Hi there, !
Today Wed 06/09/2004 Tue 06/08/2004 Mon 06/07/2004 Sun 06/06/2004 Sat 06/05/2004 Fri 06/04/2004 Thu 06/03/2004 Archives
Rantburg
533778 articles and 1862206 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 62 articles and 291 comments as of 12:13.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations                   
Barghouti handed 5 life sentences
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 2: WoT Background
0 [] 
0 [] 
3 00:00 Halfass Pete [] 
4 00:00 jackal [] 
9 00:00 .com [] 
22 00:00 Frank G [] 
0 [] 
6 00:00 Desert Blondie [1] 
1 00:00 smn [] 
5 00:00 Tom [] 
4 00:00 Anonymoose [] 
0 [] 
31 00:00 AzCat [1] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
0 []
0 []
0 []
2 00:00 Raptor [7]
8 00:00 Classical_Liberal []
1 00:00 Anonymous4617 [4]
8 00:00 Mark Espinola [6]
6 00:00 Mark Espinola [4]
2 00:00 .com [6]
1 00:00 ed [6]
0 []
2 00:00 Bomb-a-rama []
3 00:00 Anonymous4617 [6]
7 00:00 mhw [4]
2 00:00 Alaska Paul [2]
59 00:00 Ernest Brown [5]
1 00:00 smn []
0 []
0 [6]
1 00:00 Edward Yee [6]
0 []
5 00:00 .com [4]
0 []
1 00:00 Dog Bites Trolls []
6 00:00 RWV [1]
5 00:00 Bomb-a-rama [6]
10 00:00 The Doctor []
3 00:00 Shipman [1]
1 00:00 Phil B []
0 []
6 00:00 Anonymous5134 []
4 00:00 Jake [1]
1 00:00 Raptor []
15 00:00 Shamu [1]
0 [1]
0 []
1 00:00 virginian [4]
2 00:00 Anonymous5072 []
2 00:00 sakattack []
0 []
3 00:00 Shipman []
0 []
11 00:00 Pappy [2]
3 00:00 JerseyMike []
2 00:00 Dog Bites Trolls [6]
4 00:00 flash91 [5]
1 00:00 The Doctor [4]
0 []
14 00:00 GK []
Europe
France Honors D-Day Veterans
Posted by: Steve White || 06/06/2004 1:23:03 AM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  If Chirac so much as says one word on how grateful Europe is on the actions America underwent in their behalf to free them from the Germans, and Thank US for her leadership; I will throw up all the remaining soup I ate today!!
Posted by: smn || 06/06/2004 1:39 Comments || Top||

#2  In France you can get a stuffed tomatoe that is to die for. Man, I'm tell'n ya! Comfort food. May God bless them. Is there nothing they don't know.
Posted by: Lucky || 06/06/2004 2:27 Comments || Top||

#3  On this 60th anniversary of Operation Overlord, The NY Post chose to run this Guest Column:

'THE BOYS OF POINTE DU HOC'

By RONALD REAGAN


June 6, 2004 -- Excerpts from President Reagan's remarks to veterans assembled at the U.S. Ranger Monument at Pointe du Hoc, France, on D-Day's 40th anniversary.

WE stand on a lonely, windswept point on the northern shore of France. The air is soft, but 40 years ago at this moment, the air was dense with smoke and the cries of men, and the air was filled with the crack of rifle fire and the roar of cannon.


At dawn, on the morning of the 6th of June, 1944, 225 Rangers jumped off the British landing craft and ran to the bottom of these cliffs. Their mission was one of the most difficult and daring of the invasion: to climb these sheer and desolate cliffs and take out the enemy guns. The Allies had been told that some of the mightiest of these guns were here and they would be trained on the beaches to stop the Allied advance.


The Rangers looked up and saw the enemy soldiers - the edge of the cliffs shooting down at them with machine guns and throwing grenades. And the American Rangers began to climb. They shot rope ladders over the face of these cliffs and began to pull themselves up. When one Ranger fell, another would take his place. When one rope was cut, a Ranger would grab another and begin his climb again. They climbed, shot back, and held their footing.




Soon, one by one, the Rangers pulled themselves over the top, and in seizing the firm land at the top of these cliffs, they began to seize back the continent of Europe. Two hundred and twenty-five came here. After two days of fighting, only 90 could still bear arms.


Behind me is a memorial that symbolizes the Ranger daggers that were thrust into the top of these cliffs. And before me are the men who put them there. These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. These are the men who took the cliffs. These are the champions who helped free a continent. These are the heroes who helped end a war.


Gentlemen, I look at you and I think of the words of Stephen Spender's poem. You are men who in your "lives fought for life . . . and left the vivid air signed with your honor."


Forty summers have passed since [that] battle. You were young the day you took these cliffs; some of you were hardly more than boys, with the deepest joys of life before you. Yet, you risked everything here. Why? Why did you do it? What impelled you to put aside the instinct for self-preservation and risk your lives to take these cliffs? What inspired all the men of the armies that met here? We look at you, and somehow we know the answer. It was faith and belief; it was loyalty and love.


The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or on the next.


It was the deep knowledge - and pray God we have not lost it - that there is a profound, moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest. You were here to liberate, not to conquer, and so you and those others did not doubt your cause. And you were right not to doubt.


You all knew that some things are worth dying for. One's country is worth dying for, and democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man. All of you loved liberty. All of you were willing to fight tyranny, and you knew the people of your countries were behind you.


Something else helped the men of D-Day: their rock-hard belief that Providence would have a great hand in the events that would unfold here; that God was an ally in this great cause. And so, the night before the invasion, Gen. Matthew Ridgway on his cot, listening in the darkness for the promise God made to Joshua: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."


WHEN the war was over, there were lives to be rebuilt and governments to be returned to the people. There were nations to be reborn. Above all, there was a new peace to be assured. These were huge and daunting tasks. But the Allies summoned strength from the faith, belief, loyalty, and love of those who fell here. They rebuilt a new Europe together.


We in America have learned bitter lessons from two World Wars: It is better to be here ready to protect the peace than to take blind shelter across the sea, rushing to respond only after freedom is lost. We've learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.


But we try always to be prepared for peace; prepared to deter aggression; prepared to negotiate the reduction of arms; and, yes, prepared to reach out again in the spirit of reconciliation.


We are bound today by what bound us 40 years ago, the same loyalties, traditions, and beliefs. We're bound by reality. The strength of America's allies is vital to the United States, and the American security guarantee is essential to the continued freedom of Europe's democracies. We were with you then; we are with you now. Your hopes are our hopes, and your destiny is our destiny.


Here, in this place where the West held together, let us make a vow to our dead. Let us show them by our actions that we understand what they died for. Let our actions say to them the words for which Matthew Ridgway listened: "I will not fail thee nor forsake thee."


Strengthened by their courage, heartened by their [valor], and borne by their memory, let us continue to stand for the ideals for which they lived and died.


Thank you very much, and God bless you all.

http://nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/25121.htm
Posted by: doc || 06/06/2004 9:36 Comments || Top||

#4 
France Honors D-Day Veterans
As it spits on their graves every day.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 06/06/2004 11:51 Comments || Top||

#5  It is very humbling to think about how many did not come back from Normandy, and all other theaters. I was able to live my life and be successful, and to have so many blessings, whereas so many young men would not ever get that chance. So many gone. So many gone. We are all in your debt.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/06/2004 13:09 Comments || Top||

#6  Can we institute a "three strikes and you're out" rule for France? You know....the next time they get invaded, they have to learn to get their own asses out of the fire?
I mean, ok, without their help we wouldn't have become independent. But, damn, we've already liberated those idiots twice.....isn't that repayment enough?

Posted by: Desert Blondie || 06/06/2004 14:55 Comments || Top||


Eastern Europeans pay tribute to Reagan
Leaders, former dissidents and ordinary citizens across Eastern Europe expressed gratitude to Ronald Reagan for helping to end decades of "evil empire" communism and Cold War-era oppression. Most of the region threw off Communist rule in 1989, the year Reagan retired from a presidency marked by determination to loosen the grip of the Soviet Union through diplomacy and unrelenting appeals to the masses via Radio Free Europe.

As the world paused to remember the sacrifices of Allied troops 60 years ago on D-Day, leaders such as former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban reflected on Reagan’s influence in bringing democracy to those starved for it behind the Iron Curtain. "Hungary and Europe do not forget Ronald Reagan’s help and his support for the former Communist countries," Orban, said.

In 1983, Reagan stunned the world by denouncing the Kremlin as an "evil empire" whose nuclear arsenal threatened the globe. In 1987, in a speech at the Berlin Wall, he challenged Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev: "If you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization ... tear down this wall."

Throughout, the Reagan administration devoted manpower and cash to quietly expanding its contacts in East bloc countries such as Poland and Czechoslovakia. "He is the one who allowed the breakup of the Soviet Union. May God rest his soul," said Bogdan Chireac, a foreign affairs analyst for the Romanian newspaper Adevarul.

Reagan appointed a deputy secretary of state to shuttle into and out of the region. He poured millions of dollars into programming by Voice of America and Prague-based Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, using the airwaves to encourage fledgling pro-democracy movements such as Poland’s Solidarity. "During his administration, U.S. citizens at all levels and of all walks of life -- politicians, senators, journalists, academics -- systematically and repeatedly were visiting Czechoslovakia and other Communist countries, meeting the dissidents and the opposition," former Czech dissident Jiri Dienstbier said. "Their open support was very important for our safety and for our position in society," he said.

As his presidency wound down, Reagan lashed out at communism in Eastern Europe as "an artificial economic and political system, long imposed on these people against their will." Within a year, the Berlin Wall had fallen. "Mr. Reagan, along with Pope John Paul II, was one of the architects who dismantled communism in Eastern Europe and stopped the expansion of the Soviet Union," said Ivo Samson, an analyst with the Slovak Foreign Policy Association.

Said Petko Bocharov, a prominent Bulgarian journalist: "The fact that today Bulgaria is a member of NATO could happen only after the efforts of this great American president. His name will forever remain in history."

"For us, Reagan was important because we knew he was really anti-Communist, emotionally anti-Communist," said Zdenek Kosina, 65, a Czech computer specialist. "For us, he was a symbol of the United States’ genuine determination to bring communism to an end."

Laurentiu Ivan, 35, a customs officer in the Romanian capital, struggled to describe Reagan’s legacy and then said: "It is due to him that we are free."
Posted by: Dan Darling || 06/06/2004 1:02:12 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  If Chirac so much as says one word on how grateful Europe is on the actions America underwent in their behalf to free them from the Germans, and Thank US for her leadership; I will throw up all the remaining soup I ate today!!
Posted by: smn || 06/06/2004 1:37 Comments || Top||


Sotheby’s ’sold looted Holocaust masterpieces’
Sotheby’s is facing a $1.8 billion lawsuit from Holocaust survivors who claim it has recklessly trafficked in works of art stolen from Jews during the Second World War.
Posted by: Mark Espinola || 06/06/2004 12:30:10 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Fifth Column
Podesta Slanders Brokaw, Jennings and Rather
EFL
Former Clinton administration Chief of Staff John Podesta told CNSNews.com there is no liberal bias in the media. "If there is a liberal bias, I can’t find it any longer," Podesta said in an interview with CNSNews.com following the panel discussion. Podesta currently serves as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. According to Podesta, the network news anchors -- NBC’s Tom Brokaw, ABC’s Peter Jennings and CBS’s Dan Rather -- can now be considered conservatives. "Over the course of the years, they may have actually tipped a little bit to the right of center," Podesta said.
That’s outrageous. How can he expect to slander these pinkos and get away with it.
Podesta agreed with the premise of Brock’s new book that conservative media outlets are "corrupting democracy." "I think when you get so distant from the facts as guys like Limbaugh or Sean Hannity do, I think that tends to corrupt the dialogue," Podesta said. Podesta also took a jab at Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly when an audience member asked about the possibility of filing lawsuits against news outlets that "propagate direct lies." Podesta responded, "What about television? It’s time to sue Bill O’Reilly." The crowd of liberal activists showed their approval by erupting in applause.
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/06/2004 12:30:10 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  He apparently subscribes to the Goebbels school of journalism (as do Rather, Jenning, et al., and their fellow travelers): If you tell a lie big enough and often enough, people will believe it.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 06/06/2004 1:08 Comments || Top||

#2  It's like the english language has many interpretations. Just pick one.
Posted by: Lucky || 06/06/2004 1:36 Comments || Top||

#3  This story does show that the New York Times --> Network News axis no longer holds a monopoly on the information flow.

"Over the course of the years, they may have actually tipped a little bit to the right of center," Podesta said.

I suppose that depends on where the center is. To Podesta, Pravda must be a centrist news outlet.
Posted by: eLarson || 06/06/2004 10:01 Comments || Top||

#4  "There are no chickens in Liberalism."
Posted by: Anonymoose || 06/06/2004 11:53 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
16 pg. downloadable pdf. Reagan Commemorative flyer SJ Mercury News
Posted by: rex || 06/06/2004 20:14 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Kerry’s statements making Peace activist uncomfortable
EFL from CNSNews.com via WND
Researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s, believes Kerry is hiding key aspects about his anti-war past from the public as he seeks the presidency."Kerry has admitted to one meeting with Madam Binh. Now we have reason to believe there was a second [meeting], so let’s press them to admit the second [meeting]," Corsi told CNSNews.com. According to Gerald Nicosia, a Kerry supporter and the author of the book Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans’ Movement, Kerry’s second visit to Paris to meet with emissaries of the North Vietnamese communist government is documented in redacted FBI files from the era. "The [FBI] files record that Kerry made a second trip to Paris that summer (1971) to learn how the North Vietnamese might release prisoners," Nicosia wrote in an essay in the Los Angeles Times on May 23...

Kerry told the New York Times on April 24 that his first meeting with the Vietnamese communists in 1970 was "not a big deal." ’’People were dropping in (at the Paris Peace Talks). It was a regular sort of deal," Kerry explained to the New York Times. But Corsi believes it was a very big deal. "You had (Former Nixon aide) Henry Kissinger there (in Paris) trying to negotiate formally with the Paris peace delegation and then these guys (from Vietnam Veterans Against the War) are off on their own side show, establishing back channels to the Vietnamese communists; all of this is against the law," Corsi said, referring to U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, which declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power. ...

Nicosia has criticized Kerry in the past for not being more open about his anti-war past. "I am in kind of an awkward position here. I am a Kerry supporter and I certainly don’t want to do anything that hurts him. On the other hand, my number one allegiance is to truth. So I am going to go with where the facts are, and John is going to have to deal with that," Nicosia told CNSNews.com back in March when the contents of the FBI files became public and caused Kerry to revise his past statements on a series of issues dealing with his past. "I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy. I think [Kerry] may be worried or the people around him may be worried that his association with VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) is a very negative thing and they want John to back away from it," Nicosia said.
Posted by: Super Hose || 06/06/2004 12:30:10 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1 
I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy.
That pretty much sums up Kerry on any subject, doesn't it?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 06/06/2004 1:12 Comments || Top||

#2  possible response:
" I met with the north Vietnamese only once, but only before I met with them twice."
Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm || 06/06/2004 1:34 Comments || Top||

#3  possible follow up to possible response:
"I met with the North vietnamese to hopefully ease the way to the release of american prisoners, but it was not a big deal. So I went back a second time."

When this man tries to explain a position he has on anything, I fear that I may blow a synapse trying to process the contradictions.
Posted by: Dripping Sarcasm || 06/06/2004 1:54 Comments || Top||

#4  "I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy. I think [Kerry] may be worried or the people around him may be worried that his association with VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) is a very negative thing and they want John to back away from it," Nicosia said.

It's a little late, dearie. Kerry ran and slept with some masty amoral dogs, and then made a concious decision to let them define his politics.

It really isn't going to matter, not at this time nor in November, what he backs away from. Kerry has been painted a leftist by his own politics and the democrat party has demonstrated that its base, inspite of several thousands of troops in combat and 30 months after a sneak attack on our soil, they still don't believe we are at war and that we need unity; but instead they gave us an antiwar candidate for president who, I guess, is thinking of trying to hide his decades of leftist politics.
Posted by: badanov || 06/06/2004 10:47 Comments || Top||

#5  It is no wonder that Kerry is going to lay low for a few days -- he suffers in comparison to Ronald Reagan. I will hate to even see him at Reagan's state funeral. His attendance even seems disrespectful.
Posted by: Tom || 06/06/2004 21:26 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
Great Collection of WW-II Posters
Dr Rusty Shackelford at mypetjawa has a fine collection of scans of WW-II posters - with some interesting comments which update them to our current WoT. And, BTW, if you haven’t read Shackelford before, you’ll find this a great blog. Unfortunately, since he teaches at an unnamed University and the rule is "publish or perish" he’s taking the summer to generate the requisite survival material with only light blogging. In a fine parody which showcases his usual product, scroll to the top and check out his bit on John McLaughlin - so what’s in a name? Well, if you recall the McLaughlin Group, there are some good laughs...
Posted by: .com || 06/06/2004 1:25:12 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  My Grandfather managed war bond drives during WWII in a small town in SE Pennsylvania and saved all of the war era posters which were passed on to his children and grandchildren after his passing.

I've often looked at "Deliver us from evil" with the little blond girl crying with the swastika in the background and thought I should cover the swastika with the Red thingy instead , print them up and reissue.

Could we please change our terminology and refer to today's war by it's proper name - World War III? It has all the qualifications. . .
Posted by: Doc8404 || 06/06/2004 14:47 Comments || Top||

#2  including an axis of evil and France (and Spain this time) capitulating
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 15:39 Comments || Top||

#3  Yes, it is frightening to see how all the WWII posters so easily apply to today's situation. And speaking of the enemy, anyone heard today how things came out at Normandy with Presidents Bush and Chiraq? Was it the usual speeches or was Chiraq doing the Mike Wallace Dig Thing™? Inquiring minds want to know....
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 06/06/2004 15:49 Comments || Top||

#4  went swimmingly - I bet W told him about the copies of Oil-For-Palaces contracts we have...
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 16:11 Comments || Top||

#5  Thanks for the link. It's amazing how many great sites like yours I find through reverse linkage. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford || 06/06/2004 18:54 Comments || Top||

#6  DR S! And we'll miss your usual kick-ass snarkiness this summer. Thank you for what you've written - it rocks! Plz Blog when you can!
Posted by: .com || 06/06/2004 19:16 Comments || Top||

#7  Arrrggghhh - apologies for mispelling your name! *shame*
Posted by: .com || 06/06/2004 19:17 Comments || Top||

#8  I'll be blogging now and again. I just did a "Leftist Tribute to Reagan" photos essay. I'm just on light blogging mode. My site rocks? Thanks! But don't you mean "sucks"? This site...now this site rocks!
Posted by: Rusty Shackleford || 06/06/2004 20:47 Comments || Top||

#9  Dr S - That's a disturbingly large collection if dogmatic idiocy! Jealousy is the common thread, heh.
Posted by: .com || 06/06/2004 23:31 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks
Democracy Compatible With Islam: Qaradawi
Democracy is compatible with the spirit and teachings of Islam which opposes autocracy and tyranny, prominent Muslim scholar Sheikh Youssef Qaradawi averred. He repudiated claims propagated by some that democracy is incompatible with Islam or that it is an act of kufr (disbelief). "If democracy is synonymous with the rule of people, it is thus running counter to the rule of one man not the rule of God," Qaradawi told worshippers in a Doha mosque on Friday, June 4. "Islam does not accept the rule of despots."
I mean, whoever heard of an Islamic despot?
He also criticized the distorted form of democracy applied in some countries where the ruler would get 99.99% in elections. "What kind of democracy is this?" asked Qaradawi.
Stalin never had it so unanimous...
He added that Islam is not against the election system adopted by western democracies. "Islam does not prevent taking from others what could be of benefit to us. Islam wants the ruler to be liked and chosen by his people." The veteran scholar recalled that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had carried out a majority vote on one of the issues related to the Battle of Uhud. "Voting is a deeply-rooted Islamic system." Qaradawi reaffirmed in an earlier fatwa that shura [consultation] has always been good for the Muslim society, and autocracy has always been evil since the beginning of mankind history. He said that Islam should take the "good", and abandon the "bad" from western countries, giving the example of legalizing same-sex marriage in some European countries. He criticized Arab and Islamic republics where "sons inherit the presidency from their fathers," dismissing this as "Bid`ah [innovation in religion]."
Gawd forbid we should have any innovation, for good or bad...
"This is not democracy. We want a true democracy based on transparency and openness where people are free [to choose]." Qaradawi asserted that "freedom should be the first demand for Arab and Muslim peoples, before calling for the application of Shari'ah."
... which is pretty much incompatible with actual freedom.
The veteran scholar told the attentive worshippers that reform has become a "religious duty" and a necessity dictated by reality, calling on Arab and Islamic countries to take the process in their own hands. "If Arab regimes are in dire need of reform, why should we postpone it? Why wait until others ask us? We want our countries to be liberated from the shackles of despots. We want the peoples to able to say yes or no, 
 to breathe".
"We're just scared to actually do it..."
Posted by: Fred || 06/06/2004 6:36:41 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Home Front: Culture Wars
Steyn on Reagan: Dutch Courage
Caught via Tim Blair, posted without comments - they would only detract...
DUTCH COURAGE
Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004

All Saturday across the networks, media grandees who’d voted for Carter and Mondale, just like all their friends did, tried to explain the appeal of Ronald Reagan. He was “The Great Communicator”, he had a wonderful sense of humour, he had a charming smile
 self-deprecating
 the tilt of his head


All true, but not what matters. Even politics attracts its share of optimistic, likeable men, and most of them leave no trace – like Britain’s “Sunny Jim” Callaghan, a perfect example of the defeatism of western leadership in the 1970s. It was the era of “détente”, a word barely remembered now, which is just as well, as it reflects poorly on us: the Presidents and Prime Ministers of the free world had decided that the unfree world was not a prison ruled by a murderous ideology that had to be defeated but merely an alternative lifestyle that had to be accommodated. Under cover of “détente”, the Soviets gobbled up more and more real estate across the planet, from Ethiopia to Grenada. Nonetheless, it wasn’t just the usual suspects who subscribed to this grubby evasion – Helmut Schmidt, Pierre Trudeau, Francois Mitterand – but most of the so-called “conservatives”, too – Ted Heath, Giscard d’Estaing, Gerald Ford.

Unlike these men, unlike most other senior Republicans, Ronald Reagan saw Soviet Communism for what it was: a great evil. Millions of Europeans across half a continent from Poland to Bulgaria, Slovenia to Latvia live in freedom today because he acknowledged that simple truth when the rest of the political class was tying itself in knots trying to pretend otherwise. That’s what counts. He brought down the “evil empire”, and all the rest is fine print.

At the time, the charm and the smile got less credit from the intelligentsia, confirming their belief that he was a dunce who’d plunge us into Armageddon. Everything you need to know about the establishment’s view of Ronald Reagan can be found on page 624 of Dutch, Edmund Morris’ weird post-modern biography. The place is Berlin, the time June 12, 1987:

‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’ declaims Dutch, trying hard to look infuriated, but succeeding only in an expression of mild petulance ... One braces for a flash of prompt lights to either side of him: APPLAUSE.

What a rhetorical opportunity missed. He could have read Robert Frost’s poem on the subject, ‘Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,’ to simple and shattering effect. Or even Edna St. Vincent Millay’s lines, which he surely holds in memory

Only now for the first time I see
This wall is actually a wall, a thing
Come up between us, shutting me away
From you ... I do not know you any more.
Poor old Morris, the plodding, conventional, scholarly writer driven mad by 14 years spent trying to get a grip on Ronald Reagan. Most world leaders would have taken his advice: You’re at the Berlin Wall, so you have to say something about it, something profound but oblique, maybe there’s a poem on the subject ... Who cares if Frost’s is over-quoted, and a tad hard to follow for a crowd of foreigners? Who cares that it is, in fact, pro-wall - a poem in praise of walls?

Edmund Morris has described his subject as an “airhead” and concluded that it’s “like dropping a pebble in a well and hearing no splash.” Morris may not have heard the splash, but he’s still all wet: The elites were stupid about Reagan in a way that only clever people can be. Take that cheap crack: If you drop a pebble in a well and you don’t hear a splash, it may be because the well is dry but it’s just as likely it’s because the well is of surprising depth. I went out to my own well and dropped a pebble: I heard no splash, yet the well supplies exquisite translucent water to my home.

But then I suspect it’s a long while since Morris dropped an actual pebble in an actual well: As with walls, his taste runs instinctively to the metaphorical. Reagan looked at the Berlin Wall and saw not a poem-quoting opportunity but prison bars.

I once discussed Irving Berlin, composer of “God Bless America”, with his friend and fellow songwriter Jule Styne, and Jule put it best: “It’s easy to be clever. But the really clever thing is to be simple.” At the Berlin Wall that day, it would have been easy to be clever, as all those ’70s detente sophisticates would have been. And who would have remembered a word they said? Like Irving Berlin with “God Bless America”, only Reagan could have stood there and declared without embarrassment:

Tear down this wall!

- and two years later the wall was, indeed, torn down. Ronald Reagan was straightforward and true and said it for everybody - which is why his “rhetorical opportunity missed” is remembered by millions of grateful Eastern Europeans. The really clever thing is to have the confidence to say it in four monosyllables.

Reagan was an American archetype, and just the bare bones of his curriculum vitae capture the possibilities of his country: in the Twenties, a lifeguard at a local swimming hole who saved over 70 lives; in the Thirties, a radio sports announcer; in the Forties, a Warner Brothers leading man ...and finally one of the two most significant presidents of the American century. Unusually for the commander in chief, Reagan’s was a full, varied American life, of which the presidency was the mere culmination.

“The Great Communicator” was effective because what he was communicating was self-evident to all but our dessicated elites: “We are a nation that has a government - not the other way around.” And at the end of a grim, grey decade - Vietnam, Watergate, energy crises, Iranian hostages – Americans decided they wanted a President who looked like the nation, not like its failed government. Thanks to his clarity, around the world, governments that had nations have been replaced by nations that have governments. Most of the Warsaw Pact countries are now members of Nato, with free markets and freely elected parliaments.

One man who understood was Yakob Ravin, a Ukrainian émigré who in the summer of 1997 happened to be strolling with his grandson in Armand Hammer Park near Reagan’s California home. They happened to see the former President, out taking a walk. Mr Ravin went over and asked if he could take a picture of the boy and the President. When they got back home to Ohio, it appeared in the local newspaper, The Toledo Blade.

Ronald Reagan was three years into the decade-long twilight of his illness, and unable to recognize most of his colleagues from the Washington days. But Mr Ravin wanted to express his appreciation. “Mr President,” he said, “thank you for everything you did for the Jewish people, for Soviet people, to destroy the Communist empire.”

And somewhere deep within there was a flicker of recognition. “Yes,” said the old man, “that is my job.”

Yes, that was his job.
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 4:25:01 PM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980. As small as my contribution was, I am honored to have participated in the Reagan Revolution.

God bless you, Mr. President. I will miss you.

--TROYDAWG
Posted by: troydawg || 06/06/2004 17:31 Comments || Top||

#2  D'oh! Just realized I didn't put it in page 2 as I should've, thks Fred
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 18:38 Comments || Top||

#3  I came of age,(politically), during the carter years. I was ashamed of him. jimmy carter was the most pussy motherfucker to ever come from the South. I still HATE that son-of-a-bitch, and I always will. carter is a goddamn commie.

Ronald Reagan is number 2 only to George Washington, when it comes to our GREATEST Presidents. George W, is number 3.
Posted by: Halfass Pete || 06/07/2004 0:07 Comments || Top||


another look at the enemy within
From Democratic Underground...
mopaul (1000+ posts) Sat Jun-05-04 05:36 PM
Original message
I've waited for this day for 24 long years, now i'm celebrating

Edited on Sat Jun-05-04 05:37 PM by mopaul
i don't care what killed him, alzhiemers or the black plague, i'm glad he's dead and i don't care how many times i'm scolded or chastised for it. the day he took office was the most depressing day of my life, and i swore, that on the day he died, i'd drink a toast of celebration and figuratively piss on his grave and have said so to several gingrich sucking reagan worshipping dickheads.

fuck ronald reagan, and i hope in some small way my fuck you counteracts all the bullshit we are going to be hammered with for a fucking month after the fall of this 'greeeeeaaaaaat human being'.

fuck you ronnie, here's to ya pal. see ya in hell
Some people have souls so small as to be indistinguishable to the naked eye.
Posted by: Anonymous || 06/06/2004 14:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  From Dicksucker Underground, huh?
Posted by: Halfass Pete || 06/06/2004 14:35 Comments || Top||

#2  Why do complete idiots have trouble finding the shift key? Mopaul---you are NOT e. e. cummings.
Posted by: Desert Blondie || 06/06/2004 15:33 Comments || Top||

#3  1000+ postings, huh? Venom like that must be reeeaallly popular among Dumbfuck Underground. I'm against abortion, but in Mopaul's parents case I'dve made an exception
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 15:37 Comments || Top||

#4  Oh, they are just mad because he is the one that destroyed their idol: the USSR.
Posted by: jackal || 06/06/2004 15:56 Comments || Top||


Ronald Reagan: An Epitaph
From his final address as President
I won a nickname: the great communicator. But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference. It was the content, my friends, we did it. We weren’t just marking time, we made a difference. We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. All in all, not bad, not bad at all. And so, goodbye, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America.
There you have it: the Gold Standard for Presidents to live up to.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 3:03:00 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Figured we ought to have a thread to continue our tribute and memories to a man who was certainly the greatest President of the last half of the 20th century, and in the top of the all-time list. He changed the nation and the world.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 3:05 Comments || Top||

#2  May want to move this to page 2 - sorry Fred, I misplaced it.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 3:05 Comments || Top||

#3  Now it's time to add his visage here.

Let's put Ron on the Rock!
Posted by: The Kid || 06/06/2004 8:38 Comments || Top||

#4  The Brothers Judd have a really nice collection of links and obituaries.
Posted by: Mike || 06/06/2004 9:06 Comments || Top||

#5  The Reagan Library online Condolence Book is here. Feel free to click on the link and add your messages.
Posted by: Mike || 06/06/2004 9:22 Comments || Top||

#6  The top five (in order of service):

Washington
Jefferson
Lincoln
F Roosevelt
Reagan

Posted by: Jake || 06/06/2004 11:01 Comments || Top||

#7  There are folks talkin nice about Reagan now who didn't talk so nice about him twenty years ago. In fact, some folks squawked at every policy, every speech, every decision Reagan made. They squawked about him bein just an actor and not sophisticated enough to understand the complex issues of the Cold War, or of economics, or of social issues. Does that sound famliar? If you are under 40 you may not remember that, but you can get an understanding about what it's like by watching the news today. It is familair because they same folks are doin it again, this time to Bush. Its the so-called intellectuals, much of the mainstream media, the Democrats. Some of the faces have changed, but its the same folks.

And Jake, I agree with your top five - just wish there was room for TR.
Posted by: Hank || 06/06/2004 11:20 Comments || Top||

#8  Reagan believed the Soviet Union was an evil empire. He believed that the priciples of democracy, individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free enterprise were better ideas and would prevail over the emptyness of communinism. He set about to win the battle of ideas of the Cold War. While he was doing this, the (as Hank terms them) "so-called intellectuals" and the Democrats attacked him ferociously and unendingly. They may have grown to like him personally, but they hated what he stood for - they hated his ideas.

Today, Bush sees the al Qaeda type terroists, totalitarian Islamist states and deranged dictators like Saddam, or Jung il to be evil itself. Bush believes that the priciples of democracy, individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free enterprise were better ideas and would prevail over such evil. He has set about to defeat these evil forces by winning the battle of ideas, and taking the fight to them where appropriate. And history repeats itself. The same people attack. Bush is too stupid to understand the sophisticated issues. He is a cowboy. He is too simplistic. He is the greater danger. His policies are immoral. We heard all the same things twenty years ago.

Much to the frustration of 24 hour news coverage, history plays out at its own pace. If we could fast forward twenty years, we could participate in the argument over who you have to bump out of the top five to make room for Bush 43.

Jake, I too agree with your top five - at least for now.
Posted by: Sam || 06/06/2004 11:46 Comments || Top||

#9  A man for all seasons.
Posted by: virginian || 06/06/2004 12:50 Comments || Top||

#10  "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on the shoulders of giants." scientist Sir Isaac Newton

And pretty much George W. Bush as well.

Not to disrespect our current president, but viewing the videos, courage, quips, quotes and speeches of Reagan, the man was a political giant. Bush, in terms of integrity and moral vision, is right there. But he comes nowhere near close in terms of communicating his vision, coherently and concisely - perhaps Bush should take a page from Reagan - go over the heads of the press and Congress and talk directly to the US public. And don't get me started on the moral midget Kerry. Were Soros (et al) and the press not keeping him afloat and keeping him from being swept downstream by his own words and misdeeds, he'd be drowing at the bottom of the waterfall of public scorn by now.

Comparing any of our presidents since Roosevelt to Reagan (And before FDR, going back to Lincoln), for better or worse: They all fall short of restoring the American Character and changing the world the way Reagan did.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 12:51 Comments || Top||

#11  Bush cannot communicate like Reagan, you're right. No one ever did or ever will call Bush the great communicator. You give him credit for integrity and moral vision and you are right. But he also has the courage and conviction to take bold steps in support of his ideas, and there aren't many who do. He, like Reagan will be on a short list when history ranks the presidents.

The actual ranking of the presidents is controversial. Is Reagan higher than Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson? I put Jefferson at the top. He articulated the unique vision for this country, and all others have followed.
Posted by: Sam || 06/06/2004 13:21 Comments || Top||

#12  The top five presidents are:

Washington
Lincoln
F Roosevelt
Kennedy
Clinton
Posted by: Jennifer || 06/06/2004 15:04 Comments || Top||

#13  Jennifer,
You left out Carter.
Posted by: ed || 06/06/2004 15:14 Comments || Top||

#14  Jennifer:

"We made the city stronger, we made the city freer, and we left her in good hands. "

Of all those, Clinton only did the last. He left America weaker (squandering our military strength in Bosnia and cruise missle strikes), and less free (vulnerable to attacks as 9/11 demonstrated, and don't forget Waco).

Stop dragging a man who is remembered for equivocation (it all depends on what the definition of "is" is), and deception ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman") into this discussion about a man who had character morals and honor. Compare the words: your guy comes nowhere near "Mr Gorbachev, Tear Down This Wall".

He called the Evil Empire what it was, and freed Europe from the threat of militant Communism.

You dishonor yourself with such specious crap.

And as for Kennedy he was not in there long enough. Other then the botched Bay of Pigs, and the Cuban Missle Crisis, and cutting taxes, what did he do?

- why do you not support his words? Reagan did.

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

"A rising tide lifts all ships".

"We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed."

"All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin."

Reagan and Kennedy both lived by those words. Why do you and your little leftist friends abandon them? You demand abject surrender in the face of the moral evils of Islamic Fundamentalism and terrorism, you demand instant results instead of waiting for the long grind that is required for true change, you cower behind your betters who bear the burdens of freedom while at the same time you call them monsters and warmongers.

No wonder you hate Reagan - his mere existence and success show how small you and your kind are.

If you were smart, you should just refrain and shrink away - the depths to which you have sunk are even more apparent in the light of the heights of the life of a true giant, Ronald Reagan.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 15:38 Comments || Top||

#15  I'm too young to remember much of what Reagan did, having only been in kindergarten when Bush, Sr. was elected, but he's always had my admiration. He was who we needed at a critical moment in history, just like we needed a man like Bush to stand up against the Islamonazis after 9/11. And it's been remarked in a few places that what was said about Reagan in his day is very similar to what's being said about Bush today - but the media today is so much more easily accessible that it just seems like "popular opinion" or some crap like that, stuff that hasn't been said before (love how history repeats itself, don't you?).

My favorite Reagan story - one that I haven't been able to verify, maybe one of you other RBers can - is the one where he was joking with the cameraman before a speech, and neither realized it was actually broadcasting. Reagan became serious, looked right into the lens, and announced something along the lines of, "My fellow Americans, I am here tonight to inform you that the Congress has just outlawed Russia. Bombing shall commence in ten minutes."

Posted by: The Doctor || 06/06/2004 15:53 Comments || Top||

#16  Doc: Its true. And the press and liberals HOWLED for days, calling him a warmonger, etc.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 15:59 Comments || Top||

#17  To the Doctor:

Actually, that was a sound test. Generally, they make jokes and say silly things. It helps the speaker relax a little and let off a little anxiety before a speech. Because of this, it is a rule that sound tests are NEVER broadcast. Except this one.
Posted by: jackal || 06/06/2004 16:00 Comments || Top||

#18  The Reagan bit was mistakenly broadcast by radio. He gave them only five minutes.

The beautiful people went nuts.

Posted by: Jake || 06/06/2004 16:01 Comments || Top||

#19  Glad to see the Pope chime in. We had him on our prayer list of those who passed in Mass today.
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/06/2004 16:24 Comments || Top||

#20  Jennifer, you're probably too young to remember Kennedy. I'm not. He had style but not much in the way of substance. His presidency was saved from mediocrity by his assassination. By being cut short, the image of Camelot remained and Lyndon Johnson was stuck cleaning up the mess. Reagan left the country better than he found it.
Posted by: Random thoughts || 06/06/2004 17:18 Comments || Top||

#21  I was a victim of cumalot some years later. I sure wish we'd been in a Volkswagen I'd be alive today.
Posted by: MJ K || 06/06/2004 18:28 Comments || Top||

#22  thanks MaryJo - a little too subtle there :-)
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 18:34 Comments || Top||


Africa: Subsaharan
Independents Win Landmark Vote in Mali
Posted by: Steve White || 06/06/2004 1:31:28 AM || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Home Front: Culture Wars
Ex Muslim salutes Reagan warns against another evil empire
EFL - the end of this salute discusses the new evil empire...I thought that part to be significant
Reagan Died Today, May His Torch Shine Forever.
By Ali Sina
Islam is another Empire of Evil. It is threatening mankind and this time billions could perish. Why no one is speaking out? Where are the Reagans, where are those honest politicians, who can stand in front of the world and declare Islam is an evil cult?

When Ronald Reagan called communism the Evil Empire, he spoke from his heart. He did not speak out of hate but out of compassion and love. His sincerity oozed from his words.

That great man died today, but let his torch shine. Let someone else take his torch and hold it high. Do not expect your president to call Islam an evil empire. That won’t happen. But you and I can carry that torch. We can be honest with ourselves and with others and call upon the Muslims to bring that wall down. Do not be a protector of Muslims sensibilities, do not be an appeaser lest you hurt their feelings. Be truthful to yourself and to them. Islam is not a religion of God but an evil cult. Do not be afraid of saying so. Save the Muslims’ lives not their sensibilities.

We are facing a great war. A war that we can’t even fight without stepping on our own values and everything we cherish and stand for, including our own humanity. Today more than anytime in the history of mankind nothing but “truth can set us free”. And truth is often politically incorrect. Political correctness means lying when telling the truth is not expedient.

Long live the legacy of Ronald Reagan – the man who did not fear telling the truth.
Posted by: mhw || 06/06/2004 12:23:23 AM || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Okay, I'll bite. This guy isn't an islamic convert. It's Lucky!

Fatwa on you Lucky. Your dead meat!
Posted by: Lucky || 06/06/2004 1:05 Comments || Top||

#2  Lucky, he is a convert FROM islam, what is also called an apostate.

Thus spake Zarathushtra.
Posted by: Zarathustra || 06/06/2004 1:57 Comments || Top||

#3  Well okay El Zar. But what he says, the sanity, makes me think my mind was melded.

Calling a spade a spade and all.

Zarathustra; smooth, I like it bro. Kick ass and take names.
Posted by: Lucky || 06/06/2004 2:08 Comments || Top||

#4  "Calling a spade a spade and all."

You mean, it is so unheard of, nowadays, that your head spins? :-)

Maybe because I am from a different place where spades were called officially rakes, yet people called them spades and the deconstructionsts were called 'posrani komousi' (f**king commies), I would expect that calling things their right name would not be a big deal in the land of free. Boy! Atta surprise! The commies I was running from were firmly planted and thriving in dark crevices of minds right smack here in NA.

As if that were not enough, now another surprise--jihadi mohammedans found their natural allies and tools on the far left. What is it with people that they flock to any totalitarian zapper? Are they so empty moraly and mentally that what is a piece of scat they blindly think it is light shining brightly towards which they hurdle themselves? ZZZZZZZZ..ZAP!

As if the ability to perceive reality and coherently and logically make sense of it is replaced by lazy talking points that reflect the hall of mirrors.

Perhaps if people had a direct experience, their sheltered view of world would shatter and they would be forced to stare in the face of naked truth.

Fatwa on Ali Sina has been pronounced a long time ago. Perhaps because of that, he can speak his mind ... What, would they issue another, super-uber-fatwa, that would make him more dead, if it comes to pass? He has nothing to lose.

Thus spake Zarathustra
Posted by: Zarathustra || 06/06/2004 5:40 Comments || Top||

#5  give me a f-ing break. Islam is not an evil cult. It is a religion. It's not as positive of a force in the world as is Christianity, but Islam has given strength to billions of nice little old men and women for thousands of years.

Is it backwards? yes! But remember that it wasn't that long ago that Christians considered women property of their husbands, didn't allow them to vote and they had to cover their ankles as evil men killed in Christ's name.

Our president won't say it's an "evil cult" because he's not stupid. AQ is to Islam what the Christian Identity movement is to Christianity - a perversion of Islam. It is not Islam.
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 7:42 Comments || Top||

#6  oh...and don't bother to say that the Koran says to kill non-believers. I already know that. It changes nothing of what I said above.
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 7:47 Comments || Top||

#7  B, while people here often simplify, not least because in an RB comment there isn't the space or time to include all the qualifiers. None-the-less its useful to speak in generalities and to say Islam is a cult is generally true if you define a cult as being exclusionary and violently hostile to the excluded.

And by the way there is an implied premise in your statements that 'religions' are (largely) benign which I would vigorously dispute. It is a phenomena largely restricted to christianity in modern times, although I don't find budhism or hinduism threatening and would include them in the mostly benign category.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/06/2004 7:58 Comments || Top||

#8  well...the next time someone really special to you crosses over that line into the nether world...let's talk and see how you feel.

Religion is how we explain what it is we don't understand about the spiritual world. It exists - we just don't understand it. All the religions do their best to give us a clue - none succeed. Islam may not be as good as Christianity in terms of faith, hope and charity, but they give it a shot.

I agree with your comment about the equalifiers. Let's just not throw the baby out with the bathwater by slandering billions of good people in the name of an evil few.
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 8:25 Comments || Top||

#9  oops.."qualifers"
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 8:26 Comments || Top||

#10  B
One of the points that Ali Sina and other apostates from Islam make is that Islam has made millions of people victims and most of the victims are Moslems. The victims of honor killings, and people beaten for not attending prayers and the women mutilated, and
Posted by: mhw || 06/06/2004 8:59 Comments || Top||

#11  Let's ... slandering billions of good people in the name of an evil few. So your argument is based on numbers. So what percentage of muslims holding sufficiently hostile views to those of us who let's say make the modern world work, is required to classify Islam as a cult to be eradicated?

And BTW I have considerable first hand experience of muslims. Individually they are mostly very nice people. Collectively they are a complete disaster.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/06/2004 9:32 Comments || Top||

#12  mhw - ok.... no disagreement. I say in the competition of religions...Islam was given the short end of the stick. But let's face it, to a certain degree, we get what we are born with. I wouldn't want to be born an eskimo, dirt poor or in a cardboard hut in Mexico - but none of those things would have made me "evil", just less fortunate than having been born in the USA. A mud hut is better than no shelter at all and Islam provides some shelter from life's storms.

Islam, (not militant Islam as practiced by AQ)is not an "evil cult" in the same way that the soviet empire was an "evil empire". Nobody EVER gained strength over a dead loved one by consulting the words of Lenin and Marx. Yet billions..yes billions...find strength from the hardships of this world from the clerics in their mosques. Personally - I think they'd be better off to follow the teachings of Christ, but that doesn't mean that Islam "evil".

No, I'm not basing it on numbers, and don't make me defend Islam, I have no desire to do so. I agree that it fails its followers in many ways.

If you want to call the current strain of Saudi funded Wahhabi Islam an "evil cult" or a "death cult" be my guest. But it is perversion of Islam in the same way that Christian Identity is a perversion of Christianity.
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 10:39 Comments || Top||

#13  Phil - I misread your comment the first time you said that... 'religions' are (largely) benign which I would vigorously dispute. It is a phenomena largely restricted to christianity in modern times, although I don't find budhism or hinduism threatening and would include them in the mostly benign category.

I agree. But I still thinnk it goes too far to describe Islam as practiced by most Moslems, an "evil cult".
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 11:16 Comments || Top||

#14  How about:
Islam - The Collectively-Pretty-Near-Almost-Mebbe-Not-Quite-Evil Quasi-You-Can-Never-Leave-It-Cuz-We'll-Death-Fatwa-Yer-Ass-Semi-Cult which has had some really really bad days... repeatedly for 1400 years, give or take.
Posted by: .com || 06/06/2004 12:25 Comments || Top||

#15  I say in the competition of religions...Islam was given the short end of the stick.

Islam started with the same stick that everyone else started with but it managed to whittle it down until there was nothing left. The abject failure of societies where Islam is practiced (said failure normally directly proportional to the fervor with which it is practiced) is because of the maze of rules within which Muslims must live to stay within the bounds of their religion not in spite of them.

Almost every major conflict in the world today involves Muslims killing their neighbors. To me that's a fairly clear indication of a problem. To dismiss it out of hand or to claim it is extremely limited in scope is naive in the extreme as is the idea that Islam itself isn't the problem because each and every Muslim (or many of them or even most of them) won't pick up a gun and actively participate in the ongoing slaughter carried out by their brethren in the name of their religion. Sympathizers and those who tacitly approve are also living in the enemy camp and if polls are correct they may comprise the majority of the populations of many Muslim nations.

Similarly it's unhelpful to claim that because Christianity in antiquity was saddled with SOME of the same beliefs of today's Islam that the two are somehow morally equivalent. Ther's the obvious difference in centuries of moderation of Christian thought versus Islam's being frozen in time since the 7th century. But there's also the fact that ancient Christians didn't fly airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of innocent persons in the span of a few minutes or seek to possess nuclear weapons to use in their religious conflicts. If we still lived in an era where war implied men on horses with swords, such moral equivalences might be relevant but in an age where tens or hundreds of thousands of people can be killed in seconds my modern weaponry, such excuses ring hollow.

For Islam to remove itself from the list of "evil ideologies that must be destroyed" it's going to have to undergo serious reform. The highly destructive nature of the weapons Muslim terrorists will undoubtedly acquire in the next few years sets the time frame for that reformation. Muslims don't have centuries or even decades to debate and discuss change, they have, at best, a few years. The first time an Islamist terrorist attack is accompanied by a discussion of its effective yield in kilotons, their window for peaceful internal change will have closed. I keep hoping they'll realize this but it appears that most of the Muslim world is headed in a direction opposite reform.
Posted by: AzCat || 06/06/2004 12:38 Comments || Top||

#16  The following comment by Sam today to the "Ronald Reagan: An Epitaph" post has it right:

"#8 Reagan believed the Soviet Union was an evil empire. He believed that the principles of democracy, individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free enterprise were better ideas and would prevail over the emptiness of communism. He set about to win the battle of ideas of the Cold War. While he was doing this, the (as Hank terms them) "so-called intellectuals" and the Democrats attacked him ferociously and unendingly. They may have grown to like him personally, but they hated what he stood for - they hated his ideas.

Today, Bush sees the al Qaeda type terrorists, totalitarian Islamist states and deranged dictators like Saddam, or Jung il to be evil itself. Bush believes that the principles of democracy, individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, free enterprise were better ideas and would prevail over such evil. He has set about to defeat these evil forces by winning the battle of ideas, and taking the fight to them where appropriate. And history repeats itself. The same people attack. Bush is too stupid to understand the sophisticated issues. He is a cowboy. He is too simplistic. He is the greater danger. His policies are immoral. We heard all the same things twenty years ago.

Much to the frustration of 24 hour news coverage, history plays out at its own pace. If we could fast forward twenty years, we could participate in the argument over who you have to bump out of the top five to make room for Bush 43.

Jake, I too agree with your top five - at least for now.

Posted by: Sam 2004-06-06 11:46:35 AM"
Posted by: Rock || 06/06/2004 13:01 Comments || Top||

#17  Sam illustrates the distinction drawn by Bush. Islam itself isn't the "evil", it is the "al Qaeda type terrorists, totalitarian Islamist states and deranged dictators."

The distiction is appropriate, and so the comparison about how the "so-called intellectuals and Democrats" reacted to both reagan and Bush.
Posted by: Jake || 06/06/2004 13:07 Comments || Top||

#18  B.

You haven't read the Koran. It is nothing more than ba gangster's code of honor: everything is allowed against non-muslims just like everything is allowed against people non-memebers of the gang: murder, rape, poisoning, stealing, cheating evrything is valid agaisnt non-muslims. And a sense of superiority and having all rights toward non-Muslims who is very akin to the sense of superiority and having all rights
that an SS officer felt toward untermenschen.

There are good men between Muslims, people who haven't read the Koran or who cling to the benevolent parts of it (but NEVER forget that Muslims believe those parts are superceeded by the bellicose and supremacist parts written nin Medina) just like they were good people between those who had voted for the Nazi party in 1932, people who hadn't read Mein Kampf and hadn't understood what poisonous seeds were planted in it. But Islam, the religion, like Nazism, the ideology, is thoroughly evil at heart.
Posted by: JFM || 06/06/2004 13:31 Comments || Top||

#19  Seems to me it's the mentality of those who strap bombs to their kids and blow up buildings and trains. Theys a relative few - and it ain't the billion and a half Muslics. If you want, compare the Nazis to the al Qaeda types - but not the German people to the al Qaedas.
Posted by: Hank || 06/06/2004 13:46 Comments || Top||

#20  ok...ok....I acknowledge much of the above. But here is what I think...

Satanism is an evil cult
KKK is an evil cult
Al Q is an evil cult


Despite the texts, there are many good people practicing Islam (not militant Islam) in a good way. I don't know ...maybe it is fair.......but I think it is unhelpful to call Islam, as practiced by many good people, an "evil cult". JMHO.
Posted by: B || 06/06/2004 14:14 Comments || Top||

#21  You're right as far as you go Hank: al Qaeda is to Muslims as Nazis were to Germans circa WW II. But to defeat the Nazis, we had to fight Germans until both the Nazis and German people capitulated. Wars aren't won by targeting only the overt organized resistance.

Don't forget that many many Germans, while not members of the National Socialist Party, were sympathetic to Hitler because (at least before and during the early stages of the war) he was viewed as having lifted Germany out of the post-WW I economic and political funk. Had we merely taken out Hitler and his top brass along with what uniformed and organized resistance we could find then quickly (or even slowly) withdrawn and left the remainder of the German people to their own devices, the Nazi movement would have quickly reconstituted itself because it was widely viewed as a success that had gone somewhat wrong. Similarly, if we target al Qaeda's top leaders and leave Islam to fester, we'll be dealing with Islamist terrorists forever because new networks will spring up as fast as we can root them out. It's the ideology that must be uprooted, thoroughly discredited and left on the scrap heap of history if we truly want peace.
Posted by: AzCat || 06/06/2004 14:18 Comments || Top||

#22  Evil smeezeal, Whatever! I still think it's a geo-political ideal that is hostile to western culture. To what degree one stands with that hostile ideal be it AQ, wahabbi, suffi whatever doesn't sheild you from the consequences caused by that.

If your rooting for your team, even if you don't like the coach, your a potential target of the other team. Muslims are having their eyes opened right now in Iraq (the rape of Falluja)about some aspects of Islam. And may this be humbly considered as a 38th reason on DaveDs' list. That being the "up close and personal" of militant islamazoids as it interacts with those they supervise.

A little chunky Mr D. Maybe you could consider it and clean it up a little.
Posted by: Lucky || 06/06/2004 14:47 Comments || Top||

#23  AzCat, you would be right except you are looking past one very important element. The West did not confront the Nazis until the Nazis were the state. They controled Germany, became entrenched, and through western appeasement they became powerful. Then we had to make war on all of Germany, even though one cannot say that all Germans were guilty of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in their name.

The al Qaedaists are not there yet. They want to get there, and they like to characterize the struggle as the infidels vs Islam. We are foolish to let them characterize the conflict. They exaggerate their power, and if we buy into it, they are stregthened in the process. What Old Europe and the Dems do not understand is that failure to confront the ideas now while they are still a relative few, will only mean a struggle later on that is more akin to the war against Nazi Germany.

Hank, as usual, you have it right.
Posted by: Jake || 06/06/2004 14:52 Comments || Top||

#24  .com I'ma working on a roll off the tongue for this one.
CPNAMNQEQTCNLICWDFYASC

I have several languishing 286 16 I'll put on the task.
Posted by: Shipman || 06/06/2004 18:33 Comments || Top||

#25  B and others

Well there certainly are many decent Moslems. I'm not sure if Islam made them decent or if they are decent despite Islam. If I was doing a thesis, I would probably do a typology of Islam where, say,

Type 1 Moslems - non violent Sufis, Ahmayadiis,

Type 2 Moslems - non violent secular Moslems who just want to be left alone

Type 3 Moslems - non violent Moslems who think Moslems who are secular, mystical, Ahmadyadii, etc. should be 'made' to see the light but claim that Islam is a religion of peace and that the Type 5&6 Moslems are wrong but are afraid to do anything or say anything that would combat the Type 5&6 Moslems

Type 4 Moslems - violence sympathizing Moslems who don't do violence themselves but find reasons to justify it in others

Type 5 Moslems who don't do violence themselves but finance it or assist in the logistics

Type 6 Moslems - fly planes into buildings or willing to do so but waiting an opportunity etc.

My estimates:

Type 1 5-25%
Type 2 20=30%
Type 3 30-40%
Type 4 5-15%
Type 5 5-10%
Type 6 0.1 to 3%

The problem is that the type 6 Moslems, aided by the Type 5 Moslems and justified by the type 4 moslems could end civilization. Furthermore, because the type 4 moslems are numerous, the type 6 moslems can hide amongst them.

Posted by: mhw || 06/06/2004 18:47 Comments || Top||

#26  Furthermore, because the type 4 moslems are numerous, the type 6 moslems can hide amongst them.

Not if the type 4's actively ferret them out to save their own asses
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 18:55 Comments || Top||

#27  Well Frank G, I think in the Magic Kingdom today we see a situation where the type 6s, even though very small in number (actually even amongst Soddies there are a substantial number of apostates who would love to declare themselves so but for the fact they would be killed), have hid quite well. This even though the govt is trying everything it can think of to put pressure on the type 4s and 5s.
Posted by: mhw || 06/06/2004 19:06 Comments || Top||

#28  Ship - Lol! Is that the acronym? Methinks a bank o' Crays won't be enough to make that puppy sing!

mhw - A small post-list note to add to your list, if I may be so bold: When faced by a #6 with demands, all of the others will cave in and do WTF they're told.
Posted by: .com || 06/06/2004 19:12 Comments || Top||

#29  MHW and other, you are coming at this from a Western Individualist view point. And think you can solve it by dealing with the 'problem' individuals. It is the wrong way to look at it. The problem is systemic in Islam, which has taken the concept of tribal allegiance and incorporated it into a prosletyzing religion.

Killing the violent ones doesn't solve the problem, it merely disrupts the process for a while. In order to solve the problem you have to do one of the following.

1. Reform Islam - don't know if this possible or how long it would take

2. Kill all the muslims or at least enough to convince the rest that being a muslim is maybe not such a good idea

3. Convert all the muslims

4. Geographically isolate them and allow them to live however they like. Requires that borders are stringently policed and no one is allowed to leave unless they renounce Islam. Also requires clearing muslims out the rest of the world.
Posted by: Phil B || 06/06/2004 20:23 Comments || Top||

#30  I'm thinking a clerical clearance sale!
Posted by: Frank G || 06/06/2004 20:29 Comments || Top||

#31  LOL Jake - I guess I have it right then. What would you call Afghanistan before the US-led invasion if not a state sponsor of Islamist terrorism? Ditto to greater or lesser degrees Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Egypt, .... To a greater or lesser degree the Islamists or those who support and condone their actions contol (or controlled) these nations or large portions thereof. They're entrenched, they're spreading their hatred of everything they view as un-Islamic, they're seeking weapons of ever-greater power to use against the Infidels. If not now when the threat has already been laid bare, when would you have us confront them?

You say the Islamists exaggerate their power but if you'd told me on 9/10/01 that the next morning we'd be attacked in New York City by Islamists who'd kill thousands of Americans and bring down the World Trade Center while losing less than two dozen of their own, I'd have made a run at having you committed. Yet they did it and in doing so they demonstrated a greater ability to apply force within the continental United States than did Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan during WW II, or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. You can believe they got lucky if you wish, I believe we'll soon be forced to believe otherwise.

This enemy is fundamentally different than any that's come before because it is rooted in a religion that believes that its god has assured victory. Thus there is little requirement for strategy, tactics or the normal trappings of warfare and conquest. There is merely a need to apply whatever force is available to cause the most casualties in the lands of the infidels until Allah provides the victory. In a very real sense that makes this enemy dramatically more dangerous than any we've faced before, at least for average Americans going about their daily lives.

Foolish or not, the struggle is Islam vs. the Infidels. Radical Islam is nothing more than a reaction to the failings of modern Islamic society by those who believe they can bring about the restoration of the perceived golden age of Islam through a return to its fundamentals. The thinking goes, "Once we were powerful, now we are not. If we return our way of life to what it once was Allah will favor us and we will be powerful again." Crass to the point of ridiculousness, but a fairly accurate summation of the situation. Thus, it's safe to say that the war will be fought until Islam collectively is disabused of this notion.
Posted by: AzCat || 06/06/2004 22:59 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
62[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2004-06-06
  Barghouti handed 5 life sentences
Sat 2004-06-05
  Reagan passes away
Fri 2004-06-04
  Iraqi Police Nab Associate of al-Zarqawi
Thu 2004-06-03
  Tenet resigns
Wed 2004-06-02
  Chalabi Told Iran U.S. Broke Its Codes
Tue 2004-06-01
  Padilla wanted to boom apartment buildings
Mon 2004-05-31
  Egypt to Yasser: Reform or be removed
Sun 2004-05-30
  Khobar slaughter; 3 out of 4 terrs get away
Sat 2004-05-29
  16 Dead in Al Khobar Attack
Fri 2004-05-28
  Iran establishes unit to recruit suicide bombers
Thu 2004-05-27
  Captain Hook Jugged!
Wed 2004-05-26
  4 arrested in Japanese al-Qaeda probe
Tue 2004-05-25
  Sarin confirmed!
Mon 2004-05-24
  Toe tag for 32 Mahdi Army members
Sun 2004-05-23
  Qaeda planning hot summer for USA?


Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
3.145.130.31
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (49)    (0)    (0)    (0)    (0)