Hi there, !
Today Fri 03/17/2006 Thu 03/16/2006 Wed 03/15/2006 Tue 03/14/2006 Mon 03/13/2006 Sun 03/12/2006 Sat 03/11/2006 Archives
450756 articles and 1594398 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 103 articles and 536 comments as of 18:23.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT            Posting Order
Israel storms Jericho prison
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
2 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [279] 
4 00:00 JosephMendiola [508] 
16 00:00 lotp [465] 
5 00:00 Robert Crawford [287] 
8 00:00 JosephMendiola [637] 
3 00:00 Listen To Dogs [470] 
5 00:00 twobyfour [304] 
14 00:00 2b [294] 
2 00:00 bigjim-ky [287] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
20 00:00 phil_b [577]
2 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [306]
8 00:00 Brett [316]
6 00:00 Ptah [338]
10 00:00 Carmine [297]
7 00:00 Frank G [301]
30 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [854]
7 00:00 Ebbaimble Cheatch5305 [301]
3 00:00 49 Pan [341]
2 00:00 Hupeting Slineng3538 [301]
4 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [311]
1 00:00 Nimble Spemble [333]
2 00:00 Glenmore [387]
1 00:00 Anonymoose [318]
6 00:00 Icerigger [309]
5 00:00 lotp [292]
11 00:00 6 [345]
0 [299]
2 00:00 Chetle Omath7541 [296]
15 00:00 Frank G [528]
1 00:00 Glung Hupash4176 [325]
1 00:00 Icerigger [305]
1 00:00 Rory B. Bellows [299]
0 [300]
0 [312]
0 [307]
0 [291]
0 [307]
1 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [302]
0 [303]
14 00:00 49 Pan [316]
0 [312]
0 [338]
Page 2: WoT Background
2 00:00 Anonymoose [299]
0 [277]
0 [320]
7 00:00 JosephMendiola [279]
17 00:00 Frank G [354]
22 00:00 Frank G [433]
1 00:00 trailing wife [261]
12 00:00 2b [294]
1 00:00 phil_b [298]
1 00:00 tu3031 [292]
0 [289]
2 00:00 DepotGuy [317]
4 00:00 Old Patriot [306]
3 00:00 ryuge [275]
14 00:00 11A5S [351]
5 00:00 Icerigger [288]
0 [290]
3 00:00 CrazyFool [274]
3 00:00 Captain America [296]
7 00:00 Frank G [282]
6 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [262]
6 00:00 mhw [284]
2 00:00 Old Patriot [279]
3 00:00 Snuns Thromp1484 [414]
5 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [295]
23 00:00 Captain America [280]
4 00:00 Frank G [274]
0 [304]
2 00:00 Ulaigum Ebbereck6419 [269]
0 [281]
1 00:00 trailing wife [276]
0 [281]
Page 3: Non-WoT
3 00:00 DMFD [481]
5 00:00 Snuns Thromp1484 [476]
0 [304]
0 [290]
3 00:00 Pappy [305]
4 00:00 Icerigger [312]
0 [288]
2 00:00 tu3031 [313]
4 00:00 tu3031 [309]
2 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [301]
5 00:00 Frank G [553]
2 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [270]
8 00:00 mojo [300]
0 [282]
49 00:00 mmurray821 [543]
11 00:00 Formerly Dan [435]
4 00:00 3dc [422]
0 [292]
28 00:00 Some Dude [560]
2 00:00 SteveS [321]
3 00:00 Seafarious [298]
0 [296]
11 00:00 Angump Slomosing6697 [403]
6 00:00 Zenster [322]
4 00:00 DepotGuy [293]
1 00:00 James [284]
4 00:00 Thinemp Whimble2412 [308]
0 [275]
0 [270]
Eurabian Nightmares
Hat tip No Pasaran! good read.
By Andrew G. Bostom

Bruce Bawer’s 1997 Stealing Jesus decried the “claustrophobic narrowness” in American fundamentalist Christianity’s conception of the spiritual and divine. Bawer further maintained that its votaries “…breath taking combination of historical ignorance and theological certitude” had engendered a reductio ad absurdum literalist understanding of religion, effectively “..dispiriting…denying and dispelling…life’s mysteries.”

By September 1998, Bawer and his male partner decided to relocate permanently to Europe, initially Amsterdam. The Netherlands sociopolitical discourse, Bawer believed, had transcended “culture war platitudes” and “…the foolishness of fundamentalism”. Bawer recalls candidly his own angry assessment of the contrasting American discourse at the time he departed for Europe:

Yes I loved my country, but I also realized that I wanted to be away from it—away from the idiocy, the intolerance, the Puritanism. More and more, I felt I belonged in Europe.

While Europe Slept chronicles Bawer’s personal encounter with Europe’s ongoing Islamization since late 1998. And his riveting narrative is a testament to Bawer’s intellectual honesty. Shunning glib moral equivalences between America’s Christian fundamentalist movement, and the infinitely more radicalized and destructive Islam rapidly transforming a self-deluded Western Europe into Eurabia, Bawer was acutely aware, even prior to September 1, 2001 that

..Europe was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their Protestant counterparts look like amateurs…Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn’t close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death.

The book is divided chronologically into three sections: prior to 9/11/01 (“Before 9/1: Europe in Denial”), in the immediate aftermath of 9/11/01 through March 10, 2004 (“9/11 and After: Blaming Americans and Jews”); and from the March 11, 2004 Madrid bombings through August 2005 (“Europe’s Weimar Moment: The Liberal Resistance and Its Prospects”).

Early in the opening section, Bawer’s reaction to reading John Esposito’s transparent apologetic on Western Muslims struck a familiar cord—Esposito’s denial of any threat posed by European Islam (as Bawer aptly observes, a “…fundamentalist Islam [that] was on the march and wasn’t adapting to democratic values”) is consistent with the same author’s whitewashing of the brutal living legacy of the Islamic jihad conquests. A unique strength of While Europe Slept is that Bawer complements such perspicacious observations with hard data. Thus section one also introduces the reader to important information on Muslim demography and use (and abuse) of the Western European social welfare system. Although Muslims comprise (officially) between 2 and 10% of the population in most West European nations, France is already 12% Muslim and Switzerland 20%. But as Bawer notes, these statistics are merely the tip of the steadily emerging demographic iceberg:

Already, in most of Western Europe, 16 to 20 percent of children are Muslims…within a couple of generations many [Western European] countries will have Muslim majorities.

Cognizant of this phenomenon, a Danish Muslim leader, typical of many European imams, declared triumphally in 2000, “Muslims have a dream of living in an Islamic society…This dream will surely be fulfilled in Denmark…We will eventually be a majority”. And such demography is already destiny in Islamic satellite colonies interspersed throughout Western Europe where demands for sovereignty began well before the recent Muslim intifada in France this past fall, 2005. Bawer provides these alarming examples from across Western Europe:

In France, a public official met with an imam at the edge of Roubaix’s Muslim district out of respect for his declaration of the neighborhood as Islamic territory to which she had no right of access yup, true anecdocte, but in 75%+ islamic Roubaix, the greens and socialists have pactized with the islamofundies, and fund radios, orgs, sue apostate muslims who decry this fait accompli along with the "barbus"... and already in one 1990s book, a Roubaix islamic leader expressed his wish to see the area falls under sharia, complete with dhimmi status for the french minority (!), since it was muslim soil. In Britain, imams have pressed the government to officially designate certain areas of Bradford as being under Muslim, not British, law cf. above. In Denmark, Muslim leaders have sought the same kind of control over parts of Copenhagen. And in Belgium, Muslims living in the Brussels neighborhood of Sint-Jans-Molenbeek already view it not as part of Belgium but as an area under Islamic jurisdiction in which Belgians are not welcome.

These burgeoning Muslim communities are also consuming disproportionate amounts of state sponsored welfare benefits. For example, Danish Muslims comprise 5% of the population, yet they receive 40% of the governmental outlays. And despite this largesse, facilitated by sympathetic social workers, the social workers themselves are often tyrannized by their Muslim clients. Bawer describes the chilling situation in Denmark:

Some clients lay waste to social security offices and hit social workers—not out of frustration, but because they’ve learned that such bullying gets them what they want.

Bawer further documents how Norwegian (Oslo) imams preach brazenly that Muslims should expect such welfare benefits—and feel justified in supplementing them by stealing from stores—as a form of jizya* extracted from their infidel “host” societies—societies that have not yet accepted their requisite subservience to Islamic Law!

The final two sections of While Europe Slept elaborate how even two cataclysmic events—the 9/11/01 and 3/11/04 mass murdering acts of jihad terrorism—failed to alter Western Europe’s self-destructive capitulation to Islamic atavism. Bawer recalls that a mere 36-hours after the devastation of 9/11/01, vitriolic anti-American attacks resumed unabated in the mainstream Western European media. He identifies one plausible source of this ignorant and seemingly implacable contempt:

The intensity of the European establishment’s anti-Americanism is matched only by the intensity of its nostalgia for the good old days of Soviet Communism. Few politicians, professors, or journalists will admit to missing Communism. But most of them are awfully quick to say that, well, at least when the Soviet Union was around, it provided a counterweight to American power. This despicable, but now standard line, turns Cold War history on its head.

Bawer also describes the resurgence of raw Antisemitic rhetoric, and anti-Jewish violence fomented, in part, by “poisonous, fraudulent reportage” throughout Western Europe Cf. the ignoble Al durah forgery by gvt-owned France 2 television, a true 21st century bloodlibel. And when blatantly Judenhass crimes committed by Muslims are grudgingly reported by this same media, critical details routinely omitted in such accounts, include:

(a) that Muslims in Europe have not been attacked by Jews; (b) that unlike anti-Semitic acts, which are encouraged and applauded by influential figures within the Muslim community, anti-Muslim attacks are isolated events that no respected person or institution approves of; (c) that the number of anti-Muslim attacks is dwarfed by the number of attacks on Jews

The third (and last) section of While Europe Slept analyzes the moribund responses to the 3/11/04 Madrid bombings, in addition to subsequent lesser traumas such as the murder of Theo Van Gogh and the 7/7/05 London bombings. Bawer excoriates these grossly inadequate reactions as tantamount to “…a chorus singing hymns of brotherhood and eager to convert the entire world to its religion of eternal peace”, concluding,

It’s a pretty delusion. In reality, Europe is even now entering another chapter in its long history of violent struggle. The enemy can’t be wished or talked away. And what’s at stake isn’t just sovereignty of one or two nations but modern democratic civilization.

Nearly 30 years ago, in 1978, Charles Emmanuel Dufourcq, the great historian of Medieval European Islam, was concerned (even then) that historical and cultural revisionism might precipitate a recurrence of

…the upheaval carried out on our continent (i.e., Europe) by Islamic penetration more than a thousand years ago…with other methods

By the early 1990s, Bat Ye’or had already observed that European Islam was adhering to its traditional supremacist orthodoxy making no effort to eliminate doctrines incompatible with true ecumenism and core Western Enlightenment values:

I do not see serious signs of a Europeanization of Islam anywhere, a move that would be expressed in a relativization of religion, a self-critical view of the history of Islamic imperialism...we are light years away from such a development...On the contrary, I think that we are participating in the Islamization of Europe, reflected both in daily occurrences and in our way of thinking...All the racist fanaticism that permeates the Arab countries and Iran has been manifested in Europe in recent years...

Bat Ye’or’s seminal 2005 Eurabia—The Euro-Arab Axis (Btw, I pre-ordered the french translation which should have been published 02/23, but still not sign of it being available) elucidated the ideological underpinnings and resultant sociopolitical developments which had transformed Western Europe into a hemi-continent of dhimmitude. The fruition of this hideous utopian contruct—Eurabia—is a Western Europe rife with Judenhass Anti-Zionism, Anti-Americanism, and a perverse, self-loathing denigration of its own Western heritage, firmly rooted in both Christianity, and the Enlightenment. Bruce Bawer’s independent research and keen, unflinching observations put flesh—much like the tortured flesh of the recently murdered Parisian Jew Ilan Halimi—on the bones of Bat Ye’or’s Eurabia. Bawer’s informed and gripping narrative makes clear the disturbing unwillingness of Muslim immigrants en bloc to accept foundational Western principles of equality, and integrate peacefully into their host societies. While Europe Slept demonstrates that continued denial of any Islamic etiology for the major problems confronting Western Europe begets more Islam as the “solution,” and accelerates the hemi-continent’s apparently inevitable trajectory towards Lebanonization, and/or complete Islamization, with implementation of the Shari’a.

[*Note on jizya : Under the Shari’a (Islamic Law) regulations, either the non-Muslim infidels must convert to Islam, or they pay the blood ransom jizya—classically, in a humiliating public ceremony which often involved blows to the head or neck—and their life and belongings are protected. The nature of such “protection” is clarified in this definition of jizya by the seminal Arabic lexicographer, E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the etymology of the term:

The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain [An Arabic-English Lexicon (London, 1865), Book I Part II, Jizya, p. 422.]

The “contract of the jizya”, or “dhimma” encompassed other obligatory and recommended obligations for the conquered non-Muslim “dhimmi” peoples. Collectively, these “obligations” formed the discriminatory system of dhimmitude imposed upon non-Muslims – Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, and Buddhists – subjugated by jihad. Some of the more salient features of dhimmitude include: the prohibition of arms for the vanquished non-Muslims (dhimmis); the prohibition of church bells; restrictions concerning the building and restoration of churches, synagogues, and temples; inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims with regard to taxes and penal law; the refusal of dhimmi testimony by Muslim courts; a requirement that Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims, including Zoroastrians and Hindus, wear special clothes; and the overall humiliation and abasement of non-Muslims. It is important to note that these regulations and attitudes were institutionalized as permanent features of the sacred Islamic law, or Shari’a. Islam manifests itself as a political ideology, not merely a religion, when its teachings are followed on these and other prominent and enduring features.]
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/14/2006 05:38 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [294 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Not really news here at the Burg, but a sobering read nonetheless.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2006 6:33 Comments || Top||

#2  Bawer further documents how Norwegian (Oslo) imams preach brazenly that Muslims should expect such welfare benefits—and feel justified in supplementing them by stealing from stores—as a form of jizya* extracted from their infidel “host” societies—societies that have not yet accepted their requisite subservience to Islamic Law!

These must be the moderates, since they're not calling for throat-slittings.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2006 7:56 Comments || Top||

#3  The 60 Minutes story on Al Qaeda's rule in Tal Afar shows what the Euros have to look forward to. Sharia interpreted as random beheadings to keep the populace under control.
Posted by: HV || 03/14/2006 9:20 Comments || Top||

#4  Reality bites.

"I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death."

He may not LIKE it, but it IS true: this is exactly what is going on in MY mind, and any attempt to deny it is simply telling me that I am not thinking what I say I am thinking. It is an accusation that I am a liar without either proof that he is right or leaves me any means of proving him wrong. This is the key to demonization, and it should be viewed as such.
Posted by: Ptah || 03/14/2006 9:46 Comments || Top||

#5  Ptah, this guy's problem was he bought into the leftist lie that any show of disapproval means hatred and oppression. It wasn't until he saw what real hatred looks like that he was able to open his eyes.

I suspect that bit was thrown in as a sop to his old mates on the left. In all likelihood, though, now that he's criticized the Oppressed Muslim Masses, he'll be thrown under the bus and declared a fascist.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2006 10:01 Comments || Top||

#6  Too true, Robert: Death to the Pink Swastika!
Posted by: Secret Master || 03/14/2006 11:15 Comments || Top||

#7  and a perverse, self-loathing denigration of its own Western heritage, firmly rooted in both Christianity, and the Enlightenmen

Another wise man who talks of Christianity with absolutely no concept whatsoever of what he is talking about. One of the most fundamental concepts of Christianity is forgiveness. One confesses ones sins, acknowledges them and accepts forgiveness and grace. Only in the mind of a gay man who sees all Christians through the bigoted lens of ALL Christians as an amorphous blob - "they-out-to-get-me" - would think that self-loathing and denigration are rooted in Christianity.

No clue. None whatsoever.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 16:11 Comments || Top||

#8  in fact, it is so freaking clueless it is mind boggling.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 16:26 Comments || Top||

#9  2b, I think he's just written that bit poorly. I think he meant:

and a perverse, self-loathing denigration of its own Western heritage [which is] firmly rooted in both Christianity, and the Enlightenment

Not that the self-loathing is rooted in Christianity and the Enlightenment, but that Western heritage is.

IMHO, that's inarguable.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2006 16:32 Comments || Top||

#10  maybe. It's otherwise an interesting piece.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 16:33 Comments || Top||

#11  "maybe" meaning that I think you may be right :-)
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 16:34 Comments || Top||

#12  English is not my first language, but my reading of that particular segment was the same as Mr. Crawford's.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/14/2006 16:50 Comments || Top||

#13  Islam manifests itself as a political ideology, not merely a religion, when its teachings are followed on these and other prominent and enduring features.

Until we see this caveat appended to every article of substance dealing with Islam, the battle will not be won. We are truly in WWIV.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/14/2006 16:55 Comments || Top||

#14  ok. That does make sense. Guess I jumped the gun on that one.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 19:54 Comments || Top||

Fifth Column
Sudden Jihad Syndrome
By Daniel Pipes

“Individual Islamists may appear law-abiding and reasonable, but they are part of a totalitarian movement, and as such, all must be considered potential killers.” I wrote those words days after 9/11 and have been criticized for them ever since. But an incident on March 3 at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill suggests I did not go far enough.
In brief, Taheri-azar represents the ultimate Islamist nightmare: a seemingly well-adjusted Muslim whose religion inspires him, out of the blue, to murder non-Muslims. Taheri-azar acknowledged planning his jihad for over two years, or during his university sojourn. It’s not hard to imagine how his ideas developed, given the coherence of Islamist ideology, its immense reach (including a Muslim Student Association at UNC), and its resonance among many Muslims.

Were Taheri-azar unique in his surreptitious adoption of radical Islam, one could ignore his case, but he fits into a widespread pattern of Muslims who lead quiet lives before turning to terrorism. Their number includes the 9/11 hijackers, the London transport bombers, and Maher Hawash, the Intel engineer arrested before he could join the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Mohammed Ali Alayed, the Saudi living in Houston fits, the pattern because he stabbed and murdered Ariel Sellouk, a Jewish man who was his one-time friend. So do some converts to Islam; who suspected Muriel Degauque, a 38-year-old Belgian woman, would turn up in Iraq as a suicide bomber throwing herself against an American military base?

This is what I have dubbed the Sudden Jihad Syndrome, whereby normal-appearing Muslims abruptly become violent. It has the awful but legitimate consequence of casting suspicion on all Muslims. Who knows whence the next jihadi? How can one be confident a law-abiding Muslim will not suddenly erupt in a homicidal rage? Yes, of course, their numbers are very small, but they are disproportionately much higher than among non-Muslims.

This syndrome helps explain the fear of Islam and mistrust of Muslims that polls have shown on the rise since 9/11.

The Muslim response of denouncing these views as bias, as the “new anti-Semitism,” or “Islamophobia” is as baseless as accusing anti-Nazis of “Germanophobia” or anti-Communists of “Russophobia.” Instead of presenting themselves as victims, Muslims should address this fear by developing a moderate, modern, and good-neighborly version of Islam that rejects radical Islam, jihad, and the subordination of “infidels.”
Rest at link.
Posted by: ed || 03/14/2006 06:38 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [304 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The outbreak of wishful thinking at the end spoils a tolerably good article.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2006 7:52 Comments || Top||

#2  Pipes has a serious Pollyanna complex when it comes to Islam. He keeps clicking his heels together, saying "there ARE moderates, there ARE moderates", and expecting something to happen.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2006 7:57 Comments || Top||

#3  Lol, RC. Bam!

At some point, most of us will end up on the same page.

Poor li'l Danny's been in the slow lane for years. He may not make it. He has to keep inventing juicy stop-gap rationalizations to ease his way down the mountain of elaborate Muzzy bullshit he's constructed over the years. I can't help but feel a perverse satisfaction reading people who once proudly claimed an imaginary moral high ground now abandoning carefully crafted rhetorical redoubts of feel-good prattle, one after another, to try to accommodate the facts as the farce plays out. Reminds me of institutionalized bad science... here, just one more tweak of the accepted theory, then everything will be okey-dokey. Rinse. Repeat. Yewbetcha.

I love his close. They "should" blah blah blah. Yeah? No shit? Shoulda coulda woulda "Pipe"dream, lol. Follow the evidence, baby. They ain't fucking doing it. Got it? Evidence. Facts. Reality. Everything else is wanking, Dannyboy. You've got Sudden Excuse Syndrome, son. Planning a book, I'll bet.

Another bit of the faux-moral worldview that needs to fall is the AlQ is our only true enemy myth. Truth is, there are 50-100-1000-googleplex insanely Muzzy factions and fuckwits out there, ranging from inept "cells" of one who rent Jeeps and run over people who were recently their classmates to well-meaning but foolish columnists who do us all a disservice by creating fantastical confabulations blunting the facts to suit personal world-views to lying apologist fronts and think-tanks and "charity" organizations to well-funded "pseudo states" which seek the destruction of an entire people. What they have in common is the point, not whether or not they're AlQ members or Hamas members Hezbollah members or any other "officially recognized" group.

Try this out and see which makes more sense, Pipes' latest dilemma explained away, or a simplified evidence-based take:

By their behavior (only the fools still parse their words) they are easily identified by their common goal: destroy anything and everything that isn't Islam by any means available.

Our response should be simple, once that realization takes root: destroy anything and everything that is Islam by any means available.

Duh. My opinion. Yes. I am evil. Patience has expired. My bad.
Posted by: .com || 03/14/2006 11:31 Comments || Top||

#4  Sounds a lot like STS, Sudden Troll Syndrome.
Posted by: 6 || 03/14/2006 18:43 Comments || Top||

#5  look who is talking, numero 6... if this is not an exemplary case of projection, I dunno what is.
Posted by: twobyfour || 03/14/2006 21:02 Comments || Top||

Home Front: WoT
When Hawks Run
By John Podhoretz
Can the War on Terror be won? America's inability to secure a victory in Iraq against the insurgency suggests to many people of good will and good sense that it really can't be. They believe the enemies of the United States are motivated by a force more powerful than we reckoned - by a religious ideology that has seduced hundreds of millions of people who prefer its stark certainties to the ambiguities and confusions of Western bourgeois life.

We can't beat it, they say, and we can't join it. So what is left for us? Just to say "the hell with them."

Richard Lowry's very important piece in the new issue of National Review is about the "to-hell-with-them hawks." They are, in Lowry's words, "conservatives who are comfortable using force abroad, but have little patience for a deep entanglement with the Muslim world, which they consider unredeemable, or at least not worth the strenuous effort of trying to redeem."

They look at Iraq's decimated civic culture and they wonder at the naiveté of a president who believed he could bring Western-style liberty to the place. They look at the Muslim world and they see Hamas elected by Palestinians and months of rioting over supposedly offensive cartoons by people who are happy to celebrate suicide bombers.

President Bush's prescription for ultimate victory in the War on Terror was bringing freedom to those who are not free, because the longing for freedom resides in every human heart. Ludicrous sentimentality, say the to-hell-with-them hawks. Muslims don't want it and they don't deserve it and we shouldn't be trying to give it to them.

Lowry's answer is this: "Confident predictions about which cultures are or are not capable of democracy have the aspect of unassailable truth - right up to the point that they don't. Representative Arab government will be impossible until it happens."

The project in Iraq is an effort to change the terms of the discussion in the Arab Muslim world. Lowry has come up with an elegant and original way of putting the visionary aspect of the Bush freedom doctrine in real-world terms: "The contemporary Middle East has featured a competition of radicalisms - who can be religiously purer, and more hostile to the West? The project in Iraq is an attempt to shift the terms of the competition to who can better deliver peace, prosperity and representation."

The to-hell-with-them hawks - among them Lowry's own mentor, William F. Buckley - have found a middle ground between the merely partisan opposition arguments of the Democrats and the poisonous attitudes of the far-right isolationists.

Their argument seems hard-headed and unsentimental. People are trying to murder Americans, and such people ought to die. Kill as many of the bad guys as you can abroad. Strike Iran from the air if you have to. Do whatever you must to secure the homeland. Don't let Arabs run the ports. Racially profile Muslims and Arabs out the wazoo. No crocodile tears for the excesses at Gitmo and Abu Ghraib.

What's missing here is what has been missing from the most hard-headed discussions of Iraq since the end of the 2004 election, and that is an understanding of just why President Bush formulated the freedom doctrine.

The problem is that the policies advocated by the "hell hawks" and by defeatist Democrats offer no real possibility of an end to the war against Islamic radicalism. It will go on forever.

And if it does, it seems certain that at some point in the next few decades, millions of people are going to die in a successful terrorist assault using weapons of mass destruction.

Why? Because there is no way to stop the delivery of such a weapon if the delivery system is a single person willing to die to get it done. The only way to prevent it is to change the terms under which such people live, to offer them something to hope for besides virgins in paradise.

Seen in this light, the Bush freedom doctrine isn't simply a starry-eyed exercise in ludicrous optimism. It's a real-world solution to a real-world problem.

The only real answer to the Bush freedom doctrine is the one posed by those who believe there is no real War on Terror. They range from the Michael Moore, Bush-may-have-been-involved types to ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama, who states plainly that Bush & Co. overestimated the threat from terrorism.

Fukuyama basically believes 9/11 was a fluke, a lucky shot. It would be nice if he were right. But it would be reckless to the point of insanity for any American policymaker to count on it. Just as it would be for any American policymaker to adopt the view of the to-hell-with-them hawks.
Posted by: Chetle Omath7541 || 03/14/2006 14:11 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [508 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Let's hear it for Francis Fuckyomama.
Posted by: Ebbomoting Ulurong7258 || 03/14/2006 16:21 Comments || Top||

#2  Would you bet your life on that, Francis?
You bet your ass you wouldn't...
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/14/2006 16:53 Comments || Top||

#3  The most bitter irony for me of this whole discussion is that, for the first time, an American president is actually trying to address the root causes....and all the bleeding hearts from whom we constantly hear the phrase turn on him like a pack of rabid Pit Bulls.
Posted by: AlanC || 03/14/2006 17:00 Comments || Top||

#4  STRATEGYPAGE.com article, i.e. NORTH KOREA: NUKES? WHAT NUKES", once more makes it clear that it doesn't matter what Iran aor the Norkies, etal. claim they have or want to do. THE BURDEN IS ON THE USA, AND ONLY THE USA, TO PROVE THE ROGUES ARE HAVE OR ARE DOING WHAT THE ROGUES CLAIM TO HAVE OR BE DOING - Iff the USA AND ONLY THE USA fails to prove/"justify", espec and only to the Failed Left-MSM, the USA does not have any justification or base for any GOP-led decision or action. NO matter how many nukes or WMDS Iran and NK, etc. truly have, or proclaim to have before the world, they are not to be held accountable to anyone for anything. The GWOT will NOT go on forever becuz the pre-9-11 STATUS QUO is no acceptable to anyone, either of the Right or the Left or Center or Inependent, and espec for the Failed Left and aligned anti-Americanists - for the flip-flop loving Failed/Angry Left, it ultimately does NOT matter whether America wins or loses as long as the Lefties get their way, i.e. anti-sovereign US, anti-American American Socialism and Socialist-Unitarian NPE, America under OWG, and American interests being controlled by a group of world states, includ Russia-China, where America's agenda is just one of many to be considered. Americans are allowed to unilater modernize the world and create global empire as long as its understood Americans must give up their nation, empire, and wealth-endowments to others, that these will be taken away from Americans either voluntarily or by force.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/14/2006 22:25 Comments || Top||

Blood shed continued in Iraq
From an Iraqi blog - making it somewhere between opinion and news.

Today the Iraqi police discovered more than 80 bodies in different parts of the country mostly in Baghdad. Some of the bodies were mutilated and have been subjected to tortures before killed.

On the same time the Iraqi security police arrested an American man with large amount of explosives near Tikrit. He claimed that he is working for a security company! (This is interesting.)

The weak and hypocritical politicians are now in a different position from the Iraqi people. They are not less than warlords or gang leaders seeking power even if it is on the mass skulls of the people. In principle there is no difference between them and Saddam.

By this time the expulsion of the Shiite families from the Sunni dominated areas continued.

In the last few days the terrorist killed and assassinated many journalists and reporters from Iraq in addition to ongoing attacks against the intellectuals, doctors, university lecturers, and others.

The aim of the terrorists is to create civil war. The situation is very dangerous especially with the biased interference of Zalmi Khalel Zada the US ambassador towards those who support the terrorism. This may lead to full scale anti-US forces in the Shiite areas which remained calm until now.

The terrorist are indeed planning for a major attack so soon to inflame the condition farther.
Posted by: Glenmore || 03/14/2006 15:31 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [279 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Yeah, but couldn't we write just the same -

Bloodshed continues in LA or Detroit, or [pick your large metro area and insert here].

We're knocking off about 18K a year just domestically. We won't even throw in the DWI vehicular homicides.
Posted by: Gleper Jaque6309 || 03/14/2006 17:42 Comments || Top||

#2  There is good and bad here. The understanding that it is terrorists that are killing people and trying to create civil war.

One angle could be to throw yourselves behind the government - as ineffectual as you might find it - in favour of throwing your lot in to succumb to terrorists. A joy of demnocracy is that you can throw the bums out at the next election.

Succumbing to terror and sects and tribes won't offer the same hope. You must come together as a people under one banner - however temporary, it's a darn start. Then fine tune it - but you must keep the freedom to do so.

I too, am worried about a major attack, but the thwarting of the green zone may have been a part of it. Or a smokescreen. But it remains that internal conditions are choice - reaction certainly is.
Posted by: Thinemp Whimble2412 || 03/14/2006 21:33 Comments || Top||

Terror Networks
Is Torture Sanctioned By The Koran?
According to one website, Arab readers of the Koran believe that Muslim torturers are doing surrogate torture (YU'ADHDHIBHUMU)for the Muslim God. I corrected some poorly translated text grammar, and did some editing to make clarify the text.

Muslims are correct when they say that the Koran has to be read in Arabic. If not, it gets "lost in translation."

American hostage Tom Fox was found dead in Iraq on the March 11, 2006. According to CNN, he was "tortured" and murdered with "a shot to the head." If you look for the word "torture" in a translated Koran, you won’t find anything. But we know that the Koran incites torture.
For anyone who doesn't know, unlike the Scribe' transmitters of Judaism and Christianity, Muslims take the Koran (Recitation) as the direct narration of the word of God, through Angel Gabriel.

But if you look for the word "torture" in the Koran in Arabic, you find it immediately in Koran 9:14.

Translations in French or English are completely distorted!

See some key words necessary to understanding this very important line (from the Koran), that can be heard in many hostage execution videos. This line is highly inspirational to terrorists.
This interested me because I had no idea that the be-headers had a particular murder mantra.

- Qatiluhum: Fight to kill. Arabic has many words meaning war or fighting, but this one has the harshest impact. It means fight to kill or to exterminate (massacre).
Wouldn't the English term "slaughter" best describe, "fight to kill"?

- "Qatiluhum Yu'Adhdibhumu Allahu Bi'aydikum Wa Yukhzihim Wa Yansurkum Alayhim Wa Yashfi Sudura Qawmin Mu'uminina" (Sura 9, chapter 14). But here is where typical translations are completely distorted! The translation of this line means: "Fight to kill them (or "Massacre them"), Allah is torturing them through your hands and will cover them with ignominy" (9:14).
If this is authentic, Muslim terrorists would take their desire to torture as divinely inspired, and claim that their God possessed them during the torture session.

However, the following reveals typical French and English translations, from Arabic.

French translation:

"14. Combattez-les. Dieu, par vos mains, les châtiera, les couvrira d'ignominie, vous donnera la victoire sur eux et guérira les poitrines d'un peuple croyant."
Which translates to English: "Fight them; through your hands, God will inflict very severe and cruel punishment ("chatiera"), degrade them, grant you victory over them, and heal the breasts of a believing people."

Notice the absence of the notion of "massacre" and "torture". The order of words has also changed. In Arabic, the words "torture" immediately follows the word "massacre." Here, the translator has placed it further in the line, and have softened it.
Why would translators distort harsh Arabic concepts? The best known English translator, Marmaduke Pickthall, was a Muslim convert. As far as I know, no critic of Islam has translated the Koran.

English translation.
"Fight them; through your hands, God will inflict very severe and cruel punishment ("chatiera"), degrade them, grant you victory over them, and heal the breasts of a believing people."(At-Tawbah 9:14).
This is even softer than the French version. Here they only mention a "punishment" (instead of 'chatier' which is a very severe and cruel punishment). So here, we have something like when you were punished at school because you did not do your homework.
So English translations are even weaker than the French.

The Koran most definitely must be read in Arabic.
I am not going to study a near dead language, but Westerners need complete knowledge of Arab understanding of a book that is their life-script. If they think torture is normal, then we have to adapt to that.
Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/14/2006 07:07 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [470 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Excellent article!

Exactly the point I have been trying to make at my website: we need to know the religion to understand it, and if that means understanding the language, then that is necessary also. Only by understanding what motivates them can we know what they fear.

"For anyone who doesn't know, unlike the Scribe' transmitters of Judaism and Christianity, Muslims take the Koran (Recitation) as the direct narration of the word of God, through Angel Gabriel." This is correct: Christians believe that God inspired all the writers of the old and new testament to write what they did. The Lord aided their recollection, but did not, apart from passages prefixed by "Thus says the Lord", actually dictate the literal words: My description of Creation, in my version of Genesis, would necessarily be different from the actual writer's description because my vocabulary and my training is different from theirs.
Posted by: Ptah || 03/14/2006 10:13 Comments || Top||

#2  As I read it the English and French translations are equivalent. Sloppiness abounds.
Posted by: Snineng Ulereng4057 || 03/14/2006 10:23 Comments || Top||

#3  Sorry for the typos. I rushed the editing, and it could be a lot better. Sura 9 of the Koran - which includes the "Verse of the Sword" (9:50)-refers to events around the Muslim capture of Mecca, thus is the most violent section of the Koran. Check out Maududi's commentary:

Posted by: Listen To Dogs || 03/14/2006 15:19 Comments || Top||

Islamist Movements And The Democratic Process In The Arab World :
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2006 05:04 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [287 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Democratic revolutionaries are the oddest lot. They are generally quiet, always determined, and always confident that in the end, democracy will win out.

Unlike the fanatic who is so often fanatical because he himself suffers doubts about his faith, the democrat is calm, convinced beyond any measure that his is the right way, and the better way.

The democrat needs no uniform or banner, some icon to light his way. He neither needs to scream or curse, to threaten or coerce. For his arguments persuade. A child can understand and appreciate what he proposes.

A democrat challenges all authority, because authority not based on democratic grounds is illusion and deception. Only democratic authority can withstand a democratic challenge.

For these reasons, the democrat is the worst, most invisible enemy of the Islamist, and all others who derive their power from other than the governed.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/14/2006 9:41 Comments || Top||

#2  Here's the rub; Violence aside Islamists are not the champions of human kindness that they may have you believe that they are. There are some other important issues we need to consider. Not the least is their treatment of women. Most would be infinitely better off in a bankok brothel. Sharia Law, the goal of all islamists affords little rights to the accused, children, women, "infidels", "apostates", business, science, debate, art, free speech or sexual preference.

So, violence aside, let's get to it.
Posted by: bigjim-ky || 03/14/2006 11:32 Comments || Top||

Home Front: Culture Wars
The liberal baby bust
By Phillip Longman
What's the difference between Seattle and Salt Lake City? There are many differences, of course, but here's one you might not know. In Seattle, there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.
This curious fact might at first seem trivial, but it reflects a much broader and little-noticed demographic trend that has deep implications for the future of global culture and politics. It's not that people in a progressive city such as Seattle are so much fonder of dogs than are people in a conservative city such as Salt Lake City. It's that progressives are so much less likely to have children.
It's a pattern found throughout the world, and it augers a far more conservative future - one in which patriarchy and other traditional values make a comeback, if only by default. Childlessness and small families are increasingly the norm today among progressive secularists. As a consequence, an increasing share of all children born into the world are descended from a share of the population whose conservative values have led them to raise large families.
Today, fertility correlates strongly with a wide range of political, cultural and religious attitudes. In the USA, for example, 47% of people who attend church weekly say their ideal family size is three or more children. By contrast, 27% of those who seldom attend church want that many kids.
In Utah, where more than two-thirds of residents are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 92 children are born each year for every 1,000 women, the highest fertility rate in the nation. By contrast Vermont - the first to embrace gay unions - has the nation's lowest rate, producing 51 children per 1,000 women.
Similarly, in Europe today, the people least likely to have children are those most likely to hold progressive views of the world. For instance, do you distrust the army and other institutions and are you prone to demonstrate against them? Then, according to polling data assembled by demographers Ron Lesthaeghe and Johan Surkyn, you are less likely to be married and have kids or ever to get married and have kids. Do you find soft drugs, homosexuality and euthanasia acceptable? Do you seldom, if ever, attend church? Europeans who answer affirmatively to such questions are far more likely to live alone or be in childless, cohabiting unions than are those who answer negatively.
This correlation between secularism, individualism and low fertility portends a vast change in modern societies. In the USA, for example, nearly 20% of women born in the late 1950s are reaching the end of their reproductive lives without having children. The greatly expanded childless segment of contemporary society, whose members are drawn disproportionately from the feminist and countercultural movements of the 1960s and '70s, will leave no genetic legacy. Nor will their emotional or psychological influence on the next generation compare with that of people who did raise children.
Single-child factor
Meanwhile, single-child families are prone to extinction. A single child replaces one of his or her parents, but not both. Consequently, a segment of society in which single-child families are the norm will decline in population by at least 50% per generation and quite quickly disappear. In the USA, the 17.4% of baby boomer women who had one child account for a mere 9.2% of kids produced by their generation. But among children of the baby boom, nearly a quarter descend from the mere 10% of baby boomer women who had four or more kids.
This dynamic helps explain the gradual drift of American culture toward religious fundamentalism and social conservatism. Among states that voted for President Bush in 2004, the average fertility rate is more than 11% higher than the rate of states for Sen. John Kerry.
It might also help to explain the popular resistance among rank-and-file Europeans to such crown jewels of secular liberalism as the European Union. It turns out that Europeans who are most likely to identify themselves as "world citizens" are also less likely to have children.
Rewriting history?
Why couldn't tomorrow's Americans and Europeans, even if they are disproportionately raised in patriarchal, religiously minded households, turn out to be another generation of '68? The key difference is that during the post-World War II era, nearly all segments of society married and had children. Some had more than others, but there was much more conformity in family size between the religious and the secular. Meanwhile, thanks mostly to improvements in social conditions, there is no longer much difference in survival rates for children born into large families and those who have few if any siblings.
Tomorrow's children, therefore, unlike members of the postwar baby boom generation, will be for the most part descendants of a comparatively narrow and culturally conservative segment of society. To be sure, some members of the rising generation may reject their parents' values, as often happens. But when they look for fellow secularists with whom to make common cause, they will find that most of their would-be fellow travelers were quite literally never born.
Many will celebrate these developments. Others will view them as the death of the Enlightenment. Either way, they will find themselves living through another great cycle of history.
Phillip Longman is a fellow at the New America Foundation and the author of The Empty Cradle: How Falling Birthrates Threaten World Prosperity and What to Do About It. This essay is adapted from his cover story in the current issue of Foreign Policy magazine.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/14/2006 13:17 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [465 views] Top|| File under:

#1  While stationed at Ft Hood during the late 1990s, the on post church service I attended had two muti-kid families. One was Morman (sic?)and had eight kids, they had a baby boy during this time, so there were three boys and five girls. The other big family was Texas Aggie/Presbe...can't remember how to spell the demonination name... and also had a new baby boy the same year as the Morman(sic)family. They had seven kids, five boys and two girls. Both were neat families with wonderful children. Thus Utah and Texas are destined to rule America......
Posted by: KJB43 || 03/14/2006 14:25 Comments || Top||

#2  I think this is a bunch of linear thinking crap.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 15:55 Comments || Top||

#3  I think this is a bunch of linear thinking crap.

Is this parody? If not, explain.

Posted by: no mo uro || 03/14/2006 17:41 Comments || Top||

#4  I think this is a bunch of linear thinking crap.


Insightful? Comment? Shallow?
Posted by: Almost Anonymous5839 || 03/14/2006 17:43 Comments || Top||

#5  I don't question the numbers or any of the particular facts, I question the cause and effect that he implies that the numbers indicate.

I think it is interesting that he compares Salt Lake City and Seattle. Isn't it just as likely that people who choose to live in Seattle will be progressive for two reasons - the culture in Seattle is "progressive" and so those who grew up in it, or who like that culture would flock to or stay in Seattle?

Likewise, Mormons live in Salt Lake City and have large families. Those who aren't Mormon don't flock to Salt Lake City. In fact, I've known many people who have moved to Salt Lake City and moved away cause they didn't like the exclusivity of the Mormon culture. But they were conservative.

It would have been more telling if he had chosen two cities that had similar cultures. Like maybe Boise and Witchita - or something like that. Then compare the large families v/s small families and how they compare in their overall conservative v/s progressive values. I'd wager you wouldn't find such a disparity as he presents.

Besides, people who HAVE large families tend to participate in family friendly activities, like church. Just cause it's true that mormons and catholics and people who tend to be family oriented have more children doesn't necessarily mean that those who choose to have two kids instead of four are proportionately less likely to be conservative. Go to Kansas, I'm sure you'll find many people with 2 kids who are conservative. Go to Massachusetts and I'm sure you'll find many people with lots of kids who are true blue liberals.

Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 18:21 Comments || Top||

#6  Go to Massachusetts and I'm sure you'll find many people with lots of kids who are true blue liberals.

I doubt it.

Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/14/2006 18:26 Comments || Top||

#7  one last thought. If the majority of families today have 2 kids. Then that means that there are fewer families that have more or less than that number . So if, for the sake of making my point.. if 100X more people have 2 kids than those who have 4 kids or no kids... and the values of those who have just 2 children (nationwide, not just in Seattle) overall tend to be conservative (or liberal) then that would have far more of an impact than just comparing that larger than average families tend to be more conservative than smaller than average families.

I don't have time to clarify my point - so i hope it's clear enough.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 18:32 Comments || Top||

#8  Actually, Boston is, along with San Francisco, one of the most childless large cities in North America, IIRC. This in spite of a large Irish Catholic population.
Posted by: no mo uro || 03/14/2006 18:34 Comments || Top||

#9  Roe effect - read Taranto and Best of teh Web
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2006 19:07 Comments || Top||

#10  good point, no mor

I don't understand this baby in arms race. I grasp the importance demographics. But it that is the plan to solve the problem of Muslims inability to adapt to western values - God help us all.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 19:08 Comments || Top||

#11  no welfare reward for extra kids is part of teh answer to avoid the Islamization - Europe is a cash cow for Islamic breeders
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2006 19:12 Comments || Top||

#12  I think you've come much closer to the heart of the problem Frank. Current welfare actually provide incentives for those least capable of providing for their children to produce the more children. Like feral cats that you feed - it's a nice gesture for awhile - until there are gazillions of them running around and feeding them becomes an impossibility.
Posted by: 2b || 03/14/2006 19:22 Comments || Top||

#13  We did welfare reform near a decade ago and it worked. There is very little subsidy for unwed mothers, at least in the U. S.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/14/2006 19:56 Comments || Top||

#14  Bumper sticker to liberals:

"Save the Planet - Don't Make More Little Liberals!"

BwahHaHa. Excellent....Another Rovian mind trick
has found its intended victims.
Posted by: Ulaigum Ebbereck6419 || 03/14/2006 21:54 Comments || Top||

#15  Liberalism and feminism are telling econ-vital/competitive males that Government and Women don't need them them for anything, that women no longer need nor care for men to compete over them, and protect them, let alone to spend their wealth on females and any children females may have, be it men's seed or by others. Surprise, surprise, in the long-run birthrates go down becuz many men no longer "feel the need" to chase women, let alone romance and have sex with them.
"You don't need or want us Men, so why should we accept you wojmen's and the State's demand to support you. Its what you and the State said you both wanted both realitically and as the future ideal utopian state of Mankind and all Humanity. IT T'AINT MY FAULT NOR MEN'S FAULT YOU WOMEN AND THE STATE DON'T HAVE THE $$$ TO BACK UP YOUR OWN DEMANDS, AND DON'T CLAIM THAT ITS MEN WHOM ABSOLUTELY MISTOOK AND MISUNDERSTOOD YOUR MESSAGE. YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANTED - NOW YOU DON'T WANT IT, AND ITS MINE AND MEN'S FAULT! NO WAY, JOSE"!?.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/14/2006 22:49 Comments || Top||

#16  There might be a middle way there, Joe. ;-)
Posted by: lotp || 03/14/2006 23:30 Comments || Top||

Dawkins: It's all in the genes
Posted by: tipper || 03/14/2006 09:53 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [287 views] Top|| File under:

#1  No it isn't. It's partly about the genes. Competition takes place at two levels: genes and individual. Both result in the evolving or extinction of species. Mr. Darwin is a very bright man, perhaps even a genious in his chosen field, but outside that he is very much a rude and self-centered ass. And his contribution to his field is very useful, but not the kind of world-changing event he fancies.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/14/2006 14:18 Comments || Top||

#2  I believe you mean "Dawkins", tw.

Mr. Dawkins' blather would bore Mr. Darwin. Mr. Dawkins drones on about natural selection as though it is some all-powerful personna like The Grim Reaper, on a mission set in a genetic blueprint. Nonsense.

Natural selection is simply a culling of those who do not successfully adapt to adversity. It can be a culling by almost anything: warfare, climate change, wildlife migration changes, unsuccessful genes, or even a crop fungus.

Evolution is simply mutation that is favorable enough to survive natural selection.

Successful genes are merely the detailed blueprints of those who who survived. They may not have survived by genes but rather by favorable circumstance.

Too many people attempt to anthropomorphize the whole process, Mr. Dawkins included.
Posted by: Darrell || 03/14/2006 14:59 Comments || Top||

#3  from Hogan's Heroes to Family Feud to Geneticist! Whoda thunk it?
Posted by: Frank G || 03/14/2006 15:28 Comments || Top||

#4  IMHO The Selfish Gene is the best scientific book written in modern times, and his other books are seriously good, but TW is right. He's a pompous ass.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/14/2006 15:39 Comments || Top||

Natural selection is simply a culling of those who do not successfully adapt to adversity. It can be a culling by almost anything: warfare, climate change, wildlife migration changes, unsuccessful genes, or even a crop fungus.

Pure luck, too. While luck will, over time, cancel out, there's no doubt that bad luck has culled some pretty good adaptations and good luck has let some poor ones survive.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/14/2006 19:52 Comments || Top||

The Suicidal Left: Civilizations and their Death Drives
"The incarnation of the death drive that runs like a black lace through the fabric of great civilizations, the Left is the originator of our most grievous ills and the gravest danger that we face. It is at the root of the strife and tribulations that are tearing down the edifice of the Western world.

Perhaps this recognition will give us the moral strength to swerve from the road to perdition along which we have been dragged for so long. There is every indication that its terminal point is not too far away. One can almost hear the echo of the abyss as one after another the great pillars of our civilization come crumbling down. Mixed with the doom-bound calls for appeasement in the face of barbarism, it makes for a bloodcurdling sound. If we want to live we must take heed, for the next bend in this road may well be the last."
Posted by: SR-71 || 03/14/2006 08:24 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [637 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The Left comes across like the deranged spouse or suitor. You know the type. "If I can't have him/her, then no one can have 'em." First its stalking. Then its threatening words and gestures. Then they off the other party. Of course everyone else watches but does nothing other than urge the object of the party's murderous attention to get a piece of legal paper which does really nothing but gives the appearence that you are doing something.
Posted by: Slomorong Shorong4171 || 03/14/2006 8:52 Comments || Top||

#2  Remarkable article. Absolute clarity. Thank you, SR-71 - I will share this with everyone I know - even the Lefty fools with whom I maintain tenuous relations. This ought to end that waste of time, LOL.

"The West’s greatest threat is neither Islam nor any other external foe. It is its own political Left. All the great ills and woes under which our civilization so agonizingly belabors – and under the weight of which it is slowly sinking – have been either brought on or inflamed by it.

By corroding the West’s moral, spiritual, economic and cultural foundation, the Left has wrought incalculable damage on our civilization. The fact that this assault has come from within makes it all the more astounding. The Left is a wholly western child, born and raised within its confines. It is as though the Left somehow embodies the West’s reaction against the West. It is as though under some suicidal impulse the West has turned against itself with a self-destructive intent."

Our most dangerous enemy lies within.

Posted by: Chetle Omath7541 || 03/14/2006 11:51 Comments || Top||

#3  An excellent article that I recommend reading.

This really jumped out at me:

At first glance, this may appear too sweeping a thesis to account for all the complexities of political reality, but there a simple way to test its validity. To prove it incorrect all you need to do is to come up with one counter-example, one single instance from among the Left’s campaigns and advocacies which is not in some way injurious to western civilization. Try as hard as you may, you will not be able to do it.

The Left never errs – it always acts against the West. It never stands or fights for anything that may be good for the western world. It can’t, because it is a reaction against it. Opposition to the West is the very reason for its existence; it is its nature. A wolf can’t act like a hare or a lion like an antelope. The Left can never become the West’s friend, because antipathy towards it actuates its heart and infuses its soul.

I comment at my website further on this. In the meantime, great article! Recommended.
Posted by: Ptah || 03/14/2006 12:36 Comments || Top||

#4  A while back Wretchard at Belmont Club had a thread called "The Ichneumon Wasp" which dealt with this parasitic nature of the left.

Get into a discussion with a leftist and see how ignorant they often are of their own history. Often times they believe that they somehow represent the "real" America, but watch their anger when you recall the history of their development as having derived from the French, not American, revolution, and that the American tradition of the Enlightenment is entirely different from and has never included the left (well, until the '30's), and name for true the historical fact that their family tree includes both fascism and communism. Their heads explode.

This past summer I had a guy tell me that big-government socialism was a deeply American tradition that went back to the Founding Fathers. When I asked for proof that it even existed here before 1932, he shook his head, swore at me, and stormed off. Watta maroon. But a typical maroon.

I used to think the left was a cancer. A better analogy is that they are more like a herpes infection - one which can be beaten back by the immune system of the West but which pops up in times of stress.

Either way, they are a disease which would be best eliminated entirely.
Posted by: no mo uro || 03/14/2006 18:13 Comments || Top||

#5  What never ceases to amaze me, is that if the Islamofascists win, the leftists would be the first up against the wall.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/14/2006 19:24 Comments || Top||

#6  We'll never be rid of the left. You try convincing a million ignorant poor people that it's a bad idea to steal money from successful people to keep their sorry asses alive.
Posted by: BH || 03/14/2006 22:34 Comments || Top||

#7  Give the ignorant poor people a shot at moving up the economic ladder and most of them will work their ass off to do so. The poor form a power block for the left only as long as there's either no chance economic mobility, or as long as the leaders of the left can convince them that's the case.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/14/2006 23:41 Comments || Top||

#8  During WW2, Korea, and aspects of Vietnam it was called the "Banzai/Human Wave" attack, "hugging the belt/waist", and "attacking where American-Western-UN forces were NOT". IN the WOT, organz traditional linear combat has given sway to nuclear/WMD-potential "People's War", aka form of Asymmetric Warfare, and "franchising", i.e. form of post-modern inter-State tech transfer and proliferation where one state does the silent designing or testing of weapons for another nation. Whatever the intellectuals call it nowadays, in the end it still comes down to the USA running out of beans and bullets before the enemy runs out of bodies. As for the US Left, they'll be amongst the first up against the wall to be executed whether its the Radical Muslims or Secular Commies. The only thing both Spetzies and Comies have to lose are the Milyuhns and Zilyuhns Socialism can't take care of, and Radical Islam and its Mullahs won't care for, anyways, so might as well lose 'em defeating America and the West.
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/14/2006 23:58 Comments || Top||

Who's in the News

E-Mail Me

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


On Sale now!

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

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

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

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Scooter McGruder
john frum
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Frank G
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Tue 2006-03-14
  Israel storms Jericho prison
Mon 2006-03-13
  Mujadadi survives suicide attack, blames Pakistan
Sun 2006-03-12
  Foley Killers Hanged
Sat 2006-03-11
  Clerics announce Sharia in S Waziristan
Fri 2006-03-10
  MILF coup underway?
Thu 2006-03-09
  Qaeda fugitive surrenders in Kuwait
Wed 2006-03-08
  N. Korea Launches Two Missiles
Tue 2006-03-07
  15 Dead, Dozens hurt in blasts in north Indian temple town
Mon 2006-03-06
  Bangla Bhai bangla nabbed
Sun 2006-03-05
  Ayman issues call for more attacks
Sat 2006-03-04
  EU3 Begin To Realize They Were Duped
Fri 2006-03-03
  Leb Army seals Syrian border
Thu 2006-03-02
  JMB chief Abdur Rahman nabbed
Wed 2006-03-01
  US journo trapped in Afghan prison riot
Tue 2006-02-28
  Yemen Executes American Missionaries’ Murderer

Better than the average link...

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.
WoT Operations (33)    WoT Background (32)    Non-WoT (29)    (0)    (0)