Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Fri 08/10/2007 View Thu 08/09/2007 View Wed 08/08/2007 View Tue 08/07/2007 View Mon 08/06/2007 View Sun 08/05/2007 View Sat 08/04/2007
1
2007-08-10 Home Front: WoT
To Save America We Need Another 9/11
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 Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 10:33|| || Front Page|| [11138 views ]  Top

#1 This is a truly sad indictment of American apathy. Even sadder is that it's most likely true. If America cannot summon forth leadership with the vision to successfully pre-empt Islam's avowed goal of world domination, we will definitely suffer another 9-11 type atrocity. Most probably, the coming terrorist catastrophe will make 9-11 look like a walk in the park. Time is running out for us to read Islam the riot act. Without an unmistakable demonstration of what awaits further terrorist attacks upon American soil, only the risk that Islam poses to itself exceeds our own danger.

We owe it to ourselves and this world's Muslim population—in that order—to make vividly clear the sort of wholesale destruction that even a single new attack will bring down upon Islam's collective brow.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-10 12:56||   2007-08-10 12:56|| Front Page Top

#2 The problem Zen is that Americans have a problem with that "collective brow" thing.

The one BIG mistake that Bush made was in not ramping up the propaganda machine 24/7 on 9/12 to target all Muslims that supported or cheered Al Q. He made it way to easy for the enemy and Muslims to turn it around so that we were attacked by this little bitty org that really had no tie to Islam.

He needed to define the "collective brow" and not let up. He should have directed the efforts against all the Salafist and radical Shiia groups/countries/mosques here there and eveywhere.

But, he got stuck in that stupid PC ROP cesspool and let the other define him and us.
Posted by AlanC">AlanC  2007-08-10 13:56||   2007-08-10 13:56|| Front Page Top

#3 Bush did the best he could under the circumstances. On 9/12 the country and the rest of the world was not going to sign up for a war on all the Muslims who really supported OBL, because that was a large majority of Muslims and would have been a religious war.

But things will be different after the February 2009 attack. 9/11 will then be seen as the Reuben James is now to Pearl Harbor. We will then go to full war footing and be much more aggressive on more fronts. And don't be surprised if the other side is composed of more than Muslims.

What is amazing to me is that anyone in the MSM would write and could get published such an article.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 14:16||   2007-08-10 14:16|| Front Page Top

#4 I doubt even a new 9/11 would unite the country. The republicans would blame Bush for not running a better war, the dhimocrats will blame Bush for planning the 9/11. Not even a very large nuclear attack would unite us again I'm afraid.
Posted by DarthVader">DarthVader  2007-08-10 14:57||   2007-08-10 14:57|| Front Page Top

#5 1. The West was NEVER united after 9/11. Most of Europe and all of the left here in the U.S. was either happy that harm had come to capitalist Americans (weak protestations of a few Euro politicians nothwithstanding) or leaping to say that while they didn't like the violence, the U.S. brought it all on themselves.

2. Zenster is spot on with his analysis. Much as George HW Bush completely blew it by not using the bully pulpit and American funding to give all forms of collectivism a massive PR blast (in the manner of all forms of fascism being branded evil after WWII, or piracy being vilified in the 18th century, or slavery in the 19th) and bury it forever after the fall of the Berlin Wall, so too did W not use the moment to rally the West against Islamofascism/stalinism.
Posted by no mo uro 2007-08-10 15:29||   2007-08-10 15:29|| Front Page Top

#6 The one BIG mistake that Bush made was in not ramping up the propaganda machine 24/7 on 9/12 to target all Muslims that supported or cheered Al Q. He made it way to easy for the enemy and Muslims to turn it around so that we were attacked by this little bitty org that really had no tie to Islam.

While history has yet to adjudge whether Bush's Mid-East strategy is pure genius or total folly, his abject failure to activate America's immense propaganda resources is already a given. VOA should have gone into overdrive with a vigorous campaign of identifying both violent Koranic doctrine and shari'a law as the core components of our enemy's beliefs.

This would have forced the Muslim world to either openly embrace militant jihad directly in the face of bin Laden's 9-11 atrocity or begin a process of rejecting it as un-Islamic. Either way, it would have caused an important polarization both within Islam and inside our borders. Such a move would have limned out the nature of this threat we face and ensured clear perception of its origins.

To date, no such thing has happened and instead we have been treated to the abhorent spectacle of leaders around the globe—including Bush—soft pedaling the violent nature of Islam's central tenets.

But, he got stuck in that stupid PC ROP cesspool and let the other define him and us.

This may be your best point of all, AlanC. By abdicating his sworn duty to defend America—be it militarily or psychologically—Bush allowed our enemies to gain the tempo and thereby direct the war of words. Remember, in high context Muslim cultures oratory sill and erudite disquisition are essential components of establishing one's position of authority. Bush's—not just laughable—but self-abasing silence forever discredited him in the eyes of our enemy. Far better—from the Muslim point of view—that he had declared war on all Islam than to bite his tongue in the face of such a monumental insult to America.

Bush's silence—again, in their eyes—was tantamount to an admission of fault and of America somehow deserving the 9-11 atrocity. Only a blunt and unequivocal accusation of or retaliation against Islam would have served our purpose in cleaving away whatever minuscule fraction of Muslims that were servicable to our cause.

This did not happen and our enemies siezed the opportunity to unite their undecided millions against a perceptibly weak foe. By the time any invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq began, the damage was already done. Low context Western mindsets simply could not comprehend how such a belated display of might had already been rendered moot to those who regard only swift and decisive retaliation—i.e., Dire Revenge™—as the only appropriate response.
Posted by Eohippus Whalet8571 2007-08-10 16:06||   2007-08-10 16:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Doh! Dratted Cookie Monster. Post #6 is mine.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-10 16:41||   2007-08-10 16:41|| Front Page Top

#8 Hard not to agree with apathy sentiment but “another tragedy as a wake-up call” is juvenile logic at best. It’s like saying a cancer victim in remission that starts to smoke again needs another tumor otherwise he surely will die.
Posted by DepotGuy 2007-08-10 17:02||   2007-08-10 17:02|| Front Page Top

#9 A better simile would be the smoker with incipient emphysema who gets pneumonia but then lights up after the pneumonia's gone.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 17:15||   2007-08-10 17:15|| Front Page Top

#10 Either way, the USA simply does not need to get "lit up" ever again. All we need is leadership with the spine to promise healthy really unhealthy repercussions for any further Islamic terrorism.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-10 18:08||   2007-08-10 18:08|| Front Page Top

#11 The problem Zen is that Americans have a problem with that "collective brow" thing.

Not this American! And I suspect the number of spineless limp wrist Americans that do have a problem is a lot smaller than you realize.

Posted by Natural Law 2007-08-10 18:10||   2007-08-10 18:10|| Front Page Top

#12 If that were the case, I'd be a lot less worried about President Rodham Clinton taking office in January 2009.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 19:12||   2007-08-10 19:12|| Front Page Top

#13 "Bush did the best he could under the circumstances."

Agreed.

"On 9/12 the country and the rest of the world was not going to sign up for a war on all the Muslims who really supported OBL, because that was a large majority of Muslims and would have been a religious war."

If I had a wish for our next great diplomat, it would be that he would figure out how to get China and India to join us at actively dismantling Islamist support structures. 9/11 MADE this a religious war; that the world hasn't had the spine, sense or moral to note it and move against it should awaken us.
Posted by Jules 2007-08-10 19:41||   2007-08-10 19:41|| Front Page Top

#14 9/11 MADE this a religious war; that the world hasn't had the spine, sense or moral to note it and move against it should awaken us.

Sadly, it doesn't and, furthermore, China is all too happy with playing both ends against the middle. Don't bet the farm that Beijing's Mandarins will ever give up that game anytime soon.
Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-10 20:44||   2007-08-10 20:44|| Front Page Top

#15 if it could be accomplished quickly and totally.

Nor the EUrocrats.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2007-08-10 21:22||   2007-08-10 21:22|| Front Page Top

#16 Yes, it is a religious war. Never mind how inconvenient that may be, or how utterly foreign religion seems to be to the bulk of the folks in State.

So how do you fight a religious war against a group that outnumbers you, is spread around the globe, controls resources whose lack can kill the global economy dead (and likewise our war machine), and has a large potential fifth column as well?

You don't threaten to glass Mecca. That shifts too many Muhammadans from the "Hurray for a universal caliphate; let me know when its here" camp to the "How can I help fight the infidel" camp.
You try to find a way to (untraceably) spread rumors that that Wahabi splinter group actually did succeed in destroying their sacred stone, and the Saudis have been covering it up for 90 years.
You search the world for scholars who disdain Salafis and channel money to their disciples.
When a battlefield presents itself, you commit yourself to obliterating your avowed enemies, but you make sure that there's room for the non-combatants of the alien faith to disclaim their militant co-religionists. Those that stay neutral you help defend--unless they renege.
You try to keep your eyes on the ball: splitting off the militants from the rest, and defeating them in detail: on the battlefield or by police or however.
You need translators. 100% refund on tuition for courses in an Arabic dialect or Turkish if you pass the gov't test afterwards. Or 150%.

We've a huge propaganda machine, but it is pretty much entirely devoted to stirring up desires for goodies; which doesn't help the cause very much. The average Egyptian can't afford all those goodies, and our vices bother him more than his vices do--he blames us because we're rich and "bad".
We need to find a way to influence their internal debate. Qutb et al say we're decadent materialists. So our propaganda needs to show that we're devout.
They divide the world into the house of war and the house of submission. We need to try to introduce a third catagory: the house of fruit ("by their fruits you shall know them"). They know quite well that not all who say they are Muslim will be accepted at the judgement; they need to be unafraid to judge their fellow Muslims. The Wahabis aren't afraid to...

I don't believe this is going to be a short war. If things start getting bad we'll wind up looking at religion and citizenship.
I'm very leary of trying to ban Muhammadanism as a religion. We might get away with some such violations of the Bill of Rights for a year or two (we've done it before), but its a scary precedent, and I don't trust the political establishment to stay honest for 50 years.(*) Banning Muhammadanism as a political movement is also problematic, for the same reason.
We could possibly exercise oversight on the basis of the fact that Muhammadans owe allegiance to a foreign power: the caliph. True, there isn't one at the moment, but they're working to bring it back. We might wind up considering Muhammadans to have dual citizenship, and deporting those working for sharia etc.

I wish I was confident that we'll keep our eyes on the ball.


(*)Or to become honest, for that matter. You can think of people in power now you'd not trust with authority to ban religions or political speech.
Posted by James">James  2007-08-10 22:32|| http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]">[http://idontknowbut.blogspot.com]  2007-08-10 22:32|| Front Page Top

#17 Damn interesting post, James.

it is a religious war. Never mind how inconvenient that may be, or how utterly foreign religion seems to be to the bulk of the folks in State.

This is entirely true. Few—if any—have the courage to admit it. Good on you to address this simple fact.

You don't threaten to glass Mecca.

T'ain't necessarily so.

You try to find a way to (untraceably) spread rumors that that Wahabi splinter group actually did succeed in destroying their sacred stone, and the Saudis have been covering it up for 90 years.

Waaaay too reliant upon the "conspiracy factor" segment of Islam's otherwise susceptible population.

So our propaganda needs to show that we're devout.

Ain't gonna happen, no way, no how. Please, respectfully, get a clue.

They divide the world into the house of war and the house of submission. We need to try to introduce a third catagory: the house of fruit ("by their fruits you shall know them").

Permit me to quote the Simpsons about your "by their fruits" passage:
Castro's Aide #1: But presidente, America tried to kill you!
Fidel Castro: Ah, they're not so bad. They even named a street after me in San Francisco!
[Aide #2 whispers something into his ear]
Fidel Castro: It's full of what?

You need translators. 100% refund on tuition for courses in an Arabic dialect or Turkish if you pass the gov't test afterwards. Or 150%.

We've a huge propaganda machine, but it is pretty much entirely devoted to stirring up desires for goodies; which doesn't help the cause very much.

We just might have to trust it.

I'm very leary of trying to ban Muhammadanism as a religion. We might get away with some such violations of the Bill of Rights for a year or two (we've done it before), but its a scary precedent, and I don't trust the political establishment to stay honest for 50 years.

Yes. So am I but Islam is a greater threat.

I'm very leary of trying to ban Muhammadanism as a religion. We might get away with some such violations of the Bill of Rights for a year or two (we've done it before), but its a scary precedent, and I don't trust the political establishment to stay honest for 50 years.(*) Banning Muhammadanism as a political movement is also problematic, for the same reason.

Mebbe so, but it's time to try it.

We could possibly exercise oversight on the basis of the fact that Muhammadans owe allegiance to a foreign power: the caliph.

To quote .com, "le bingo!"

We might wind up considering Muhammadans to have dual citizenship, and deporting those working for sharia etc.

Le bingo, encore.

I wish I was confident that we'll keep our eyes on the ball.

Et pui, encore.

Posted by Zenster">Zenster  2007-08-10 23:38||   2007-08-10 23:38|| Front Page Top

23:59 Super Hose
23:39 Secret Master
23:38 Zenster
23:27 Secret Master
22:56 bigjim-ky
22:54 Zenster
22:32 James
21:44 Nimble Spemble
21:44 BA
21:33 Zenster
21:32 BA
21:31 Danking70
21:29 Danking70
21:22 Nimble Spemble
21:21 BA
21:12 twobyfour
21:11 Zenster
21:05 Old Patriot
20:49 OyVey1
20:44 Zenster
20:42 OyVey1
20:37 Lone Ranger
20:36 Redneck Jim
20:32 john frum









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com