Definitely in the "Be careful what you wish for..." category for the moonbats.
Held up by a Secret Service bodyguard in his dying moments after being shot in the stomach, this is President Bush being assassinated.
The American leader is surrounded by a crowd of panicking onlookers just seconds after being gunned down by a Syrian-born U.S. citizen outside a Chicago hotel.
But this shocking image, created by putting the President's face onto an actor with digital wizardry, is part of a new British drama for Channel Four about the War on Terror.
In Death Of A President, which has caused outrage in America and will premiere at the Toronto Film Festival this month, the shooting is a starting point for a fictional documentary about what happened next. So what would happen if President Bush was assassinated?
#3
*sigh* Some of these things are realistic, some not. A Middle Eastern person with a gun getting through the Secret Service is not realistic.
Posted by: Charles ||
09/02/2006 1:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Were Bush to be assassinated, especially by a person of Middle East descent, the potential for massive strikes against our Islamic enemies cannot be precluded. I would certainly support them, if only to deter any further meddling by them in our political process.
The article's author makes one huge error in his speculation about a possible war with Iran, to wit:
Syria was attacked, but Iran bore the brunt. Mass strikes by bombers and cruise missiles knocked out any capacity Iran had for making modern weapons, let alone nuclear bombs, but at a huge price. A country of 70million cowered under the shadow of burning oil wells and the pollution from devastated petro-chemical plants.
Fighting Iran turned out to be much bloodier than the blitzkrieg against Saddam's Iraq.
Iran's Revolutionary Guards had learned the lessons of Hezbollah's war with Israel. They avoided head-on confrontation with the U.S. Army's armoured columns. Ambush and sabotage were their weapons.
A grim war went on year after year in the lunar landscape which was much of Iran. As America struggled to find a replacement for the Ayatollahs' regime, even the willing support of Iranian émigrés from America wanting to wipe away the stain of the assassin's crime could not build a stable pro-U.S. government in Tehran.
Where is it writ that we must physically invade Iran in order to take Tehran's mullahs off line? By now, most of you here at Rantburg are more than familiar with my own projected scenario of simply going in and breaking all things Persian.
Let whatever political detritus that survives be sucked into the ensuing power vacuum. Nothing could be worse than Ahmadinejad and the mullahs. Should we be displeased with whomever takes the reins, rinse and repeat.
This is a far cry from how; "A grim war went on year after year in the lunar landscape which was much of Iran." America's technological might, especially in the form of military hardware, is specifically designed to keep our troops out of harm's way. It is certainly sufficient to cripple the vast majority of Iran's nuclear weapons R&D efforts and whatever infrastructure, be it military or economic, that we see fit.
Our intervention in Iraq was well-intended and met with much of the Western world's approval at that time. Given the lessons of Afghanistan and Iraq, the practice of nation-building may well (and probably should be), be a thing of the past, especially so with restive Muslim societies.
By no means should this be interpreted as an unwillingness to carry the battle to our enemies. Instead, once they are punished, we should no longer feel obligated to reconstruct the foundations of those who seek to do us harm. If the mullahs are thrust from power (preferably in pine boxes) along with Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions are reset to near-zero, I could care f&ck-all about what happens to them next, save that they remember not to screw with us ever again.
I welcome comments and critique from those who wish to contribute. I also look forward to how others here interpret the above article. I'll repeat that whatever dislike I may have for Bush, I absolutely refuse to tolerate this sort of thinly veiled anti-American propaganda.
#5
why would we invade Iran? This is mindless drivel. We would destroy their ports, their mullah's assets and properties, army barracks, any forms of state control: TV, Radio. Then, let the people have a chance to exact their revenge. We need to neither invade nor occupy Iran - they've pissed off enough people internally so that if we remove the theokleptocracy's powers of coercion, the aggrieved can do our work for us
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
It's pretty late, but... Indeed, Zenster & Frank G. This is so full of Fool's Gold it should become a dictionary example of Uro BDS and military ignorance.
The idiocy of an "historian" pretending to be a military expert in any sense is overwhelming here. He's completely ignorant of the technology lead the US military possesses, a combined arms coordination and aerial arsenal that is beyond comprehension by the willfully untutored. He is limited to thinking in WW-II / Vietnam terms... and foolish enough to project his ignorance. The presumption that the US military does not rapidly learn and adapt is another point implied and projected... obviously, to anyone who is paying attention nowadays, what was once the case is no longer true. I believe that, except in extremely limited special circumstances, we've learned another, a political, lesson well: no more nation-building.
Indeed, I agree wholeheartedly that the rule will be: if you build a shitpile of enmity and threaten us or anyone else we choose to ally with, then we will break it with extreme prejudice. And you're on your own after that. Repeat the mistake, and we'll break it, again.
He presumes a conventional WW-II-style response with conventional arms and invasion. Of course invasion isn't necessary to bring down the Iranian regime - it is a hollow and extremely vertical construct of Persian arrogance. He presumes we would see what we want to see, i.e. Arab sponsorship, regardless of the truth. Pure Uro BDS bias. We are far more capable in the area of backtracking intel that he can conceive. We would choose our response with exceedingly great care, despite his presumptions and bias... and it might not be limited to second tier, i.e. conventional arms, lethality. It would be, I hope, incredibly disproportional - a Tranzi icon of "truth" that needs obliteration as the pointless exercise in faux morality it is in fact.
The only thing I believe this guy gets perfectly right is the predicted duplicity of our erstwhile Uro "allies", now obviously triangulating adversaries in every sense. Time to lay to rest the Tranzi Myths of We Need Approval From Others and the UN as The Global Forum For Conflict Resolution and Legitimization, forever.
#7
Were the Pentagon allowed to deal with the enemy as they would like, it wouldn't be boots on the ground. Anything that can generate so much as an erg of power in any hostile country would be blown to smithereens. An air and naval blockade would be thrown around the offending country. If the country had something that we needed or wanted, we would take it and no natives would be allowed in the occupied areas. Basically, any press embedded with the enemy would be considered hostile and treated no different than the enemy they support. No need to fight an enemy army if you aren't concerned with collateral damage. As the jihadis say, kill them all, Allah will know his own.
#8
The assassination of John Kennedy at the height of the Cold War hadn't led to Armageddon in 1963, so why should things spiral out of control now if a president was murdered?
When Kennedy was assassinated the Reps were not engaged in a desperate lust of power taking them into the camp of the Soviets in a shared objective to destroy that President's vision for Democracy in the world. The atmosphere of hate and loathing wasn't being stoked to the current level of malice daily by MSM. Kennedy hadn't suffered for years of distortion, fabrications, and out right lies
directed to bring down his administration to the level we witness everyday. In fact, MSM was friendly, avoiding dirty little secrets which the administration certainly deserved a degree of critical observation. MSM wasn't bent on a 24 hour schedule racing for ratings with the biggest dose of blood and guts. And amazingly, some owners thought about the quality of their product.
Back in them old days, there was something actually known as compromise in Congress even with the classical Donks who work with the Rep in getting a half a loaf rather than political points with just part of their constituents. Conduct was civil. Today's Freudian outbursts of projection by Donk leadership shows us the intolerance they practice on a daily basis.
It is not 1963. It is nearer 1860. We've stop talking to each other and are talking past each other. History is just waiting for a triggering event, just like at Sarajevo in 1914. Keep playing with fire.
#9
"The assassination of John Kennedy at the height of the Cold War hadn't led to Armageddon in 1963"
It always seemed like the Warren Report was hiding something. My belief is that the government at least suspected there was either Cuban or Russian involvement in the assassination - and the 'cover-ups' led to the 'conspiracy theories.' The government did not want to be put in a position where the people would demand retaliation against the Communists (whether they were involved or not); even though he was the President it was not worth the price. Archduke Ferdinand wasn't worth World War I, and a nuclear war with the USSR in 1963 would have been infinitely worse.
#10
As I have said before, nation building in Iraq was a noble experiment. I believe that if one had been sharing a beer at a barbeque with GWB in 2003, and asked him if he thought it was going to work, he would have told you, "It's a long shot, but we have to try." GWB realized that the alternative is horrible. The public would probably demand a massive retaliation in kind in the event of another mass casualty attack.
The adminitration watched the WTC come down and knew viscerally that it was only a matter of time until the USA was hit with WMD unless the trajectory of the Middle East was changed. Iraq served two purposes: a reasonably developed and somewhat secular country as a test bed for democracy, and a centralized base of operations if the experiment fails.
I believe that we have learned not to attempt nation building. Iraq has shown that the Muslim world does not want democracy - they want a Muslim world. Muslims will have to learn that this will not happen.
Future Americans will be grateful to GWB that he had the courage to attempt the Iraq experiment and the steadfastness to perservere in the face of the hatred of assorted Donk, MSM, LLL, academia...
About the article, there won't be another land war in the ME beyond occupying the oil fields. The military will simply reduce any power concentrations that stand against us. The UN will be closed. The EUnuchs are enemies. The Tranzi dream will be over for this round. I also believe that gloves would come off between the factions here if the president were assassinated by a Muslim or any of their fellow travelers in the LLL.
#12
SR-71 hits the bulls-eye in #10; nails it, dead on, with every single word. In five short paragraphs, that is THE compleat explanation of what we've been doing since 9/11, and why.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/02/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
My guess is that Kerry, Kennedy, Murtha and others already have 'contigency speeches' calling for 'no disportionate response' until we can consult with the UNSC.
All written and primed to 'whip out' if something like this did happen.
#15
I'm against nation building in principle. However, when we deposed Hussein there was really no other way around it, hind sight being 20/20. We actually did it very well w/Japan&Germany in 46'&47' if anyone remembers and there was plenty of drama involved w/that as well (many do not remember that point). Obviously we all know islam is a different entity. Unless we were willing to the iraqi cultural attitudes (like we did w/the nazis and japanese nationalism) this was going to be a real long shot. We would've also had to make them swear new allegiance to the U.S. while leaving as many of their figure heads in power. Evidently a very distasteful thing to do in our new 24/7 msm spin cycle p.c. world, but a pragmatically minded thinking none the less. Imho, I don't think we looked at the case studies from rebuilding Japan and Germany enough.
#16
When these clowns have wet dreams fantacize about President Bush's assassination, do they ever go the extra step and even think about who is next in line?
Vice President. Speaker of the House. President pro tem of the Senate. Secretary of State.
Cheney. Hastart. Stevens. Rice.
Even as Americans clamored for revenge, the Leftist Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) would be urging "restraint," revealing their true selves even more to the citizens of America.
Never mind where the assassin actually came from. The bad guys of the world (including in this country) would be seriously fucked.
A scenario I'd like a lot better: President Bush lives to complete his second term, and spends that time fucking over the bad guys, here as well as abroad.
As for the dipshit who wrote this, and his idea of a long ground war in Iran: I want some of what he's been smoking. Idiot.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/02/2006 19:32 Comments ||
Top||
#17
What really bothers me about this, is that we already have nutjobs who have committed criminal acts based on watching some TV show or some movie. Trying to reproduce what they have seen.
There is a nutter out there, that will see this movie, and take it upon him/herself to become a part of a new "reality TV." And that scares me.
Another reason for the DEMs to not get control. That line of secession list put Nancy in line for the presidency, and that should scare everyone!
#18
Sherry, the question is whether that is the intended consequence of the show.
Posted by: Matt ||
09/02/2006 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#19
#17: "Another reason for the DEMs to not get control. That line of secession list put Nancy in line for the presidency, and that should scare everyone!"
Not me - at least not for that reason. If the Dems get back in charge, the Lefties' urge to murder the President gets locked back in the basement - and even the most fruitcake non-Democrat doesn't advocate presidential murder.
The only time to be really worried about this is while a Republican is in the office - particularly the present one.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/02/2006 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#20
"particularly the present one"
That suggest an interesting question...
If a Pubbie wins in 2008, will the xDS continue unabated?
BDS has become an industry - just look at the Chomsky and other barking moonbat websites. Will that be abandoned - or will they simply continue to vilify anyone who is not Bill Clintoon?
I can't see them being very successful with some potential candidates, such as Giuliani, but with their very existence on the line, careers and $$$ in moonbattery will be a stake, I doubt they'd miss a beat.
Just a thought that hasn't been explored here AFAIK.
#21
"If a Pubbie wins in 2008, will the xDS continue unabated?"
My guess would be "yes." I figure BDS is pretty much a continuation of the insanity that's held the Donks in its grip ever since the Clinton impeachment; and if GWB is replaced by another Republican, the derangement will simply be transferred to him/her.
For that matter, I've often wondered whether the real purpose of the Clinton impeachment was to drive the Democrats so stark, raving, drooling bonkers that they'd start doing stupid shit and lose elections en masse. If it was, it's certainly worked so far.
Regarding this lefty wet-dream, wishful-thinking, puerile, DU-wanking-material piece of trash of a movie, it'll be interesting to see audience reactions when its released here in the States. Will Moore-ons flock to see it in droves to cheer and Kosturbate at the scene showing Bush getting shot? Will they be able to contain their glee? If not, how will non-BDS-afflicted audience members react?
Could get ugly...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/02/2006 22:46 Comments ||
Top||
#22
"Kosturbate"
LOL! Excellent.
As for Clintoon, I subscribe to the idea that anyone who is dishonest in any facet of life is untrustworthy in all. His obvious perjury and the financial chicanery convinced me the man, along with his twisted co-conspirator wife, could not be trusted. Some of his financial schemes since leaving office, the Dubai Ports consulting gig comes immediately to mind, simply prooves he is, and was, a total whore. Impeachment and conviction should've been his fate. He's scum.
"Could get ugly..."
Agreed. This might be one of the seminal events that directly contributes to what you've long predicted: CW-II.
I happen to agree that's where we're headed, one step at a time. And, like the frog in the pot with the temperature rising slowly, many will be horrified when it comes, caught completely flat-footed by the backlash against their unthinking hatreds and support for the enemies of a Free America. I refuse to be dragged down with them - I'd rather go out blazing.
#23
Kosturbate is disturbing.....I suppose it's all process, frustration, and no success? Jeebus
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 23:15 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Oh, and left hand for purity?
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 23:15 Comments ||
Top||
#25
btw - can we ixnay the "lefty wet dream"? I keep imagining some Kos kid waking up sticky in a mattress he shares with his minimum-wage parents in a basement
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 23:21 Comments ||
Top||
#26
jeebus Fly...Kosturbate and seminal? No self-control? ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 23:22 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Easy, Frank... try not to dwell on the details. LOL!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/02/2006 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
It's time Muslims looked at passenger profiling positively, in the interest of a safer world
By lodging a protest with the Dutch Government over what happened on flight NW 0042 on August 23, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has made Indians of all genres possible suspects and therefore unwanted in the future. The MEA postures as if India has neither produced terrorists nor is wanting in experience in their barbarism. The Indian Government overlooked that every country in the world does not share the mentality that caused our own Foreign Minister to accompany three terrorists in a plane to Kandahar. Northwest Airlines as well as the Dutch Government had every reason to take abundant precaution. It was an expensive precaution in terms of money and time lost in flight disruption, as well as goodwill lost. All these costs far outweigh the inconvenience caused to the 12 irresponsible Indians. Now, by alleging "racial profiling", the MEA has added blunder to bloomer. A country cannot aspire to be a great power and at the same time carry such a baggage of inferiority on its sleeve.
Why did Northwest Airlines sell tickets to doubtful passengers? This is the question uppermost in the minds of all right-thinking air travellers. True, there have been any number of hijacks in the past. But after jihad was declared on 9/11, the airlines have no business to sell tickets to all and sundry. Once a hijacker or two boards an aircraft, it is difficult to prevent a mishap. That experience led to the introduction of a security check on every passenger before he boards. Instruments were introduced, handbags began to be screened and later check-in baggage also went under the scanner. But even after all this, hijackings couldn't be prevented.
The biggest success achieved by any Government in preventing a terror strike was the British authorities blowing of the plan to plant liquid bombs in a dozen aircraft in mid-August. After this, the hardening of stance was inevitable. The obvious - which was somehow avoided all these years - was taken up. It was decided to check the antecedents of a buyer before selling him an air ticket. Since terrorism today is largely a monopoly (with notable exceptions in a few pockets around the world) of jihadis, the policy of all secular airlines should be to avoid these people.
A suggestion has been made in Britain that all its law abiding Muslim citizens should be issued pink cards so that they can be treated like normal citizens and serviced easily at shops, trains, buses and airports. Those who don't qualify would have to depend on the discretion of the authorities. Some people have come up with an idea for having a separate airline exclusively for Muslims - Jahaaz-ul-Islam is the provocative name given. This should not be confused with apartheid. The South Africans segregated on the basis of colour and reserved 80 per cent of lands for people with white skin. But this suggestion is merely to induce law abiding citizens to actively volunteer in the war against their violent brethren.
There are terrorists in Japan. The Tamil Tigers are well known. JVP rebels had terrorised Sri Lanka and memories of the Khalistanis are still fresh. The ULFA and the Naxalities are often more ferocious than the jihadis. All these groups must be treated with the same ruthlessness that is deserved by the Islamists.
The jihadis, however, stand out in several ways. They enjoy near monopoly in the business of plane hijacking ever since they took an El Al plane to Entebbe airport in Uganda. Their activities have spared no one, even the Australians have targeted. The world map of jihad includes Sydney, Bali, Jakarta, southern Philippines where a secessionist movement is being sponsored by them, Xinjiang province in China, the Thai region of Pattani, Sudan, Chechnya, what to talk of West Asia, India and Europe. Spain was sufficiently tormented by Islamists to withdraw its troops from Iraq. In short, jihad has covered all five continents.
In order to combat this huge killer machine, Governments should be ruthless and unhindered by spurious political correctness. No Government should restrain its administration or its law enforcement agencies in the mission to defeat international jihad. This message is all important to the Indian Government.
Even the law-abiding sections have their problems, Islam is believed to be a divine entity whose eternal message is to attain a majority among all humanity before doomsday. In Mishkatu'l Masabih, book xiii, Chapter 1, Prophet Mohammed had exhorted his followers to marry women who will love their husbands and be very prolific, "for I wish you to be more numerous than any other people". The jihadis believe that there is no God other than Allah, whose sovereignty extends to the whole world. Those who don't believe this are kafirs, by killing whom a Muslim become ghazi or conqueror.
The point being made is that unlike other terrorists who spurt, blossom, wilt and eventually perish, jihadis have the potential for eternity, universality, ideology and, above all, total commitment to divinity. Their guns and bombs are merely the teeth and claws that are backed by a muscular body, a destructive brain and a soul ready to perish in pursuit of a "better" after life.
The marshals in the air, who often stand in as stewards, seldom know much beyond their specific functions. Certainly, they are not familiar with the behavioural habits of different nationals, whether Indian or other. They react to what they perceive to be the slightest threat to security. A passenger ignoring their instructions is a serious symptom, especially after 9/11 and more so since 7/7. By the Government taking the 12 Mumbai textile traders' side, it can only prejudice other airline staff against Indian passengers in general.
In any case, why haul up the Dutch Ambassador whose Government merely responded to the emergency request by the aircraft pilot. Northwestern is an American airline of many decades' standing. If KLM held some shares in it, as was popularly believed, should it make any difference? Moreover, for several years now, KLM has been taken over by Air France. What kind of diplomacy is the MEA conducting? It seems to be a gesture to appease the Muslim sentiment in India?
(The writer is a former BJP MP and author of several books)
Posted by: john ||
09/02/2006 15:32 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Article originally published in the Indian Newspaper "The Daily Pioneer".
Winston Churchill was once a correspondent for them...
Posted by: john ||
09/02/2006 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
life sucks when your fellows choose a path of war. Ask innocent Germans in Dresden
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Strong Meade.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
09/02/2006 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
having a separate airline exclusively for Muslims - Jahaaz-ul-Islam
#5
The Federal Marshals' Service has experience with the air transportation of questionable characters...
And for backup ground transportation we can always rely on General Rashid Dostum..
Posted by: john ||
09/02/2006 19:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This was long predicted. They never stop bombing so you get giant squid to control everything which is just as bad but not worse than living UNDER Islam. 2 evils, one of necessity, and one of foolish intent. Islam is not necessary.
It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months -- if not weeks -- if we are to preserve world peace.
Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand.
The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran's missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.
Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives.
Yea, the 72 sturgeons and all
The spasm of reaction from many will be that this is barbaric and unacceptable. Yet a better response would be to ask if there is any sensible alternative. Diplomacy, kindness and compromise have failed and the Iranian leadership is still obsessed with all-out war against anybody it considers an enemy.
Its motives are beyond question, its capability equally so. It is spending billions of dollars on a whole range of anti-ship, anti-aircraft and anti-personnel missiles, rockets and ballistic weapons:
The Shahab 3ER missile, with a range of more than 2,000 km, and the BM25 and accompanying launchers, which are so powerful that they can hit targets in Europe. Raad missiles with a range of 350km. The Misaq anti-aircraft missile, which can be fired from the shoulder. The Fajar 3 radar-evading missile and the Ajdar underwater missile, which travels at an extraordinarily high speed and is almost impossible to intercept. The Zaltal and the Fatah 110 rocket, the Scud B and Scud C and the BM25 with a range of 3,500 kms.
Iran is also developing enormous propellant ballistic missiles and began a space program almost a decade ago that will enable it to bomb the United States. It is also assumed in intelligence circles that Tehran has Russian Kh55 cruise missiles stolen from Ukraine which are now being copied in large numbers by Iranian scientists.
Comparisons to the Nazis in the 1930s are unfair -- to the Nazis. Hitler had the French army, the largest in Europe, on his border and millions of Soviet infantry just a few hours march away. Iran has no aggressive enemies in the region.
Its fanatical leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, controls a brutal police state, finances international terror and provokes bloody wars in foreign countries. It is unimaginably wealthy because of its oil revenues and is committed, in its leader's words, to "rolling back 300 years of Western ascendancy" and wiping another nation, Israel, from the face of the earth.
A conventional attack would be insufficient because Iran and its allies seem only to listen to power and threat. Better limited pain now than universal suffering in five years.
The usual suspects will complain. The post-Christian churches, the Marxists, the fellow travelers and fifth columnists. But then, the same sort of people moaned and condemned in 1938. They were clearly wrong then. They would be just as wrong now.
Posted by: Captain America ||
09/02/2006 12:11 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm not to sure about the nuke thing here. We have very capable conventional weapons that can do equal harm to their military and nuclear infrastructure. The point that we need to do something is spot on, the sooner the better. I know, groundhog day here for me but I'll say it again, seize all their banking assets, Strike their military reducing it to the destroyed level, strike the nuke sites and research centers, and finally hit the political centers and the radical mullahs. We need to have people on the ground to help organize the students into forming the new government. Done, I feel better now.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
09/02/2006 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I completely agree with this article, Canada should Nuke Iran! What? Canada doesn't have Nuclear Weapons, you say? Who are they suggesting does the dead? Us, you say. Okay, let's roll.
#6
To repeat - fill retired 747 freighters and the old B-58 supersonic bombers (all sitting in desert boneyards) to the brim with high explosives. Replace pilot controls with computer remote control - very easy for the B-58 as it was the first fly-by-wire attempt (that failed due to the slow audio tape responses interfering with each other) - and use them as giant cruise missiles!
#7
The main airports would be real easy. Paint the 747s to resemble freighters of the EU folks selling them banned technology and fly them right into a landing at the cargo ports....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/02/2006 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
What 49 Pan said. Don't use nuclear weapons but most definitely make their obsessive death-wish come true. Never has a given country begged so fervently for obliteration nor so richly deserved it. Their belligerence is exceeded only by their monumental hubris. They want martyrdom? Let them have it, in spades.
#15
I would H-B Qom - the unholy center of Ayatollah power - and the nuke research sites. If Shiite power is destroyed, then the Straits of Hormuz can be occupied. They are more important strategically than the Panama Canal ever was.
#16
Re #6: B-58 Hustlers rule! Cutting-edge late '50's avionics, and a beautiful plane to boot! I guess it would make a better Kamikazi than a Mitsubishi Zero anyday!
There is an assumption about the war on Expansionist Totalitarian Islam that is shared by both the left and the right and is worth questioning. In theory, the assumption leads to diametrically opposed policy prescriptions from the two poles but, in reality, if my thesis is correct, the short-term policy prescriptions will prove to make very little difference to the longer term outcome.
The Questionable Assumption:
The Left believes that if we essentially give in to the Islamists, by allowing them to establish rules for censoring the free press, agreeing to separate and more than equal laws covering Muslims within the West (Sharia law), abandoning Israel (eventually along with Kashmir and Spain), allowing Iran to pursue and acquire nuclear weapons, etc, that the Islamists will be satiated and will be willing to consolidate their victories and make peace with the West.
The Right, in the form of the Neocons, believes that by confronting the Islamists now and defeating them in Iraq and Lebanon, especially, while treating them as a law enforcement problem elsewhere (England, Continental Europe, America) we will inflict enough damage on them to discourage the young from becoming radicalized and swelling the ranks of the Islamist battalions. This rests on the assumption that we can effect changes in the behavior of the Islamists without having to confront them in a world wide war, despite the fact that they see themselves engaged in a world wide struggle with us.I believe that, in practice, the assumption that we can meaningfully effect the course of Islamic totalitarianism short of full scale war is unwarranted, and whether our policy is controlled by the left or the right, any actions short of full scale war will only delay the final confrontation. I also do not see any way to square the circle.
The Islamists are at war with us.
It remains quite possible that we will eventually win for Iraq a stable, representative democracy of a type never seen before in the Arab world. Unfortunately, even the most optimistic would admit that such a victory is far in the future. In this war, victory delayed is victory denied.
I sincerely doubt the West can win this war without societal mobilization and such mobilization can only take place once people begin to sense that they have a personal investment in the outcome. Tragically, before this war ends, we are all likely to find that we have a personal stake in the outcome.
#1
This article adequately condemns the left's suicidal desire for appeasement and the right's idiotically PC approach to this conflict. It also accurately predicts the full-scale war that will be required to exterminate the Islamic threat. Thank you, SR-71.
#2
Iraq would have been MUCH better if the left would have relaxed and saw what we were trying to do. The exasperated the problem, some wantonly and some not.
What people need to realize is this.
These Oil fed societies must learn to act as if there is no Oil at all wich means a fully functioning society at all levels. They must and will change, adapt, just like all creatures or become extinct. To do this with just one country alone with Iraq is a noble gesture.
I will be honest. Muslims are scared of the west. They have not gained the conceptual intregrity to handle such a complex cultural structure. If given the chance they succeeded with a hand from the US, it would have helped us all.
Unfortunately the left does not see how badly their pressure has unravelled a process so necessary that everyones lives are now placed in deeper jeopardy.
I can say this for certain, George Soros is no Jew. He is of the Synagogue of Satan and anything connected with that are my enemy.
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.
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.
