U.N.B.E.L.I.E.V.A.B.L.E. Un-fucking believable what this PoS says.
IMAGINE THAT on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism. Sheesh. So-fucking-what? The point is...it isn't bad until we hit 20M. What does this PoS think of Pearl Harbor, where only 2500 died?
It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight? Wot a fucking tranzi.
Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States. Will is the critical element for success. Does this asshat author really think the jihadis wouldn't hit us with a nuke? What does he think would happen to the USA if, oh say Los Angeles was hit with a nuke, killing hundreds of thousands, wounding 500,000 and making it uninhabitale for centuries. While 99.9% of American might be alive, the economy would go into the deepest depression ever, in effect threatening the existence of the US as a coherent society. Fucking asshat.
Yet a great many Americans, particularly on the right, have failed to make this distinction. For them, the "Islamo-fascist" enemy has inherited not just Adolf Hitler's implacable hatreds but his capacity to destroy. The conservative author Norman Podhoretz has gone so far as to say that we are fighting World War IV (No. III being the Cold War). Eeeevil neocon hit right on schedule. Ever hear the phrase "Where there is the will, there is the way"?.
But it is no disrespect to the victims of 9/11, or to the men and women of our armed forces, to say that, by the standards of past wars, the war against terrorism has so far inflicted a very small human cost on the United States. As an instance of mass murder, the attacks were unspeakable, but they still pale in comparison with any number of military assaults on civilian targets of the recent past, from Hiroshima on down. 3,000 dead and $1T in costs. Pfeh, no big deal.
Even if one counts our dead in Iraq and Afghanistan as casualties of the war against terrorism, which brings us to about 6,500, we should remember that roughly the same number of Americans die every two months in automobile accidents. LOL. Which points put how just silly the whole argument about military casualties is.
Of course, the 9/11 attacks also conjured up the possibility of far deadlier attacks to come. But then, we were hardly ignorant of these threats before, as a glance at just about any thriller from the 1990s will testify. And despite the even more nightmarish fantasies of the post-9/11 era (e.g. the TV show "24's" nuclear attack on Los Angeles), Islamist terrorists have not come close to deploying weapons other than knives, guns and conventional explosives. A war it may be, but does it really deserve comparison to World War II and its 50 million dead? Not every adversary is an apocalyptic threat. Ya, let's look to Hollywood for guidance on what the future might hold.
So why has there been such an overreaction? Unfortunately, the commentators who detect one have generally explained it in a tired, predictably ideological way: calling the United States a uniquely paranoid aggressor that always overreacts to provocation. Ya. US=Bad because 3,000 civilians were mass murdered and we shoulda convened a UN conference or something.
In a recent book, for instance, political scientist John Mueller evaluated the threat that terrorists pose to the United States and convincingly concluded that it has been, to quote his title, "Overblown." But he undercut his own argument by adding that the United States has overreacted to every threat in its recent history, including even Pearl Harbor (rather than trying to defeat Japan, he argued, we should have tried containment!). SO, if you admit that his title is incorrect, that makes your entire thesis foolish leftist drivel.
Seeing international conflict in apocalyptic terms viewing every threat as existential is hardly a uniquely American habit. To a certain degree, it is a universal human one. But it is also, more specifically, a Western one, which paradoxically has its origins in one of the most optimistic periods of human history: the 18th century Enlightenment. How about if our enemy discusses attacking us in those very terms, something only the USSR has done in our past.
Until this period, most people in the West took warfare for granted as an utterly unavoidable part of the social order. Western states fought constantly and devoted most of their disposable resources to this purpose; during the 1700s, no more than six or seven years passed without at least one major European power at war. Ya, well, wars have been going on continuously somewhere for the entire human history. But when Dubya leads, well history is an inconvevient truth.
The Enlightenment, however, popularized the notion that war was a barbaric relic of mankind's infancy, an anachronism that should soon vanish from the Earth. Human societies, wrote the influential thinkers of the time, followed a common path of historical evolution from savage beginnings toward ever-greater levels of peaceful civilization, politeness and commercial exchange. Ya, they felt warfare was bad, which it surely is. But what is the alternative?
The unexpected consequence of this change was that those who considered themselves "enlightened," but who still thought they needed to go to war, found it hard to justify war as anything other than an apocalyptic struggle for survival against an irredeemably evil enemy. In such struggles, of course, there could be no reason to practice restraint or to treat the enemy as an honorable opponent.
Ever since, the enlightened dream of perpetual peace and the nightmare of modern total war have been bound closely to each other in the West. Precisely when the Enlightenment hopes glowed most brightly, wars often took on an especially hideous character.
The Enlightenment was followed by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, which touched every European state, sparked vicious guerrilla conflicts across the Continent and killed millions (including, probably, a higher proportion of young Frenchmen than died from 1914 to 1918).
During the hopeful early years of the 20th century, journalist Norman Angell's huge bestseller, "The Great Illusion," argued that wars had become too expensive to fight. Then came the unspeakable horrors of World War I. And the end of the Cold War, which seemed to promise the worldwide triumph of peace and democracy in a more stable unipolar world, has been followed by the wars in the Balkans, the Persian Gulf War and the present global upheaval. In each of these conflicts, the United States has justified the use of force by labeling its foe a new Hitler, not only in evil intentions but in potential capacity.
Yet as the comparison with the Soviet experience should remind us, the war against terrorism has not yet been much of a war at all, let alone a war to end all wars. It is a messy, difficult, long-term struggle against exceptionally dangerous criminals who actually like nothing better than being put on the same level of historical importance as Hitler can you imagine a better recruiting tool? To fight them effectively, we need coolness, resolve and stamina. But we also need to overcome long habit and remind ourselves that not every enemy is in fact a threat to our existence. I must leave now to go puke my breakfast.
#2
In a way he's right, because we didn't lose enough lives in the 9/11 attack.
He wasn't killed in it.
There's a special seat in HELL waiting for this asshole - right between Sad-ass and his sons.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/28/2007 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
David A. Bell, a professor of history at Johns Hopkins University and a contributing editor for the New Republic, is the author of "The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as W.."
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/28/2007 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
... although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.
The great threat to the existence of the United States are traitors to its Constitution, its founding principles and its liberty; the author of this article being a prime example. He should be tarred and feathered.
#5
this moron definitely does not understand the muzzy ideology. They kill one of ours, well kill a hundred of theirs. That, sadly, is all they understand.
#8
Bit by bit, these defeatist assholes have been chipping away at our resolve. And it's working.
The next terrorist attack on American soil, Job One had better be rounding these bastards up and getting them out of the way so we can fight back unhindered. Enough of this bullshit.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/28/2007 17:31 Comments ||
Top||
#10
xbalanke hits it spot on, and I thought the exact same thing when I just read the first paragraph. Using #s like this will be different in different arguments. I bet he goes absolutely @pe-$h!t when one of our soldiers is blown up, but doesn't get the irony in saying 3,000 dead on 9/11 "wasn't enough."
Posted by: BA ||
01/28/2007 19:01 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Maybe the bad guys should learn that it is U.S. policy to over react to every mass murder of Americans. Maybe it is U.S. policy to be incredibly more violent, incredibly more deadly, and incredibly more aggressive than the original mass murderers of Americans. Maybe the bad guys should learn that the days of bombing and killing Americans, without a reaction, are as much in the past as the 10th century to which they want to return.
One of Pakistan's leading scientists gives a frank account of the political and intellectual backwardness of the Islamic world.
If the world is to be spared what future historians might call the "century of terror," we will have to chart a course between US imperial arrogance and Islamic religious fanaticism. Through these waters, we must steer by a distant star toward a democratic, humanistic and secular future. Otherwise, shipwreck is certain.
For nearly four months now, leaders of the Muslim community in the US, and even President Bush, have routinely asserted that Islam is a religion of peace that was hijacked by fanatics on 11th September.
These two assertions are simply untrue. First, Islam-like Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion-is not about peace. Nor is it about war. Every religion is about absolute belief in its own superiority and the divine right to impose its version of truth upon others. In medieval times, the crusades and the jihads were soaked in blood. Today, there are Christian fundamentalists who attack abortion clinics in the US and kill doctors; Muslim fundamentalists who wage their sectarian wars against each other; Jewish settlers who, holding the Old Testament in one hand and Uzis in the other, burn olive orchards and drive Palestinians off their ancestral land; and Hindus in India, who demolish mosques and burn down churches.
The second assertion is even further off the mark. Even if Islam had, in some metaphorical sense, been hijacked, that event did not occur three months ago. It was well over seven centuries ago that Islam suffered a serious trauma, the effects of which refuse to go away.
Where do Muslims stand today? Note that I do not ask about Islam; Islam is an abstraction. Maulana Abdus Sattar Edhi, Pakistan's pre-eminent social worker, and the Taleban's Mohammad Omar are both followers of Islam, but the former is overdue for a Nobel Peace Prize, while the latter is an ignorant, psychotic fiend. The Palestinian writer, Edward Said, among others, has insistently pointed out that Islam holds very different meanings for different people. Within my own family, hugely different kinds of Islam are practised. The religion is as heterogeneous as those who believe and follow it. There is no "true Islam."
Today, Muslims number one billion. Of the 48 countries with a full or near Muslim majority, none has yet evolved a stable, democratic political system. In fact, all Muslim countries are dominated by self-serving corrupt elites who cynically advance their personal interests and steal resources from their people. None of these countries has a viable educational system or a university of international stature.
Reason, too, has been waylaid. You will seldom see a Muslim name as you flip through scientific journals and, if you do, the chances are that this person lives in the west. There are a few exceptions: Pakistani Abdus Salam, together with Americans Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979. I got to know Salam reasonably well; we even wrote a book preface together. He was a remarkable man, terribly in love with his country and his religion. Yet he died deeply unhappy, scorned by Pakistan and declared a non-Muslim by an act of the Pakistani parliament in 1974. Today the Ahmadi sect, to which Salam belonged, is considered heretical and harshly persecuted. (My next-door neighbour, an Ahmadi physicist, was shot in the neck and heart and died in my car as I drove him to hospital seven years ago. His only fault was to have been born into the wrong sect.)
Although genuine scientific achievement is rare in the contemporary Muslim world, pseudo-science is in generous supply. A former chairman of my physics department in Islamabad has calculated the speed of heaven. He maintains it is receding from Earth at one centimetre per second less than the speed of light. His ingenious method relies upon a verse in the Islamic holy book, which says that worship on the night on which the book was revealed is worth a thousand nights of ordinary worship. He states that this amounts to a time-dilation factor of 1,000, which he puts into a formula of Einstein's theory of special relativity.
A more public example: One of the two Pakistani nuclear engineers who was recently arrested on suspicion of passing nuclear secrets to the Taleban had earlier proposed to solve Pakistan's energy problems by harnessing the power of genies. He relied on the Islamic belief that God created man from clay, and angels and genies from fire; so this high-placed engineer proposed to capture the genies and extract their energy.
Today's sorry situation contrasts starkly with the Islam of yesterday. Between the 9th and 13th centuries- the golden age of Islam-the only people doing decent work in science, philosophy or medicine were Muslims. Muslims not only preserved ancient learning, they also made substantial innovations. The loss of this tradition has proved tragic for Muslim peoples.
Science flourished in the golden age of Islam because of a strong rationalist and liberal tradition, sustained by a group of Muslim thinkers known as the Mutazilites. But in the 12th century, Muslim orthodoxy reawakened, spearheaded by the Arab cleric, Imam Al-Ghazali. Al-Ghazali championed revelation over reason, predestination over free will. He damned mathematics as being against Islam, an intoxicant of the mind that weakened faith.
Caught in the grip of orthodoxy, Islam choked. No longer would Muslim, Christian and Jewish scholars gather and work together in the royal courts. It was the end of tolerance, intellect and science in the Muslim world. The last great Muslim thinker, Abd-al Rahman Ibn Khaldun, belonged to the 14th century.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world moved on. The Renaissance brought an explosion of scientific inquiry in the west. This owed much to translations of Greek works carried out by Arabs and other Muslim contributions, but they were to matter little. Mercantile capitalism and technological progress drove western countries-in ways that were often brutal and at times genocidal-rapidly to colonise the Muslim world from Indonesia to Morocco. It soon became clear, at least to some of the Muslim elites, that they were paying a heavy price for not possessing the analytical tools of modern science and the social and political values of modern culture-the real source of power of their colonisers.
Despite widespread resistance from the orthodox, the logic of modernity found 19th-century Muslim adherents. Some seized on the modern idea of the nation state. But remember that not a single Muslim nationalist leader of the 20th century was a fundamentalist.
Muslim and Arab nationalism, part of a larger anti-colonial nationalist current across the third world, included the desire to control and use national resources for domestic benefit. The conflict with western greed was inevitable. The imperial interests of Britain, and later the US, came into conflict with independent nationalism. Anyone willing to collaborate was preferred, even the ultra-conservative Islamic regime of Saudi Arabia. In 1953, Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran was overthrown in a CIA coup, replaced by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Britain targeted Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser. Indonesia's Sukarno was replaced by Suharto, after a bloody coup that left hundreds of thousands dead.
Pressed from outside, corrupt and incompetent from within, secular Muslim governments proved unable to defend national interests or deliver social justice. They began to frustrate democracy to preserve their positions of power and privilege. These failures left a vacuum that Islamic religious movements grew to fill-in Iran, Pakistan and Sudan, to name a few.
This tide in the Muslim world combined with a ruthless pursuit of advantage by the US in 1979 when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. With Pakistan's Moh-ammed Zia ul-Haq as America's foremost ally, the CIA openly recruited holy warriors from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. Radical Islam went into overdrive as its superpower ally and mentor funnelled support to the mujahedin. Ronald Reagan f�ted them on the White House lawn.
The rest is familiar: after the Soviet Union collapsed, the US walked away from Afghanistan. The Taleban emerged; Osama bin Laden and his al Qaida made Afghanistan their base.
What should thoughtful people infer from this whole narrative? For Muslims, it is time to stop wallowing in self-pity: Muslims are not helpless victims of conspiracies hatched by an all-powerful, malicious west. The fact is that the decline of Islamic greatness took place long before the age of mercantile imperialism. The causes were essentially internal. Therefore Muslims must be introspective and ask what went wrong.
Muslims must recognise that their societies are far larger, more diverse and complex than the small homogeneous tribal society in Arabia, 1400 years ago, from which their religion springs. It is therefore time to renounce the idea that Islam can survive and prosper only in an Islamic state run according to sharia, or Islamic law. Muslims need a secular and democratic state that respects religious freedom and human dignity and is founded on the principle that power belongs to the people. This means confronting and rejecting the claim by orthodox Islamic scholars that, in an Islamic state, sovereignty belongs to the vice-regents of Allah, or Islamic jurists, not to the people.
People like bin Laden have no answer and can offer no alternative. To glorify their terrorism is a hideous mistake. The unremitting slaughter of Shiites, Christians and Ahmadis in their places of worship in Pakistan, and of other minorities in other Muslim countries, shows that terrorism is not about the revolt of the dispossessed, as it is often claimed.
The US, too, must confront some bitter truths. The messages of George Bush and Tony Blair fall flat, while those of bin Laden, whether he lives or dies, resonate strongly across the Muslim world. Bin Laden's religious extremism turns off many Muslims, but they find his political message easy to relate to: the US must stop helping Israel in dispossessing the Palestinians and stop propping up corrupt and despotic regimes across the world just because they serve US interests.
Americans will also have to recognise the fact that their triumphalism and disdain for international law has created enemies everywhere, not just among Muslims. They must become less arrogant and more like the other peoples of the world.
Our collective survival lies in recognising that religion is not the solution; neither is nationalism. We have but one choice: the path of secular humanism, based upon the principles of logic and reason. This alone offers the hope of providing everybody on this globe with the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
Posted by: john ||
01/28/2007 18:53 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pakistani Abdus Salam, together with Americans Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979
But Abdus Salam was born and educated in British India. Had he been born in Pakistan....
Posted by: john ||
01/28/2007 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
IMO, that failure is what fuels Jihad. Muslims have to keep conquering because they cannot maintain the conquered wealth.
Don't give up when victory is at hand. by Fred Barnes
No one knows the tragic story of America in Vietnam better than Jim Webb, first as a Marine, then as a writer. So the newly elected Democratic senator from Virginia--a fierce opponent of the war in Iraq--wants to keep Vietnam out of the debate over Iraq. "As much as possible, we need to keep this debate away from Vietnam," Webb said last week. Iraq "is not a parallel situation." But Webb feared that many who supported the Vietnam war, and watched America abandon South Vietnam as it grew close to victory over the Communist forces of North Vietnam, might see similarities.
Indeed, they might, for certain parallels between Iraq and Vietnam are uncanny. A new general, David Petraeus, is taking over in Iraq with a credible new strategy, counterinsurgency. Four decades ago, General Creighton Abrams became the American commander in Vietnam, also with a new strategy. It called for taking and holding the villages and hamlets of South Vietnam. In a word, it was counterinsurgency, and it worked. Now in Iraq, Petraeus has as good a chance of success, starting with the pacification of Baghdad, as Abrams had. And the painful lesson of Vietnam applies in Iraq: Don't give up when victory is at hand.
Those in Congress who advocate retreat in Iraq refuse to acknowledge this lesson. And they may have their way, whatever Petraeus accomplishes. With their calls for troop withdrawals and fund cutoffs and their antiwar resolutions, they have put America on a slippery slope in Iraq. And we know where it leads: to defeat while victory remains quite possible. This happened in six descending steps in Vietnam, and today's coalition in Congress of antiwar Democrats and vacillating Republicans has started pushing us down that dangerous slope.
The first step is, when the war goes poorly, public support falls and politicians dramatically increase their criticism. In Vietnam, this occurred after the Tet offensive in 1968. In Iraq, it occurred gradually at first, then rapidly once violence and chaos in Baghdad flared over the last year.
Step two consists of growing criticism of the foreign government that America is supporting. In Vietnam, the target was the government of President Thieu. In Iraq, it's the elected government of Prime Minister Maliki. Senator Hillary Clinton, for instance, insists Maliki has failed to seek reconciliation between Shia and Sunnis--that is, a political solution. "I do not support cutting funding for American troops, but I do support cutting funding for Iraqi forces if the Iraqi government does not meet set conditions," she said two weeks ago.
The third step involves resolutions and threats. This week, the Senate will take up resolutions opposing the addition of 21,500 troops to Iraq, a buildup Petraeus says is indispensable to his plan to secure Baghdad. If resolutions fail to force President Bush to begin winding down the war, Senator Joe Biden promises the Senate will take stronger measures. In the Vietnam era, congressional critics passed limits on funding.
The fourth step--the one we're approaching now in Iraq--would put restrictions on troop deployments. In 1970, the Cooper-Church amendment sought to bar funding for any American troops in Cambodia, a sanctuary for invading forces from North Vietnam. Today, Hillary Clinton would put a cap on the number of American soldiers in Iraq. Webb, echoing many others in Congress, said withdrawals should begin "in short order."
Step five is the last resort of war opponents: a fund cutoff over the protests of the president. In Vietnam, it came in 1974, after American combat troops had been withdrawn, but with the United States still supporting and funding the South Vietnamese government. What's striking is how much the congressional majority then resembles today's antiwar coalition, mostly Democrats but with more than a handful of Republicans. True, only a minority in Congress favors a cutoff today, but that bloc could grow.
Step six: the collapse. In Southeast Asia, it led to the deaths of more than two million people in Vietnam and Cambodia after the Communist triumph. The members of Congress whose actions prompted the collapse expressed no shame or embarrassment for having betrayed allies. And practically no one held them accountable. Their perfidy was greeted with silence.
In Vietnam, the slide down the slippery slope seemed inevitable. But in Iraq, there's time to halt it. Bush can be expected to hold firm in his pursuit of victory in Iraq. If Petraeus achieves a breakthrough in pacifying Baghdad and then in controlling insurgent-dominated Anbar province, the war opponents must stand down. If they refuse to acknowledge success and cause a repeat of the Vietnam calamity, they should be held accountable. This time, self-inflicted defeat should not be met with silence.
#1
The analysis is defective by leaving out step 5 1/2: victory. South Viet Nam was as independent in 1974 as South Korea was in 1954, both had survived being overwhelmed and incorporated into the communist North. All the South required was continued supplies and occasional air support, which was denied by Congress, leading to the success of the Northern invasion of 1975. This was truly the betrayal of an ally.
The problem with Iraq is no one really knows what is going on there, victory, defeat, civil war or mere anarchy.
#2
The problem with Iraq is no one really knows what is going on there, victory, defeat, civil war or mere anarchy.
Some of each I'm afraid. We're western infidels performing a constabulary role while attempting to rebuild the economy and infrastructure of a ravaged middle eastern ghetto, beset with insurgent problems from both Iran and Syria. If this were not challenge enough, add to it a "super sized" portion of traditional muzzie sectarian hate and affinity for violence and senseless butchery.
Larry Derfner
Almost imperceptibly, the debate in Israel over what to do about Iran's nuclear development has gone over the edge. The unthinkable is now not only thinkable, it's speakable, it's writeable, it's doable. In the last few weeks or so, it has become acceptable, legitimate, to argue for an Israeli nuclear first strike to knock out Iran's nuclear facilities.
This ultimate escalation in the debate happened mainly, I think, because it came to be widely understood that Iran's nuclear operations are probably too well buried, hidden, defended and widespread to take out with conventional weapons. Destroying them the "normal" way might also require a ground invasion, which, after what's happened in Iraq, doesn't appeal to many people. Moreover, in another outgrowth of the debacle in Iraq, it now seems unlikely that President Bush, or his successor, will be politically able to go to war against Iran.
So, as most Israelis seem convinced that Iran will inevitably nuke Israel once it gets the capability, which is expected to happen sometime within the next decade, the Israeli nuclear option has made its public debut.
IF YOU READ the "talkbacks" on The Jerusalem Post or Haaretz Web sites, not to mention the radical right-wing blogs, the idea of nuking Iran has been boiling in the minds of more than a few people, Jews and gentiles, for a long time.
But this idea has now traveled beyond the boundaries of the crackpot Right, and is reportedly on the menu of options for dealing with Iran that the IDF is preparing to put at the government's disposal. According to The Sunday Times of London on January 7, the Israeli Air Force is training to launch "low-yield nuclear 'bunker-busters,'" or "mini-nukes," against the facilities Iran has buried under 70 feet of concrete because there's no conventional way to wipe them out.
The military sources quoted in the story spoke of these as surgical strikes in which the nukes would explode deep underground, thus limiting the radioactive fallout.
That's good to know. After the IDF's performance last summer in Lebanon, when it couldn't provide many of its fighting men with the most basic equipment or even food and water, we should all sleep soundly knowing that when Israel fires its nukes at Iran's nukes-in-the-making, wherever they all might be, everything will be under control.
Then, in The Jerusalem Post on the Friday before last, Benny Morris, one of Israel's leading historians and possibly the world's number one historian of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, made a barely-veiled appeal for Israel to nuke Iran and thereby save itself from what he sees as certain destruction. This is really depressing. I have always admired Morris's work as a historian for its combination of boldness and balance, and he may still be an outstanding historian, but as a political commentator he is implicitly advocating an act of unimaginable evil, of monstrousness.
IN HIS essay "This holocaust will be different," Morris declares it a fait accompli that Iran will destroy Israel with nuclear weapons, and he maintains that the only way to prevent this would be for Israel to nuke Iran's nuclear facilities first. He points out that some of these facilities "are in or near major cities," then asks a rhetorical question about Israel's "incompetent" and "demoralized" leadership: "Would they have the stomach for this? Would their determination to save Israel extend to preemptively killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran?" His answer is no, and, just slightly between the lines, he's saying that the answer should be yes: that this country's leaders should have the stomach and determination to save Israel by killing millions of Iranians and, in effect, destroying Iran.
If the future was as knowable as Morris evidently thinks it is, if it really was guaranteed, a fait accompli, an event ordained in advance by some higher power, that Iran was going to launch nuclear weapons at Israel, then I would agree - we should nuke them first, even if it means killing millions of innocent Iranians.
But, of course, the future isn't knowable - even by people who know and understand the past. Yet a lot of Israelis, not just Benny Morris, have become so unhinged by Iran's nuclear program and Ahmadinejad's threats that they can only imagine one possible future, and it is Israel's extermination. So for them, Israel has the natural right to do whatever's necessary to prevent that future from occurring, and if the only thing that will do it is a nuclear attack on Iran, then a nuclear attack on Iran it must be. After all, the overwhelming consensus here is that a nuclear Iran is a risk that Israel cannot allow itself to live with.
MY OWN view is that while a nuclear Iran is obviously a danger, and something that should be strongly resisted by diplomatic means, I don't think Iran is going to nuke Israel because I think Iran's leaders understand what the price would be - the certain annihilation of Iran and the deaths of many, most, or all of its 69 million people - and neither Ahmadinejad nor the mullahs are willing to pay it.
Why do I think this? Because Stalin and Mao had hydrogen bombs that could have blown up the world, and they were far, far more bloodthirsty than the Iranians, and they weren't only ideologically insane but maybe clinically insane as well, yet they never pushed the button. As crazy as they were, they weren't that crazy.
The Iranians, for all their genocidal talk, have never by their deeds shown anything remotely approaching the fanatic will to actual genocide that Stalin and Mao demonstrated. The Iranians have weapons of mass destruction - chemical and possibly biological, too. They also have missiles that can reach anywhere in Israel. If they are so bent on wiping us out, even if it means their own extermination, why haven't they showered tiny little Israel with WMD-armed missiles? The answer, again, is that while the Iranians are crazy, they're not that crazy.
I believe that even if they think they could take out Israel with a first strike before Israel could retaliate, they realize that the US would immediately nuke Iran to rubble, and would have the backing of the world's other nuclear powers. The US wouldn't necessarily do it to avenge Israel, either.
If the US president were a raging anti-Semite who'd become deliriously happy over Israel's destruction, he'd still destroy Iran. If Iran nuked Israel, the US president, backed by every other nuclear power, would push the button on Iran for the purpose of protecting America and the rest of the world from a country that, by doing the unthinkable, by using its doomsday weapon on an enemy, had proven itself too dangerous for the world to live with. By nuking Israel, Iran would become the rabid killer dog that has to be shot before it kills again. Not sure I agree with this. I mean, I agree that nuking anybody but Israel will make one etc...
BUT THEN I may be wrong. After all, I don't know the future, either. Maybe Iran really is as crazy as Benny Morris and a lot of other Israelis say.
How can Israel take that risk? Because the risk of living with a nuclear Iran is much, much, much smaller than the risk involved in nuking Iran first. If Israel uses its nuclear weapons against Iran, which is nearly 80 times Israel's size, the very least that would likely happen is that Israel would immediately be showered by Iranian missiles carrying chemical and possibly biological weapons. Another possibility is that some other nuclear power, acting on the rabid dog principle, would nuke Israel. That's for sure.
Forgot to mention the most important part.
Nuclear Iran threatens: US supply of cheap oil/the very lives of USA's Gulf allies (take your pick)
Where do we go from here? The leaders of the two rival camps in Lebanon should be pondering the question in the wake of the showdown that brought Beirut to a standstill last Tuesday.
The showdown started in December, when Hezbollah - having withdrawn its ministers from the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora - started a mass sit-in in the heart of Lebanon's capital.
The immediate excuse was Siniora's decision to endorse the U.N. inquiry into Syria's role in the 2005 murder of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri. More importantly, perhaps, Hezbollah saw its existence threatened by two Security Council resolutions stipulating that all militias be disarmed. Siniora had accepted both resolutions in the teeth of opposition from Hezbollah, which regards its militia as the centerpiece of its power as a state within the Lebanese state.
Yet other reasons, more broadly related to the balance of power in the region, also likely prompted Hezbollah to make its move. One reason was Iran's desire to humiliate the United States by bringing down Siniora's government, which President Bush often cites by as a child of the Lebanese "Cedar Revolution" and a symbol of democratization in the Middle East. Creating a pro-Iran government in Beirut would deliver the coup de grace to the "Bush Doctrine" of "spreading freedom."
Another reason for Hezbollah's move is the Irano-Syrian desire to use Lebanon in war against Israel. As Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallim has said, a neutral Lebanon would deprive Syria of the "hinterland" it needs to deal with a putative Israeli blitzkrieg. Iran also needs Lebanon as a base for "flooding Israel with missiles," as Defense Minister Mostafa Najjar has noted.
#1
Wonderful ideas. However, the underlying premise "that any member, of either camp, cares anything for Lebanon as an end---rather than means to an end" is completely wrong.
#2
I'm not sure that Hizb Allah's finances can take another two months of mass protests. Its true that the mass protesters cost only a few dollars a day each. But the costs of servicing the porta potties, etc. cost extra and so do the cost of the leaders.
#1
It's almost as if the French elites want the west to be islamic. Could it be a case of "If we can't have it, neither can you"? ("It" being superpower status.)
Posted by: Jonathan ||
01/28/2007 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
The nuclear bomb that exploded during a recent episode of Fox's '24' did not raise new questions about whether Islam and Muslims pose a threat to America. Instead, the blast just reinforced and amplified the questions that many Americans have been asking since Sept. 11, 2001.
Polls show that many Americans believe Islam encourages violence, and they suspect that Islam and Muslims pose a threat to this country. They hear al-Qaida calling on Muslims to kill Americans. They hear about verses in the Quran relating to subjects such as violence and loyalty, and they have real questions about whether Muslims are commanded to be violent and about whether Muslims can be loyal to a secular state like America. Unfortunately, these fears have led to discrimination and hate crimes against innocent American Muslims.
American Muslims should go beyond condemnations of terrorism and slogans such as "Islam means peace." They need to address the real, post-9/11 questions many Americans are asking. For example, Muslims should regularly hold public forums where articulate Muslim scholars can provide detailed analysis of all the verses at issue and answer every question that is asked.
Of course, there have been some isolated and sporadic efforts along these lines. Various Muslim groups have published materials and held occasional limited discussions about certain verses from the Quran. But these groups have not made the dissemination of such information a priority, so the vast majority of Americans, Muslims as well as people of other faiths, have not seen these materials or heard these discussions.
In addition to answering America's questions, American Muslims must actively engage in the national discussion about how to make America safer. Since Sept. 11, 2001, American Muslims have focused more on civil liberties than on security, because law enforcement efforts have been targeted at Muslims in America.
It's important to protect the civil liberties of Muslims who pose no threat to America. However, American Muslims must remember that future terrorist attacks could kill innocent Americans of all faiths (including Muslims) and lead to more hate crimes, discrimination and governmental scrutiny directed at American Muslims. If American Muslims have concerns about particular security measures such as ethnic and religious profiling, the monitoring of mosques and Muslim charities, and informers who pretend to encourage violence they should propose better alternatives to keep the United States safe without infringing unnecessarily on civil liberties.
On the other hand, American Muslims who believe no such security measures are needed because they believe there is no real terrorist threat should make that argument to the American public. It's important for Americans to understand that these Muslims are not opposed to efforts to make the U.S. safe.
Answering America's questions and actively working to make America safer are the best ways for American Muslims to reduce anti-Muslim hostility and to make sure that fictional depictions of nuclear explosions on "24" and elsewhere don't lead to discrimination and hate crimes in the real world.
Kamran Memon, a civil rights attorney who grew up in Bethesda, Md., is the founder of Muslims for a Safe America. He wrote this piece for the Baltimore Sun. More information is available on the Web at www.muslimsforasafeamerica.org.
#3
Missed the point - how 'bout condemning Muslim based terrorist organizations as well as Jihadist ideology. How 'bout identifying and condemning radical imans and terrorist support groups in America. Till the American Muslim community is willing to take out their own garbage - they will continue to inspire suspicion.
#6
They could start by leaving. If you want shariah, if you want loud-speakers blaring the call to prayer -- go back to Muslim countries.
It would be a start. The next step to show they were serious would be to fight for representative democracy in their home countries. Fight for the equality of women in their home countries. Fight for freedom of expression in their home countries. Fight for religious diversity in their home countries. Etc. etc. and a whole bunch of other things they have no interest in doing.
Jens Orback, former Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government, said during a radio debate that: We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.
I think Europe is fucked. And we might be, too, unless we wise up damn fast.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/28/2007 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Swedish news website The Local writes about The Holocaust: Swedenâs complex legacy. Thatâs great. Unfortunately, it quickly degenerates into bashing all those who oppose Swedenâs policies of mass migration.
That complex legacy is being expressed by importing a horde who deny the first Holocaust even as they carry out the next.
#3
Fear not, Dave. Europe is fucked, but we're not. Europe has multiple weaknesses that we can't even imagine.
(1) The "supranational" EU government has robbed members of their sovereignty, rule by diktat from Brussels, and mostly echo dear old Jens here.
(2) The same EUrocrats have built an economic model that resembles the USSR's more than ours. Unemployment, GDP growth, bankrupt budgets -- basically all economic indicators point to continued crapulence and decline.
(3) Demography -- most of the EU has birthrates below replacement rates, and the most popular baby name in many cities is Muhammad. The US is at replacement rate; even if many of them are named Jose, at least they're Catholic. Furthermore, native Europeans are leaving in droves.
(4) There is no alternative European media. "News" consists of an endless drone of pro-Muslim, pro-EU, anti-Israel, and anti-American propaganda, punctuated by the occasional nail sticking up who is promptly hammered down.
(5) Americans are armed to the teeth, both individually and as a nation, and don't have a problem pulling the trigger if sufficiently provoked.
The situation in the US isn't perfect, but it amounts to hemorrhoids and the occasional touch of stomach flu. Europe is already a corpse, merely awaiting the autopsy report.
#5
Thanks, exJAG, you've cheered me up somewhat. I'd be even more cheered up, except that the Left in this country is doing its damnedest to infect America with the same ailments you cited for Europe.
Speaking of "armed to the teeth", what's up with ammo prices lately? They're going through the roof. I somebody getting ready for a civil war, or something?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/28/2007 13:41 Comments ||
Top||
#6
what's up with ammo prices lately?
Load your own, I do, the initial price is eairly high, but once the various machinery is bought, it"s pennies a round forever after.
I saw the handwriting on the wall years ago when the gun-grabbers tried to ban/license ammunition, Storage closet is now full of manuals, lead ingots, powders, primers, scales, case sizers, trimmers and molds, i"ve loaded enough to be sure I can do it right, and tested my own reloads for reliability and safety. All is well here.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/28/2007 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You bet, Dave. Looking at Europe always puts things in perspective for me too.
Sure, our left-wing "hemorrhoids" want to take us down the same path as the EU. But that brings up another huge difference between America and Europe: the general disposition of the inhabitants.
Europeans have spent centuries living as serfs laboring for an aloof elite, resulting in an ingrained passivity. They're resigned to being powerless to stop whatever new and improved freight train their rulers have invented. They're not only physically disarmed, but psychologically as well. It's why Europe has always sucked, since long before they ever had an America to flee to.
The American disposition, of course, gave us Patrick Henry, the Boston Tea Party, and "pry it from my cold, dead hands" bumper stickers. Europeans think it's barbaric, and have actually criminalized self-defense. But they're the ones having a continent-wide bloodbath every few decades.
Sure, we have some fascist sumbitches who love power more than they love liberty. But we're not fatalistic serfs, and we let them run amok so long as they're not doing us serious harm. C'mon, they're out there taking a principled stand with placards that say "Just Poop." Things have room to get a whole lot worse, at which point Americans have the will and the means to put a stop to it.
It doesn't occur to Europeans to fight back; it doesn't occur to Americans not to. Fundamentally, that's why we'll make it, and Europe won't. Again.
#8
Dang, exJAG, after reading that I could actually be optimistic! Thanks.
"Load your own, I do, the initial price is eairly high, but once the various machinery is bought, it"s pennies a round forever after."
I'm starting to seriously consider that, for both .223 Rem (to feed the AR-180B) and .357 Mag (for the Marlin 1894C). My son re-loads, and he keeps saying I should, too.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/28/2007 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#9
See? Guys like you and Redneck Jim cheer me up. That's what I'm talking about. And think of how many millions more of us are out there, willing and able to defend our corner of the country.
"The Muz" (as SpecOp likes to say, LOL) expect to meet the same European weakness and fatalism in America, because all sides make the mistake of lumping us all together as "the West." But there's the West, and then there's the Wild West.
The muz could take Europe tomorrow without a shot fired. The result would be quite different if they tried it in America.
I'm reminded of a Swiss general, whose unit was doing joint training with a German unit. He and the German general were comparing notes, in particular the Swiss emphasis on marksmanship.
Later, the German says, "my army is twice the size of yours. So, hypothetically, if my army were to, say, invade Switzerland, what would yours do?"
The Swiss general shrugs and says, "shoot twice and go home."
#10
""The Muz" (as SpecOp likes to say, LOL) expect to meet the same European weakness and fatalism in America, because all sides make the mistake of lumping us all together as "the West." But there's the West, and then there's the Wild West."
I hear ya. OTOH, we clearly do have a problem in that a sizeable chunk of America very reasonably can be lumped in with the EUnuchs: nearly 50 million Americans voted for Kerry in 2004, and enough voted for the Dhimmicrats last year to hand them both houses of Congress.
Yes, there are many of us who will not give up without a fight to the death; but there are also many who would surrender in a heartbeat-- and seem determined to force the rest of us to surrender along with them.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/28/2007 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#11
every town and community has its' nannys/homeowners association nazis....when the time comes, they go, DD.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/28/2007 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I was getting bummed out earlier today contemplating the euro-sclerotic idiocies we are about the undertake--like a 40% hike in the minimum wage and imposing carbon caps. Feeling much more cheerful now. Thanks crew.
#13
OTOH, we clearly do have a problem in that a sizeable chunk of America very reasonably can be lumped in with the EUnuchs: nearly 50 million Americans voted for Kerry in 2004, and enough voted for the Dhimmicrats last year to hand them both houses of Congress.
True. But not every Kerry/Dem voter is a dhimmi. The US has its own propaganda machine, so many of these voters are likely just ignorant, too busy being productive workers and parents to hang out at Rantburg U.
For example, my mother. Daughter of an immigrant WWII vet, nurse, high IQ, took sandwiches to the cops during the the 1968 Dem Convention melee in Chicago. Enthusiastic but ill-informed flower-power Dem voter until 2000, when I gave her a copy of Dereliction of Duty. After devouring it in two days, she asked me how to find the nearest RNC office to volunteer for Bush's campaign. She felt betrayed; now Dhims make her puke. She used to love Hillary. Now that she knows how much Hillary hates soldiers, she hopes someone will assassinate her.
How many other well-intentioned Anericans like this are out there, ready to wake up if only they realized they're asleep? Tens of thousands, maybe millions. The true loony-left minority may be vocal, but small. In contrast to Europe, we still have a democracy, and still have the power to change minds.
One more thing I meant to mention: Flight 93. As a thought exercise, imagine the jihadiots had hijacked a plane full of Europeans, conditioned into passivity by a lifetime of dependence on and obedience to the state. Would they have showed the same tenacity, initiative, and courage to save the EU Parliament building in Strasbourg? Ask yourself that anytime you're feeling dejected about the US.
Jens Orback, former Democracy Minister in the Social Democratic Swedish government, said during a radio debate that: We must be open and tolerant towards Islam and Muslims because when we become a minority, they will be so towards us.
NO, they WON'T, dipshit.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/28/2007 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"She felt betrayed; now Dhims make her puke. She used to love Hillary. Now that she knows how much Hillary hates soldiers, she hopes someone will assassinate her."
Good work. Could I maybe hire you to work my brother over and turn him into something other than a raving LLL moonbat? I've written him off as incorrigible...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/28/2007 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The dangers of radical Islam has been underestimated by too many. We in the West are in as perilous a position as we have ever been.
I recently attended "FBI 101," a G-man seminar for Hollywood writers. I do this kind of thing a lot: law enforcement seminars, ride-alongs, citizen academies and the like. It's a simple deal. The writers get information and research contacts; the lawdogs get a fighting chance at being portrayed realistically and maybe, on occasion, even sympathetically.
Now, in my case, the federales were preaching to the converted. Any agency with a record of battling gangsters, communists and dirty pols can show up as good guys in my work anytime. And never mind just their record. Since 9/11 chastened by blunders from within and above the FBI has reinvented itself as a thin gray line against Islamic terrorism. Pulling 16-hour days, volunteering for repeated tours of duty at FBI outposts in the Middle East, constantly aware that their failures will be remembered when their successes are forgotten, the G-people are clearly heroes.
But if they're hoping that their seminar will win them props from filmmakers in general a picture or two celebrating their courageous work in the war on terror I suspect they are going to be disappointed. In the history of our time as told by the movies, the war on terror largely does not exist. Which is passing strange, you know. Because the war on terror is the history of our time. The outcome of our battle against the demographic, political and military upsurge of a hateful theology and its oppressive political vision will determine the fate of freedom in this century.
#3
I'm convinced those in Hollywierd who aren't buried deep in denial are shit-scared of what might happen if they DID do movies with Islamists as the villians... anything from CAIR seething and whining in the outer office, to actual physical violence directed against themselves or their property.
#4
Hollyweird is able to live off their past largely from the constant flow of income generated by buying your Congress to extend copyright from the original of around 30 years to nearly a hundred by the recent Sonny Bono Copyright Act. Like a lot of stuff it was done in the name of the 'artists'. In reality, the industry plied both sides of the political aisle with 'campaign' contributions to get this turkey in stealing public domain and giving it to multi-billion dollar corporations. Our founding fathers abhorred the Royal Patents which granted families with inheritable authority to tax products and services. While recognizing the need to innovate and create, they specifically set a limit to the practice giving a reasonable time to recover or enrich the individual originator of the idea. That has all been betrayed. Now you see a consequence of altering the environment, they don't have to work for their fare. They can ignore market pressures because they have created a mechanism of income which is not subject to popular consent. That's why you get drivel.
#5
Hollywood will rush a film into production just as soon as the producers are assured the USA has lost the war in Iraq. The film will portray a wide ranging cast of characters as the heros of the story: anti-war Dems in a leading role; a supporting role played by anti war Pubs; the MSM for it's never wavering role of 24/7/365 defeatism; and key parts will be played by the likes of Tim Robbins, Susan Saradon, Sean Penn, George Clooney, Jane Fonda. Cameo appearances by Cindy Sheehan, John Kerry, John Murtha, Chuck Hagel.
OTOH: Should we win the war in Iraq the only movie we'll get will be about Abu Gurab.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/28/2007 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Kudos to the LA Times for letting this op ed into their paper.
#9
Hollywood too timid for the war on terror? to produce movies that depict ACTUAL bad guys, as opposed to the Republicans and Christians they just don't like, but who they know won't kill them.
There - fixed that for ya'.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/28/2007 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Compare Jane Fonda and Sean Penn with Jimmy Stewart, Clark Gable and many others of the WWII era. Today's Hollywood with the exception of a few are downright traitorous. Is there a single Hollywood star serving in the military today?
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.
