestinian Arabs, apart from what Jewish people have bought from them; there has never been a time when Jews were completely expunged from their homeland.
Yet the Chinese systematic rape of Tibet gets virtually no airtime from the BBC. Pretty much every day, we get another dose of Palestinian Arab claptrap relayed by the lefty wankers of Britains esteemed National Broadcaster. Even the phrasing of the articles sounds like it was written at Hamas Party HQ: "Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory."
Really? The rest of the world? Its that clear-cut? It enrages me that I am forced by the British govmt to fund this partisan crap.
'"The settlers gave us a 10-minute warning to clear off from the land," she told me, her voice a tired, cracked whisper.
She and her husband had stood their ground. It is at this point that her voice grows louder.
"They don't want us to stay on our land. But we won't leave. We'll die here. It's ours," she added.
Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory.
Those settlements have been a large part of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis for the last 41 years. The daily confrontation is not often caught on camera. That, now, is beginning to change.'
I don't think anyone can read this whole article, and then look me in the eye and say that the BBC is not anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian Arab. Compare the BBC coverage of China, and what China has done to Tibet with the treatment it metes out to Israel. China has no historic claim to Tibet at all; Tibet has had a long history of independence as a nation; China has asset stripped Tibet and planted millions of Han Chinese in it. The Jews have a strong historic claim to the the land of Israel, which was taken from them by force of arms; the Palestinian Arabs have NO history of independence as a nation; most of the 'occupied territory' is still in the hands of the Palestinian Arabs, apart from what Jewish people have bought from them; there has never been a time when Jews were completely expunged from their homeland.
Yet the Chinese systematic rape of Tibet gets virtually no airtime from the BBC. Pretty much every day, we get another dose of Palestinian Arab claptrap relayed by the lefty wankers of Britains esteemed National Broadcaster. Even the phrasing of the articles sounds like it was written at Hamas Party HQ: "Indeed, the rest of the world regards Jewish settlements in the West Bank such as Susia, as illegal, built on occupied territory."
Really? The rest of the world? Its that clear-cut? It enrages me that I am forced by the British govmt to fund this partisan crap.
NWFP: part of Pakistan or not?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7456019.stm
"Afghanistan has the right of self-defence. When [militants] cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and to kill coalition troops it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same."
What was President Karzai thinking? That is so obviously not true. According to Pakistanis, they should be able to attack India and invade Kashmir at will, and attack Afghanistan non-stop from the NWFP; but should one American bomb land in Pakistan their sovereignty as a nation has been foully desecrated. They are enormously delicate in their sensitivities to any slight to their nation, while utterly disinterested in the sensitivities of its neighbors. For how much longer this will be tolerated, I'm not sure.
India, growing daily in industrial might and international leverage, sees on its doorstep a shambolic, aggressive nuclear-armed teenager. Afghanistan, a fragile and virtually non-nation nation, sees on its doorstep an opportunist bully fighting itself and everyone else with no regard to the consequences. Both see the nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal as the magical pass-card that allows them to punch so far above their puny weight. For the US, now that Iraq is emerging into proper state-hood, the focus of its gaze will inevitably move on to the two remaining sources of large-scale Islamist power- Iran and Pakistan.
So do you do the easy things first or the difficult ones? Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons, and has only second-rate conventional weapons. Taking out their Nuclear sites and the economic and political assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would be relatively easy; removing the big toys from the Pakistanis could be quite messy, and would almost certainly have repercussions in countries like Britain with very large Pakistani minorities. Saying that, it has to be done. Pakistan is a permanent threat to further nuclear proliferation, being one country which has a known and dishonourable record in that regard. Who knows where Pakistani Nuclear know-how will end up next?
At least one thing is becoming clearer- the government of Pakistan is moving away from Musharrafs 'forked-tongue' diplomacy, which involved making a huge amount of pro-US noise while doing virtually none of the things asked of him; towards a plain anti-US, pro-Islamist posture. That will make the eventual conflict much more politically palatable on Capitol Hill and in Parliament. And I do believe it is inevitable. The Pakistani government is responsible for the NWFP, the men who plot their terror ops there, and the Taleban pseudo-army whose staging areas are there. Either that or the NWFP is not part of Pakistan, and the US can get on with destroying its enemies in it. Can't have it both ways guys.
"Afghanistan has the right of self-defence. When [militants] cross the territory from Pakistan to come and kill Afghans and to kill coalition troops it exactly gives us the right to go back and do the same."
What was President Karzai thinking? That is so obviously not true. According to Pakistanis, they should be able to attack India and invade Kashmir at will, and attack Afghanistan non-stop from the NWFP; but should one American bomb land in Pakistan their sovereignty as a nation has been foully desecrated. They are enormously delicate in their sensitivities to any slight to their nation, while utterly disinterested in the sensitivities of its neighbors. For how much longer this will be tolerated, I'm not sure.
India, growing daily in industrial might and international leverage, sees on its doorstep a shambolic, aggressive nuclear-armed teenager. Afghanistan, a fragile and virtually non-nation nation, sees on its doorstep an opportunist bully fighting itself and everyone else with no regard to the consequences. Both see the nuclear weapons in Pakistan's arsenal as the magical pass-card that allows them to punch so far above their puny weight. For the US, now that Iraq is emerging into proper state-hood, the focus of its gaze will inevitably move on to the two remaining sources of large-scale Islamist power- Iran and Pakistan.
So do you do the easy things first or the difficult ones? Iran currently doesn't have nuclear weapons, and has only second-rate conventional weapons. Taking out their Nuclear sites and the economic and political assets of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would be relatively easy; removing the big toys from the Pakistanis could be quite messy, and would almost certainly have repercussions in countries like Britain with very large Pakistani minorities. Saying that, it has to be done. Pakistan is a permanent threat to further nuclear proliferation, being one country which has a known and dishonourable record in that regard. Who knows where Pakistani Nuclear know-how will end up next?
At least one thing is becoming clearer- the government of Pakistan is moving away from Musharrafs 'forked-tongue' diplomacy, which involved making a huge amount of pro-US noise while doing virtually none of the things asked of him; towards a plain anti-US, pro-Islamist posture. That will make the eventual conflict much more politically palatable on Capitol Hill and in Parliament. And I do believe it is inevitable. The Pakistani government is responsible for the NWFP, the men who plot their terror ops there, and the Taleban pseudo-army whose staging areas are there. Either that or the NWFP is not part of Pakistan, and the US can get on with destroying its enemies in it. Can't have it both ways guys.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Sticking it to the Man
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10980.html
'But Johansson emphasizes that it’s not just young Hollywood coming out. “His support goes across all of America, not just with celebrity endorsements,” she said, laughing. “Trying to find McCain’s youthful core group is going to be challenging. One of the driving forces behind the Obama campaign is that all of these young people who never had a reason to vote before finally got the fire under their ass.”'
I read this whole piece to try to discover what it was about Obama that had so captivated Scarlett. 'Drawn to his candidacy largely because of her anti-war views...' Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood! What happened to you man? I remember when Hollywood was populated with red-blooded patriotic Americans fired by a desire to entertain and become world-famous millionaires living in swanky houses with odd-shaped pools. Now, Hollywood seems to be full of post-modern hippies desperate to diss fame, money, America and in particular "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Scarlett isn't against war- she's against American wars. And she's not against Presidential nominees- she's against Stupid White Men/Women nominees, fuddy-duddy Christian nominees, dumb-ass heartland bible-belt gun-totin nominees. White men in charge is just so last century. Who cares what Obama would actually do- thats also boring nerdy stuff. He would look fantastic on TV, he's an intellectual [midget], and he would never do anything as uncool as hurt any Arabs.
But just like everything else about Hollywood these days, Scarlett hasn't got the courage of her convictions “Even I’m wary of celebrity endorsements,” Johansson told Politico on Friday. “I don’t want to seem like I’m holier than thou. We all have the same right to vote and, especially in this technical age where we all can broadcast our opinions, we all have the opportunity to entice others to vote.”
Oh my God, if she qualified herself any more she'd disappear up her own fundament. Give me Joan Crawford and Mae West any day of the week.
'But Johansson emphasizes that it’s not just young Hollywood coming out. “His support goes across all of America, not just with celebrity endorsements,” she said, laughing. “Trying to find McCain’s youthful core group is going to be challenging. One of the driving forces behind the Obama campaign is that all of these young people who never had a reason to vote before finally got the fire under their ass.”'
I read this whole piece to try to discover what it was about Obama that had so captivated Scarlett. 'Drawn to his candidacy largely because of her anti-war views...' Hollywood Hollywood Hollywood! What happened to you man? I remember when Hollywood was populated with red-blooded patriotic Americans fired by a desire to entertain and become world-famous millionaires living in swanky houses with odd-shaped pools. Now, Hollywood seems to be full of post-modern hippies desperate to diss fame, money, America and in particular "Truth, Justice and the American Way". Scarlett isn't against war- she's against American wars. And she's not against Presidential nominees- she's against Stupid White Men/Women nominees, fuddy-duddy Christian nominees, dumb-ass heartland bible-belt gun-totin nominees. White men in charge is just so last century. Who cares what Obama would actually do- thats also boring nerdy stuff. He would look fantastic on TV, he's an intellectual [midget], and he would never do anything as uncool as hurt any Arabs.
But just like everything else about Hollywood these days, Scarlett hasn't got the courage of her convictions “Even I’m wary of celebrity endorsements,” Johansson told Politico on Friday. “I don’t want to seem like I’m holier than thou. We all have the same right to vote and, especially in this technical age where we all can broadcast our opinions, we all have the opportunity to entice others to vote.”
Oh my God, if she qualified herself any more she'd disappear up her own fundament. Give me Joan Crawford and Mae West any day of the week.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Canadian Kangaroo Courts and Lawfare
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-kafkaesque-show-trial-of-mark-steyn/
"Unable to refute Steyn’s statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn’s accusers condemned his “tone,” use of “sarcasm,” and reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments.” "
A split seems to be forming in Western Societies- a split between those for whom it is an article of faith that those who hate us are entirely right to do so, and who will help them destroy us and our institutions; and those who view not just the highly political Islamists/Wahhabists but all Moslems as the enemy. That is probably the least desirable outcome. When our glorious leaders launched into their response to 9/11 and the awfulnesses of the Taleban in Afghanistan, they made sure to make kissy-kissy nicey nicey with the local 'mainstream' Moslems. President Bush even made sure to visit his local mosque within a few days of 9/11, just to show they weren't the baddies.
Sadly, the evidence seems to show that most Moslems in the west at the very least agree with the Islamists main talking points, and hefty minorities will lie and cover for their co-religionists even when they are planning and performing acts of terror. Far from renouncing the terrorists, the statistics seem to show a gradual drift of 'mainstream' Moslems towards the language and world-view of the terrorists. How will this play out?
If India is any indication, badly. Moslem/Hindu relations have just got worse and worse over time. Since partition, Pakistan and India have fought five wars, and avoided war on numerous occasions when it looked likely to go 'hot'. Partition was intended to PREVENT that, but the Moslem response to being given their own homeland in the subcontinent was to launch 'jihad' from within those borders, and to commit innumerable acts of terror to get 'their' Kashmir back. Numerous plots and series of explosions against Hindu India have been committed regularly over the last sixty years by radical Moslems living in India, born and bred in India, citizens of India. Are Indian Moslems likely to stop behaving like this? The track record makes that highly unlikely.
Same with Pakistani Moslems in Britain and Canada? Highly likely. They are the same people with the same mindset and the same callow indifference to Britons and Canadians. Many observers see the Lawfare being waged by Pakistanis in Britain and Canada as a parallel front in the jihadi war. It is likely to be far more successful than the kinetic war front, as lefty morons in the 'human rights' industry are happy to hand them all the weapons they need to defeat us in our own law courts. When Britain can't deport Afghan terrorists who hijack a plane because of the utterly absurd International Convention on Human Rights we signed up to, what possible hope can we have to defeat local homegrown agitators and provocateurs who use the legal system as their theatre of combat?
As I've said before, the last time a large minority of English residents assisted foreign armies (read terrorists) against the English in our homeland- the Danes- there were anti-Danish massacres all over the country, and eventually King Aethelstan took English armies into the Danelaw and conquered them by force of arms. Do we really want a replay?
"Unable to refute Steyn’s statistics and facts, or to deny that the portions of the article they found most offensive were in fact chilling quotations made by radical Muslims themselves, Steyn’s accusers condemned his “tone,” use of “sarcasm,” and reliance upon “subtle intellectual arguments.” "
A split seems to be forming in Western Societies- a split between those for whom it is an article of faith that those who hate us are entirely right to do so, and who will help them destroy us and our institutions; and those who view not just the highly political Islamists/Wahhabists but all Moslems as the enemy. That is probably the least desirable outcome. When our glorious leaders launched into their response to 9/11 and the awfulnesses of the Taleban in Afghanistan, they made sure to make kissy-kissy nicey nicey with the local 'mainstream' Moslems. President Bush even made sure to visit his local mosque within a few days of 9/11, just to show they weren't the baddies.
Sadly, the evidence seems to show that most Moslems in the west at the very least agree with the Islamists main talking points, and hefty minorities will lie and cover for their co-religionists even when they are planning and performing acts of terror. Far from renouncing the terrorists, the statistics seem to show a gradual drift of 'mainstream' Moslems towards the language and world-view of the terrorists. How will this play out?
If India is any indication, badly. Moslem/Hindu relations have just got worse and worse over time. Since partition, Pakistan and India have fought five wars, and avoided war on numerous occasions when it looked likely to go 'hot'. Partition was intended to PREVENT that, but the Moslem response to being given their own homeland in the subcontinent was to launch 'jihad' from within those borders, and to commit innumerable acts of terror to get 'their' Kashmir back. Numerous plots and series of explosions against Hindu India have been committed regularly over the last sixty years by radical Moslems living in India, born and bred in India, citizens of India. Are Indian Moslems likely to stop behaving like this? The track record makes that highly unlikely.
Same with Pakistani Moslems in Britain and Canada? Highly likely. They are the same people with the same mindset and the same callow indifference to Britons and Canadians. Many observers see the Lawfare being waged by Pakistanis in Britain and Canada as a parallel front in the jihadi war. It is likely to be far more successful than the kinetic war front, as lefty morons in the 'human rights' industry are happy to hand them all the weapons they need to defeat us in our own law courts. When Britain can't deport Afghan terrorists who hijack a plane because of the utterly absurd International Convention on Human Rights we signed up to, what possible hope can we have to defeat local homegrown agitators and provocateurs who use the legal system as their theatre of combat?
As I've said before, the last time a large minority of English residents assisted foreign armies (read terrorists) against the English in our homeland- the Danes- there were anti-Danish massacres all over the country, and eventually King Aethelstan took English armies into the Danelaw and conquered them by force of arms. Do we really want a replay?
Monday, June 09, 2008
BBC dreams up Iraq/Iran Alliance
'The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says that, according to Iranian media reports, Ayatollah Khamenei had a blunt message for his Iraqi guest.
"The occupation forces, who have employed all their military and security power to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs, are now the main obstacle in the way of the Iraqi government and nation," he reportedly told Mr Maliki.
The comments leave the Iraqi prime minister in an awkward position, our correspondent says, torn between his alliances with the US and Iran.'
Iraq has an alliance with Iran? Or is it Mr Maliki who has an alliance with Iran? I think Jon Leyne may have been in Iran slightly too long. If we cast our minds back to the 1980's we might recall a small difference of opinion between Iran and Iraq. Might I perchance be allowed to ask on which side the Shia Arabs fought? Even the hated Saddam Hussein got the Shia to fight for him against the much more hated Persians... Mr Leyne might want to cruise through the history books again on his presumably many quiet evenings.
The day that Iraq forms an alliance with Iran will be a paradigm shift (doncha just love those pundit cliches?) for the Arab world. There is approximately no chance of it. Sorry Jon.
"The occupation forces, who have employed all their military and security power to interfere in Iraq's internal affairs, are now the main obstacle in the way of the Iraqi government and nation," he reportedly told Mr Maliki.
The comments leave the Iraqi prime minister in an awkward position, our correspondent says, torn between his alliances with the US and Iran.'
Iraq has an alliance with Iran? Or is it Mr Maliki who has an alliance with Iran? I think Jon Leyne may have been in Iran slightly too long. If we cast our minds back to the 1980's we might recall a small difference of opinion between Iran and Iraq. Might I perchance be allowed to ask on which side the Shia Arabs fought? Even the hated Saddam Hussein got the Shia to fight for him against the much more hated Persians... Mr Leyne might want to cruise through the history books again on his presumably many quiet evenings.
The day that Iraq forms an alliance with Iran will be a paradigm shift (doncha just love those pundit cliches?) for the Arab world. There is approximately no chance of it. Sorry Jon.
Khamenei focuses Iraqi minds
'Khamenei said Iraqis have to "think of a solution to free" themselves from the U.S. military. Though he did not explicitly mention the security agreement, he said Iraqis not Americans must decide the fate of their country.
"That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation," the TV quoted Khamenei as saying.'
"I mean, you don't want to end up like Germany and Japan do you?" He said with a twinkle in his eye...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060900433.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Ok, I may have added a little bit in there myself....
"That a foreign element gradually interferes in all Iraqi affairs and expands its domination on all aspects of life is the main obstacle in the way of progress and prosperity of the Iraqi nation," the TV quoted Khamenei as saying.'
"I mean, you don't want to end up like Germany and Japan do you?" He said with a twinkle in his eye...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060900433.html?hpid=moreheadlines
Ok, I may have added a little bit in there myself....
Seminal issue my arse
'Today in Malaysia, representatives from the West and the Muslim world will meet to discuss what many consider the seminal issue of global concern – the supposed “Clash of Civilizations”.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2096913/%27A-clash-of-perceptions%2C-not-civilisations%27.html
I am reminded of Henry Kissingers withering remark about Latin America. Somebody suggested to him that the US didn't take Latin America seriously enough. He replied 'Latin America is the dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica'. The Muslim world thinks that because its bloody daggers have chopped away at the Western democracies a little that they are now centre stage in world affairs. How sadly deluded. The GDP of the WHOLE Muslim world combined does not equal that of the United States. The combined forces of the Arab states couldn't defeat the Israeli Defense Forces. The combined jihadis of the whole world couldn't budge the US out of Iraq. Since toppling the World Trade Centre towers, Al Qaeda have managed exactly zero follow up attacks in the US. Despite earning enormous quantities of money from Oil, the Saudis were still paralysed with fear of Saddam Hussein- their co-religionist.
Oil is the only geo-strategic card in Islams hands- a hand which they are currently weilding with dexterity of a prop-forward. Sky-high oil prices make people want to 1) drill their own oil and 2) find something other than oil to use. Especially number two will mean Islam has no card to play at all- other than perhaps a one-off mass suicide bombing. Sure, killing innocent people all over the world has raised Islams profile- but at the cost of people really loathing it. Were it not for the 10 kid families beloved of Muslims, Islam would almost certainly be in sharp decline around the world. After all, a religion that comes across as a wacky death cult is not going to play well in countries not already smitten with the Pervy Prophet.
This author is right at least in one respect- there is no clash of civilisations, just a clash between civilisation and barbarity.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2096913/%27A-clash-of-perceptions%2C-not-civilisations%27.html
I am reminded of Henry Kissingers withering remark about Latin America. Somebody suggested to him that the US didn't take Latin America seriously enough. He replied 'Latin America is the dagger pointed at the heart of Antarctica'. The Muslim world thinks that because its bloody daggers have chopped away at the Western democracies a little that they are now centre stage in world affairs. How sadly deluded. The GDP of the WHOLE Muslim world combined does not equal that of the United States. The combined forces of the Arab states couldn't defeat the Israeli Defense Forces. The combined jihadis of the whole world couldn't budge the US out of Iraq. Since toppling the World Trade Centre towers, Al Qaeda have managed exactly zero follow up attacks in the US. Despite earning enormous quantities of money from Oil, the Saudis were still paralysed with fear of Saddam Hussein- their co-religionist.
Oil is the only geo-strategic card in Islams hands- a hand which they are currently weilding with dexterity of a prop-forward. Sky-high oil prices make people want to 1) drill their own oil and 2) find something other than oil to use. Especially number two will mean Islam has no card to play at all- other than perhaps a one-off mass suicide bombing. Sure, killing innocent people all over the world has raised Islams profile- but at the cost of people really loathing it. Were it not for the 10 kid families beloved of Muslims, Islam would almost certainly be in sharp decline around the world. After all, a religion that comes across as a wacky death cult is not going to play well in countries not already smitten with the Pervy Prophet.
This author is right at least in one respect- there is no clash of civilisations, just a clash between civilisation and barbarity.
How to piss off 360 million people in 5 minutes
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/wenn/20080609/ten-everett-attacks-british-army-wimps-i-c60bd6d.html
'Outspoken actor Rupert Everett has sparked fury from British soldiers after branding them "whining wimps" who are "pathetic" compared to recruits in the days of Victorian Britain.'
'He adds, "I'm totally off the States now. The reaction to 9/11 and then George Bush - really, they've got very blobby [whatever that is] as a nation.'
Nice one Rupe. Hope you weren't hoping to work in Hollywood again- or Britain.
'Outspoken actor Rupert Everett has sparked fury from British soldiers after branding them "whining wimps" who are "pathetic" compared to recruits in the days of Victorian Britain.'
'He adds, "I'm totally off the States now. The reaction to 9/11 and then George Bush - really, they've got very blobby [whatever that is] as a nation.'
Nice one Rupe. Hope you weren't hoping to work in Hollywood again- or Britain.
A serious piece about Zimbabwe
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jun/09/zimbabwe
'Robert Mugabe and his generals are fighting together in a deadly battle for survival that has seen thousands of Zimbabweans brutally beaten and maimed since Zanu-PF lost the March 29 general and presidential elections.
The idea that the military has usurped Mugabe's powers and are running Zimbabwe in his stead is erroneous. True, the country is being run by a military junta – but Mugabe is firmly in place as its head. This is a symbiotic relationship – with both sides giving and receiving in equal measure.'
Excellent clear-eyed summary of the situation in Zimbabwe. Possibly the first thing I've ever read on the Guardian website with which I agree 100%. Especially this-
"...Their heartless brutality is in line with the worst tradition of African dictators. The killing fields of Gukurahundi, the senseless destruction of Murambatsvina and the diabolical beatings, burnings and maimings of the past few weeks all bear their personal stamp.'
This man knows his history. Mugabe was never anything more than a murderous tinpot dictator- shame the Guardian and its hordes of witless readers gave him a pass for more than two decades- when he started being overtly nasty to gays and stopped western AIDS agencies working effectively. But then thats the left for you- until their precious hobby-horses start getting shot, they just don't care.
'Robert Mugabe and his generals are fighting together in a deadly battle for survival that has seen thousands of Zimbabweans brutally beaten and maimed since Zanu-PF lost the March 29 general and presidential elections.
The idea that the military has usurped Mugabe's powers and are running Zimbabwe in his stead is erroneous. True, the country is being run by a military junta – but Mugabe is firmly in place as its head. This is a symbiotic relationship – with both sides giving and receiving in equal measure.'
Excellent clear-eyed summary of the situation in Zimbabwe. Possibly the first thing I've ever read on the Guardian website with which I agree 100%. Especially this-
"...Their heartless brutality is in line with the worst tradition of African dictators. The killing fields of Gukurahundi, the senseless destruction of Murambatsvina and the diabolical beatings, burnings and maimings of the past few weeks all bear their personal stamp.'
This man knows his history. Mugabe was never anything more than a murderous tinpot dictator- shame the Guardian and its hordes of witless readers gave him a pass for more than two decades- when he started being overtly nasty to gays and stopped western AIDS agencies working effectively. But then thats the left for you- until their precious hobby-horses start getting shot, they just don't care.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
No Shit Sherlock
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/31/AR2008053101927.html
'The Iraqi Upturn: Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.'
When even the Washington 'la la la I can't hear you' Post admits that its all over bar the odd Al Qaeda suicide nutjob, there's nowhere left to run. Obama and all the other 'Lets Lose this One' idiots are now confronted with the awful truth that their heartfelt desire (with Policies to suit) to lose in Iraq just isn't going to happen. If you read the right papers, you could hope up until a few weeks ago that Moqtada Al-Sadr was going to squeak in at the end and screw up all the good work done by the surge.
But since Sadr City became part of Iraq again, its just impossible to imagine any realistic circumstances where the US and the legitimate government of Iraq could lose. So so many of the insurgents of all flavours lie in nameless ditches or teeny tiny bits, and there are no more willing cannon-fodderees. McCain is now in an utterly dominant position. He held firm and never listened to the morons like Obama who willed defeat, and now that victory has arrived he is standing tall (such as he can) in the winning circle with President Bush and Mr Maliki. I am becoming more and more convinced that that will carry him home in November.
'The Iraqi Upturn: Don't look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.'
When even the Washington 'la la la I can't hear you' Post admits that its all over bar the odd Al Qaeda suicide nutjob, there's nowhere left to run. Obama and all the other 'Lets Lose this One' idiots are now confronted with the awful truth that their heartfelt desire (with Policies to suit) to lose in Iraq just isn't going to happen. If you read the right papers, you could hope up until a few weeks ago that Moqtada Al-Sadr was going to squeak in at the end and screw up all the good work done by the surge.
But since Sadr City became part of Iraq again, its just impossible to imagine any realistic circumstances where the US and the legitimate government of Iraq could lose. So so many of the insurgents of all flavours lie in nameless ditches or teeny tiny bits, and there are no more willing cannon-fodderees. McCain is now in an utterly dominant position. He held firm and never listened to the morons like Obama who willed defeat, and now that victory has arrived he is standing tall (such as he can) in the winning circle with President Bush and Mr Maliki. I am becoming more and more convinced that that will carry him home in November.
Pakistan Appeasement watch
'This strategy of accelerated appeasement only empowers groups with a history of violence who are devoted to undermining Pakistan's sovereignty. In addition to creating breathing space for extremists (since it is the militants who determine when an agreement is broken), the accords allow a greater flow of recruits to the training camps and further violence. At best, the politicians are shunting the problems down the road--and these problems will be larger by the time Pakistan is forced to confront them.
The new accords are also a threat to the United States. Baitullah Mehsud has told journalists that "jihad in Afghanistan will continue" regardless of negotiations, a sentiment echoed by other Taliban leaders. As U.S. forces in Afghanistan face increased cross-border attacks, Americans at home should be concerned about the increase in the risk of another catastrophic terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission Report warned that a terrorist organization requires "time, space, and the ability to perform competent planning and staff work" in order to carry out a 9/11-like attack. Pakistan's new accords provide al Qaeda and its allies with the requisite time and space.'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/169cxzga.asp?pg=2
I wrote about this before, but this article co-authored by Bill Roggio gives the chapter and verse. Very disturbing.
The new accords are also a threat to the United States. Baitullah Mehsud has told journalists that "jihad in Afghanistan will continue" regardless of negotiations, a sentiment echoed by other Taliban leaders. As U.S. forces in Afghanistan face increased cross-border attacks, Americans at home should be concerned about the increase in the risk of another catastrophic terrorist attack. The 9/11 Commission Report warned that a terrorist organization requires "time, space, and the ability to perform competent planning and staff work" in order to carry out a 9/11-like attack. Pakistan's new accords provide al Qaeda and its allies with the requisite time and space.'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/015/169cxzga.asp?pg=2
I wrote about this before, but this article co-authored by Bill Roggio gives the chapter and verse. Very disturbing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)