Article

2005-07-08 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 05:30|| || Front Page|| [11126 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Spot on. Those words, every one of them, should be engraved in granite.

Myself, I don't think we have a snowball's chance in Hell of winning this war against totalitarian Islam until we first win the war that has been declared on us by our own domestic anti-American Left, including the entire leadership of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-08 07:14|| 2005-07-08 07:14|| Front Page Top

#2 Let me rephrase.
Can Luftwaffe be defeated?

Posted by gromgoru 2005-07-08 08:02|| 2005-07-08 08:02|| Front Page Top

#3 While I think terrorism is going to get a lot worse, I don't agree we have to win this war, we just have to not lose it. At least on the political front the signs are positive. Support of the Iraq war has proven to be a formula for winning electoral support (Bush, Blair, Howard) and opposition a formula for political failure (Shroeder, Chirac). This despite the massive naysaying of the media. The people are smarter than the elites want to believe.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-08 09:38|| 2005-07-08 09:38|| Front Page Top

#4 Phil

Twenty years ago I would have agreed with your assessment. My problem with playing on the defensive now is that we will merely be waiting for the day that Al Qaeda finally ponies up the bucks to buy a spare nuke off of Iran or North Korea.

We must be on the offensive in all facets of the game (military, political, diplomatic, economic). The only way this ends is when the message is writ large in the Arab world: Joining Al Qaeda means a painful death and you won't even stand a chance at killing an infidel.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-07-08 10:12|| 2005-07-08 10:12|| Front Page Top

#5 I echo DN - and believe the flypaper effect in Afghanistan and Iraq has been hugely advantageous. I sincerely appreciate the jihadis for their stupidity, in other words. We can use our military, the ultimate ass-kicking machine on the planet, as long as the fight is being staged on the road. We can be on the offensive. If they ever grab a clue, we've got big problems. No more home games, please.

And as for the other 'Slamo arenas, Iran / Syria, Saudi, PakiWaki, Indo, Malay, Filipines - pre-emption is the answer. Start the game in a place and at a time of our choosing. Iran's nuke pgm is an external driver that we don't need, but it can be dealt with in time, I hope... Go, Goss, go!

Norkies are another issue. Certainly I think we're screwing up if we've been allowing them to ship tech to anyone, such as the recent story about goodies to Iran. That needs a stealth response - I'm thinking some convenient maritime disasters that amount to a selective blockade. On the public level, the "ignore the tantrums" and "make them China's problem" gig is still effective.

Just my take.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 12:48|| 2005-07-08 12:48|| Front Page Top

#6 This article is total crap.

What I read when I read this article is that either you support Bush and his administration 100% or you are a terrorist sympathizer, bullshit!

There is more than one way to skin a cat folks.

The American people are the baddest, meanest, most ingenutitive and outstasndingly patriotic people in the world. Even dissent is patriotic in America, and by God it's going to stay that way.

Any pansy ass journalist, right or left who thinks differently can kiss my red white and blue ass!

This article follows the same old Bush line that the Iraq War was part of the war on terror, garbage.

It's about WMDs, or maybe security, no its about democracy, no it's about Saddam's evil deeds, no its about Terrorism, yeah terrorism, that's catchy....bullshit!

Terorism is an effect, not a cause of our war in Iraq.

Dissent against the Iraq war is reasonable and warranted, and part of the greatness of America. Where else can average citizens make their opinions known without fear of death or reprisal. God bless those dissenters!

Maybe I don't agree with what they are all saying, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it! My granpa fought for the availability of those rights for everyone, and his grandpa did, and by god his granpa before him did too.

Iran, part of the terror infrastructure, what do we do about them....nothin. Syria and Saudi Arabia state sponsors of Zarq and Binny and lots of other bomb wearin freaks, what do we do? Nothin. Nothin. Nothin.

Why , you tell me. Is it because the liberal freaks are stopping it, no. So why? We know the Iranians will have the nuke within a month or two, and still we do nothing.

Therefore...This article is crap. Most of our politicians are looking out for themselves and noone else, and if anyone for a minute thinks that GW is any better than Ted Kennedy he/she has bought into the lie that idiots like the author of this article are selling for his own personal and political gain.

GW and his cronies couldn't give a crap about us, they're in it to win it for themselves. So unless you're helping them build their personal warchests, you're useless cannon fodder to them.

6,000 or 7,000 people is a small price to pay for trillions of dollars in profits, that's what they're thinking. I say institute the draft, lock, load and destroy our enemies and don't play this crap.

We will defeat our enemies, but only after we throw both groups of self servin intern banging, deal makin politicians onto their asses from the capital steps and start doing what's right for America, not what's right for the next election!

Up with America, down with partisan political crap like this!

Rather than continue to argue the stupid points this article attempts to make, I'll make one final comment

Remember Sept 11th!

Posted by MM 2005-07-08 16:08|| 2005-07-08 16:08|| Front Page Top

#7 Well, lol, that's one rather large disingenuous pile of schizoid Looney Poop! Lol!

Remember the Hoola Hoop!

Squirrel.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 16:13|| 2005-07-08 16:13|| Front Page Top

#8 Thank you, MM. You've convinced me that it's all W's fault. It's all about our big oil conspiracy against Iraq. So, how does THIS fit in:

1972 - Attack on Iraeli athletes - Munich
1979 - Tehran embassy hostage crisis
1983 - Beruit barracks bombing
1985 - Achille Laura
1990 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie
1993 - WTC
1996 - Khobar Towers
1998 - Nairobi and Tanzania

Oh, I guess those are all W's daddy's fault. BTW,
does MM stand for Mad Mullah, Mainstream Media, moderate Muslim, or just something with a hard sugar coating that's soft in the middle and consumed by the bag full?

Posted by Tom 2005-07-08 16:22|| 2005-07-08 16:22|| Front Page Top

#9 Schizoid looney...perhaps...feel free to question my sanity .com

Disingenuous?
Sir, don't you ever question my patriotism.

MM

Posted by MM 2005-07-08 16:23|| 2005-07-08 16:23|| Front Page Top

#10 Lol! Did you look up disingenuous?

NewsFlash: Listen up, fool, I'll question your species, if I feel like it. After that steaming pile of schizophrenic DU / Buchananist wank-o-rific shit, utterly sans substance, you have nothing to say worthy of my respect.

Patriot? Prove it. Go ahead, tell us some lies.

Squirrel.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 16:31|| 2005-07-08 16:31|| Front Page Top

#11 Dang. Somewhere, orderlies are rushing about, frantically searching...

Posted by Dave D. 2005-07-08 16:52|| 2005-07-08 16:52|| Front Page Top

#12 C'mon, give the guy a break. He did cop to the schizoid Looney thing...

Posted by tu3031 2005-07-08 16:54|| 2005-07-08 16:54|| Front Page Top

#13 Lol, tu - You just wanna play with the mousie 'fore you crunch his little bones.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 16:57|| 2005-07-08 16:57|| Front Page Top

#14 Maybe I don't agree with what they are all saying, but I'll defend to the death their right to say it! My granpa fought for the availability of those rights for everyone, and his grandpa did, and by god his granpa before him did too.

Death to cliches!

Posted by The Black Hand of the Editor 2005-07-08 17:19|| 2005-07-08 17:19|| Front Page Top

#15 First .com Were I looking for your respect, I would simply dribble off some useless party line bantor as you seem to only be capable of.

And just for your illiterate ass, here's webster's definition of disingenuous:

Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: âan ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator.

In short, you questioned my sincerity about defending my nation, my constitution, and my way of life. I don't really care, because you're probably just some half ass wannabe with GW tattooed on your ass and forehead, obviously a bandwagon war supportor and GW bobblehead collector.

Go back to Repub party HQ and tell your neocon idols how good you've been on the blog today...

Perhaps you meant to point to me as naive with your ill informed comments, but Webster says that the most common misuse of the word...grammar boy.

Now, in order to pay my respects to the ever present Steve, RantMaster, I will keep this discourse civil henceforth, and ask that ye do the same.

Now as for the Tom's comments:

OK, so what? Iraq did these things or what Tom, what are you arguing. I'm arguing that our attention should be focused on destroying the terrorist networks, and their sympathizers. Then clean up the rest of the theatre.

I don't blame GW for any attacks on the US, I just don't think he's doing a good job. Would Kerry do better, no probably not. How the hell can anyone who never had a real job know what's best for people who work 8-5?

Let's get a real person in office for once instead of some ridiculous talking head. Give McCain a go, or is he too real for the lobbyists and Neocons who want to assure they keep getting those fat checks from Halliburton and the oil companies?

and...had you read my schizo ranting you would have read my disdain for both the administration's tactics and those of other ridiculous partisan political players. Clinton...don't even get me started, his ineptitude in dealing with the threat of terrorism is only succeedded by his ineptitude for choosing the right women.

But let's review the attacks you mentioned:

1972 - Attack on Israeli athletes - Munich-Palestinians
1979 - Tehran embassy hostage crisis-Iranians
1983 - Beruit barracks bombing-Hizbullah
1985 - Achille Laura-Lybians
1990 - PAN AM bombing Locherbie-Libyans
1993 - WTC-Al qaeda
1996 - Khobar Towers-al qaeda
1998 - Nairobi and Tanzania-al qaeda

As I said, wipe the Iranians out! They've got a freakin nuke, do you think they're going to wait til Iraq is done before they hand one over to some terrorist?

Now where does Iraq come into this equation. I'll tell you where...Iraq was our ally against the Iranians during most of the incidents listed above. Need I dig up stock footage of Rummy shakin Saddam's bloody hand?

And don't get me wrong, I'm all for killing any foreign mofos who talk smack about the USA, but to concede that anyone who questions Bush's leadership is a terrorist sympathizer, I'm not willing to concede that bull.

Let's kill the terrorist, yes, let's spend all of our national focus doing it. Let's not attack Zimbabwe because Mugabe is stupid, you get me. It was a tactical error of unprecedented scope to attack Iraq before Iran, North Korea, and Syria.

Kill Saddam later, bring me Bin Laden's head first.

Posted by MM 2005-07-08 17:56|| 2005-07-08 17:56|| Front Page Top

#16 MM, Rantbug is special for several reasons, not least it is mostly free of the 'the world would be wonderful if it wasn't for the bad people screwing it up' worldview that is extremely prevalent. I could point to 10 examples today in articles or comments here. It really doesn't matter who the bad people are - capitalists, communists, Americans, neocons, jews, arab rulers, etc, take your pick.

In order to improve things you have to solve real problems and often that involves many layered actions because the real world is a complex place. The reality is, terrorism in general and suicide bombers in particular is/are an extremely difficult problem. There is only one solution that demonstarbly works and that is physical separation of the population that produces the terrorism (think the West Bank barrier). There is no way this can be implemmented in current Western societies, so the bad news is terrorism will get worse and until we either find another solution(s) or we are forced into the separation solution. People don't want to hear this but it will require a suicide bomber coming to a mall near you before they are prepared to take the required steps to prevent terrorism. And note I say prevent not stop.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-08 18:02|| 2005-07-08 18:02|| Front Page Top

#17 w00t! Well, I guess that tells me! Dribbling is definitely not your style. Pretentious spew is more accurate and descriptive.

Regards the definition(s) - I'll have you know my ass is hairy, but not illiterate - and, indeed, there is more than just one - I do believe you covered more topics than merely that which could be ascribed to your patriotism, but no problem. You can claim anything in this anonymous venue - and I will accord it the respect I deem apropos. And your acceptance or rejection will, also, carry whatever weight I choose to attach.

Yes, you have it. No doubt about it. How could we have been so foolish? There are no concerns other than yours, all things are possible within your perceived timeframe, and anyone who doesn't please you is shit. Deep. Shit. Anything already accomplished is just shit. Why oh why were we not listening to you? Oh woe is us.

Knock yourself out, Micky Mouse. I'll watch, since you've got a woodie for "Steve, RantMaster", lol!

We have an Army of Steves, MM - those refrences to the AoS you may have seen hereabouts. But it seems likely you haven't lurked more than 5 minutes, you've decided to dive in and set us all straight. Thanx. That's, um, very special of you.

Steve? Take it away... I have to go report to my neocon masters, anyway.

Squirrel.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 18:15|| 2005-07-08 18:15|| Front Page Top

#18 .com, I thnk you are being unduly optimistic to agree this is a 'blood feud' that will not increase in tempo over time. I ascribe the infrequency of these kinds of attacks to Arab efficiency and their slow learning curve. They will get better and hence we will see more frequent attacks. My view is that the limiting factor is they struggle with the logistics. Whether the Brits find the people behind this will be a key step, because if they don't, it becomes succesful model for a team capable of recurrent attacks. Something they have lacked to date in the West.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-08 18:19|| 2005-07-08 18:19|| Front Page Top

#19 Back to the subject... <<>>
IMHO, from Europe : ultimately defeating terrorism or not is pointless.

Unless they somehow get their hands on a nuke, terrorism is but a lever and a sideshow, though it can be a war method in open battlefields, past (Algeria war) or present, such as israel (where the paleos thought they could shatter the israeli society through repeated and localized acts of pure barbarity aimed directly at its fabric, the "spiderweb" theory of Nasrallah and Arafat), or in Irak (where the jihadist try essentially the same thing, spread chaos trhough terror).

- A lever because jihad is a global affair, alternating between stick and carrot; the bombings serve to make the "moderate" look moderate, and put some pressure on authorities, which are encouraged to relieve it through appeasement. The jihadist are just one mean of achieving a global goal, jihad is economical (profiting from oil, corrupting western elites), cultural (forcing the west to gladly acknowledge its own inferiority and the superiority of the islamic civilization... don't laugh), demographical (subsituting population through superior birthrate and immigration), religious (filling the western spiritual vaccuum with dawa), political (special right for muslims), moral (for example, theses statements advising mulsims to stay indoor to avoid retribution : a nice touch putting the bombings and the indignation they caused on the same level, nice moral equivalency),...

- A sideshow because gvt are worrying about an ennemy that is a fraction of what was nazi germany or USSR (it's horrible to say, but barring a WMD, terrorism is nothing compared to a WWII style destruction; I mailed the british consulate to express my support and sympathies, and i couldn't help but notice that the terrs and their bombs are not likely to succeed in intimidating a people that faced down Hitler and the Luftwaffe alone without flinching)... all the while the real threat takes place, noticed but untreated :
huge population changes in Europa, with 10-20% islamic minorities, deeply re-islamized thanks to the action of well-oiled org (according to survey, 85% french muslims want or would like hallal meat, religious practice is on the increase), constant growth of theses minorities through immigration (off. 6 millions muslims in France, probably 8-9 millions, possibly 10-15 non european minorities, a market survey by the meat producer Charal for hallal meat candidly put the potential market at 13 millions, 300 000 to 500 000 each year for France), higher birthrate (from 2,4 to 3,9 against 1,9 french birthrate, which certainly amounts to a "native" 1,4-1,5) and conversion (10 000 each year, against 100-200 chrisitan converts from islam).

There are already about 1000 "hot spots" in France where the authoritiy of the State is contested, where an informal state structure based on semi-organized crime has remplaced it, with a serious islamic push, where gvt services, including police are not allowed to go into at ease (snatching suspects is like a commando raid, with an speedy getout before the riot ensuing), where a low-level intifada is waged against symbols of legal authorities and "frenchness" (including tens of thousand of torched cars every years, ambushes of police, of firefighters, of EMT, gangrape of french girls or westernized muslim girls, plus "incivilitÃ©s", ie high street crime level...), where schools have became ideological battleground (the Obin internal rapport) with request for hallal meat, segregation between boys/girls, muslims/"impure", demand for curriculum changes (shoah cannot be teached anymore, students challenges teachers when content goes against islam, etc, etc... when young students refuse to use the "+" sign in mathemathics because it is a cross, you know you have a problem), where antisemitism has become rampant and violent,...

So far, the response of the State to this loss of sovereignty has been appeasement, appeasement, appeasement.
Buy off islamists, give them posts in mayor office, buy the muslim community's vote by building mosques (theses are sprouting everywhere in France, often on public land sold for a symbolic cost by municipalities),...

In that situation, if you add the alliance between the leftists and the islamists (the fringe but worrying "indigenous" mvt, claiming that France is a colonial power in its own territory, that french people are colonists, and that therefore the true indigenous are... the muslim migrants!), the suicide birthrate, the self-hatred, the multiculturalism and relativity enforced by french and EU elite (Chirac : "the roots of Europe as are muslim as they are christian", Prodi setting Tarik Ramadan the takia specialist and protÃ©gÃ© of Qaradawi, the man who theorize the conquest of Europe by dawa, as an adviser for his then EU commission),... then terrorism and its occasionnal deaths are the least of our worries.
<<>>
I wish JFM could give you his take on that, he is more well-read and articulate than me.

Posted by anonymous5089 2005-07-08 18:22|| 2005-07-08 18:22|| Front Page Top

#20 In order to improve things you have to solve real problems and often that involves many layered actions because the real world is a complex place. The reality is, terrorism in general and suicide bombers in particular is/are an extremely difficult problem. There is only one solution that demonstarbly works and that is physical separation of the population that produces the terrorism.

Phil,
Thanks for informing me about what works in the real world..I needed it.

Seriously though, what are you arguing, that we shouldn't attack Iran, that Iraq was the best first choice? That we should unquestioningly follow our fearless leader?

Where's the justification for choosing Iraq first? It's well known in intelligence circles that Iran helped facilitate Sept 11th, so what more would we have needed? You tell me that we needed Iraq to stage attacks on Iran, and I'll say cool, get em, but that's not what I'm hearing.

Honestly I'm hearing nothing from you here except that the world is a mean place, and that problems are complex.

Thanks, but I heard that one already. I still won't cede the "You are a terrorist if you don't support GW, now back to your free speech zone.

Attacking Iran isn't going to stop terrorism, no shit. It will increase it, but it may stop them from giving someone else their nukes. Iraq was never a real threat, we destroyed that threat with 11 years of aerial and economic bombardment.

Multi-tiered approach, yes, separating a majority of the population from a minority of people who share ethnic and religious similarities with a few looney terrorists, no.

The Israeli wall will be a temporary fix Phil, if even that. I'm willing to bet that it will only serve to impoverish the Palestinians and further radicalize their already out of work populace. Hezbullah loves the wall, it puts palestinians out of work and makes for a good flow of willing suicide bombers. Anyone ever heard of Davies J curve?

The war against terror is an open ended war, that's definite. Can we totally prevent attacks, no. Can we prevent most...maybe. I'm not willing to sell liberty to prevent a few attacks though, sorry.

Hundreds of thousands of young men have died for this country. That's why our soldiers are fighting and dying today, to preserve our liberties and way of life. So I'm not going to value my little life so highly as to sell my liberty to preserve it, or your life either, sorry Phil.

So, I'll say no to the "measures" you mention in addition to a National ID card, or security cameras on every one of our street corners. Big Brother is not my friend, what about you?

Anyway, thanks for the comments Phil, as you said Rantburg is a special place, a good place to exchange ideas, and sometimes a few insults and not full of a bunch of freakin looney hippies and I appreciate that. I just want Bin laden and his supporters dead, and I think we are all on the same page here in that wanting of terrorist heads, even good ole .com.

Thanks again,
MM

Posted by MM 2005-07-08 18:33|| 2005-07-08 18:33|| Front Page Top

#21 phil_b - If we stood still while they"improved" in efficiency I would, indeed, expect more numerous attacks. However, we don't stand still any more than they do, certainly less so, in fact.

It always comes back to the untapped Muzzies, actually. If they were to stand up on their hind legs and actually fight this insanity / depravity, then the logistics would get dramatically worse for them. That they don't, well, we will respond in different ways if they hit us again and the threats become personal to those who can't quite grasp it, otherwise.

For instance, another hit on the London scale might strengthen the resolve of the Fibbies (or other DHS element) to "out" the imams who advocate and incite attacks. Deportation, jail, whatever... possibly diminishing the threat, and possibly not - as some of his "flock" would suddenly claim they were radicalized by the action against their imam.

In the end, the imams will all have to go. First the "radical" ones. Eventually, all of them. I do not see anything that suggests anything else, regards the domestic scene. Externally, well, we've bashed those about for years. You know them all, I'm sure.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 18:33|| 2005-07-08 18:33|| Front Page Top

#22 There have been several attempted attacks in the US. We are, either through skill or luck, taking down some local cells. That's good. We are drawing a lot of jihadis to fight us in Iraq where we can easily kill them. That is good. We are forcing/encouraging regime change and or stepped up counter-terror operations in some neighboring countries to Iraq. Also good.

Would it have been better to attack Iran or Syria first? Perhaps, but on what justification? If there was no justification to go after Saddam, someone with whom we were still technically at war, then how could you justify going after Iran? Likewise Saudi Arabia. Do we enrage every Muslim on the planet at square one (believe me I am tempted to just say yes on this one)? Probably not a workable solution, especially since it would immediately drive the world economy into the tank too. So methinks that Iraq was the only real option. Establish the base and radiate from there. If it does not work, we can always institute the draft and nuke Iran, both of which should go over like a fart in church.

Posted by remoteman 2005-07-08 18:42|| 2005-07-08 18:42|| Front Page Top

#23 The benchmark for modern terrorism is the Provisional IRA whose geographic and population base was small, they had a large security force arrayed against them and had detention without trial or trial in closed courts used against them (a far more severe regime than anything currently contemplated against Islamic terrorism). Yet a typical IRA bomb team would make and plant hundreds of bombs. Yes, we will get better, but I see far more potential for Islamic terrorists to get better.

MM, you are a rude fuckwit. Go away.

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-08 19:05|| 2005-07-08 19:05|| Front Page Top

#24 zzzzzzzzzzzzz sez MOOD!

Posted by Shipman 2005-07-08 19:22|| 2005-07-08 19:22|| Front Page Top

#25 phil_b - The jihadis certainly do have more room, potential, for improvement, yes.

Re: IRA - I'd guess, only as a distant observer, that they had great logistical support from the population, but perhaps that impression is bogus - a Hollyweird myth.

Back to the jihadis, once I would've been certain that all they had to do to swing the balance back to the side of a bona-fide solutions is hit us and kill Americans on our soil. Period. I presumed that those who were not True Believer Moonbats and hardcore socialists, and that must be at least half of them, would abandon them overnight.

Now I'm not so sure - even if we do react in support, the next question is, for how long?

We're funny critters. We have a short attention span (if it's not personal) and won't commit wholeheartedly until it is personal. I presume a normal person would find the 9/11 attack enough, but apparently not. I used to believe Americans were on/off wildcatters, sitting on their hands one day and real riverboat gamblers willing to go "all in" then next - when their neighbors were obviously under attack / being killed, such as 9/11. The subsequent nearly 4 years demonstrate that phenomenon no longer holds. The resolve wanes faster that I would've ever believed prior to this.

I no longer have faith in that wavering population segment - they seem to choose their direction with a wet finger, not internal values. Sigh. That's why this article hit so many buttons for me. Sigh. I hope we remain lucky and our agencies are improving and foiling attacks, whether we're aware or not.

This feeling sucks, bro.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 19:23|| 2005-07-08 19:23|| Front Page Top

#26 What's with the hostility here, can't take a little challenge to your opinions phil?

but to continue the discourse, hearts and minds, therein lies the victory.

MM

Posted by MM 2005-07-08 19:40|| 2005-07-08 19:40|| Front Page Top

#27 .com, we have discussed this before, but for me the real mystery is why the Islamic terrorists have not increased the tempo of attacks in the West. Its either because as the article suggests they don't want to - colour me sceptical on that, or they are unable to. The media is acting like bombs on the London underground is a big surprise but anyone with a basic understanding of the vulnerabilities of large cities and especialy London would have chosen the underground as a target. Go back 3 or 4 weeks and I specifically referred to the underground as the obvious target. What I don't understand is why it took so long?

Posted by phil_b 2005-07-08 20:02|| 2005-07-08 20:02|| Front Page Top

#28 Hmmm... To a large degree I'd wager it's the need to stop the Iraq process. It's easy to say they're not very bright and it's only flypaper, but stopping Iraq is their most important task, IMHO. If it succeeds in creating a modern Arab democracy... that's a real threat with no choke point they can address.

If I'm Zarqi or Zawahiri or similar then everyone seems less pious than me... I see that there is a percentage (however small) of the population in every asshat Arab country that's hungry for a taste of Western decadence. I fear these Muzzies who think maybe, just maybe, the democracy might be a good thing. It wouldn't take many to disrupt my Caliphate game and undermine my financing and fodder - my logistical base. Iraq must fail and I must punish anyone who "collaborates".

I think they're committing suicide no matter where they decide to attack, but Iraq is the key - and they're failing because we haven't shown we're breaking and ready to bail out before the Iraqis are ready, Dhimmidonks notwithstanding. Attacks in the West are splashy - far more coverage than the same thing in Iraq or Afghanistan - but to what end? Greater antipathy and active opposition? Duh - in that case they become stupid in my eyes. In Iraq they're at least focused on the largest danger to their ideology.

Oh well, that's my impression, anyway.

Posted by .com 2005-07-08 20:24|| 2005-07-08 20:24|| Front Page Top

00:13 Bomb-a-rama
23:53 Jan
23:37 Redneck
23:35 Barbara Skolaut
23:30 ∑ÃÂ©Ќ₣Ωяδ∞
23:13 11A5S
23:06 Frank G
22:41 Mike
22:38 Seafarious
22:35 Dave D.
22:23 Unomomp Snesing6221
22:22 Frank G
22:18 Unomomp Snesing6221
22:15 Unomomp Snesing6221
22:12 Unomomp Snesing6221
22:09 Bill Nelson
22:07 Jonathan
21:56 Pappy
21:54 muck4doo
21:52 Mike
21:42 had enough
21:15 Deacon Blues
21:10 Tom
21:00 3dc