Blackfive highlights a grusome Indepent article describing the fate of those who teach girls under Taliban rule:

The gunmen came at night to drag Mohammed Halim away from his home, in front of his crying children and his wife begging for mercy.

The 46-year-old schoolteacher tried to reassure his family that he would return safely. But his life was over, he was part-disembowelled and then torn apart with his arms and legs tied to motorbikes, the remains put on display as a warning to others against defying Taliban orders to stop educating girls.

Cross-posted at Mein Blogovault.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 01:57 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 126 words, total size 1 kb.

Talks between the Hamas terrorist organization and the PA have hit a "dead end" in the Territories.

Five people (some say more) were killed in an Islamist suicide bombing in Somalia (pictured below) .

Hezbullah is threatening to overthrow the Lebanese government.

"Gunmen" of a certain religous stripe that is apparently a mystery to Reuters are fighting US and Iraqi forces in Baghdad.

The Sudanese president has rejected a UN plan to send peacekeeping forces to the war-torn region of Darfur.

Peace be upon you all.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 99 words, total size 1 kb.

I fear these incidents occur much more frequently than reported. Part of the problem is that the rehearsals seldom actually reach the threshold of being criminal so the perpetrators are let go.

From Aftenposten:

Czech security police (BIS) have reported an attempt to storm the cockpit of a flight from Oslo to Prague.

The BIS annual report for 2005, released on Tuesday, mentions flight OK 447 in September 2005, where three Egyptian citizens tried to gain access to the pilots.

According to BIS spokesman Jan Subrt, police terrorism experts believe that the three Egyptians were not trying to hijack the plan but rather testing the security measures on board the plan, which was owned by Czech Airlines (CSA).

"The crew on board discovered the three Egyptians trying to open the door into the cockpit. When the stewards intervened they immediately gave up their attempts and gave the excuse that they were looking for a staff member because they wanted to buy chewing gum," Subrt said. [sic all]

This is the second time in recent weeks that Norway is linked to terrorism in the Czech Republic. In the end of September Czech authorities significantly increased security measures around Prague's Jewish memorials after receiving a tip from Norway, a few days after Norway's Police Security Service (PST) revealed alleged terrorist plans against the US and Israeli embassies in Oslo.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 10:33 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 275 words, total size 2 kb.

In case you are wondering if the terrorists would use nukes if they had them.

IHT:CAIRO, Egypt An al-Qaida member who escaped from a U.S. prison in Afghanistan urged his followers in a new video aired Tuesday to acquire nuclear technology.

Abu Yahia al-Libi, who broke out of prison in July 2005, appeared in a video broadcast by the pan-Arab Al-Arabiya TV, telling his followers "to get prepared by starting with exercise ... then learn technology until you are capable of nuclear weapons," he said.

In the video, al-Libi, who appears to be talking to a group of fighters has a beard and is wearing a long gray robe. The video was the third reportedly featuring al-Libi since he escaped from prison.

Al-Arabiya showed two minutes of what it said was an hour-long video exclusively obtained by the satellite channel. It also showed footage of what appeared to be a group of Arab fighters training.

The Islamic terrorists have no such concerns about the effects or deterrent use. They would use a nuclear device on the west in a heartbeat.

It sounds like this may be the same or similar to the Video that the Site Institute has here.

Posted by: Howie at 10:22 AM | Comments (37) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Good news!

(Albany, New York) Despite claims of entrapment, two Muslim men affiliated with the Central Avenue Mosque, Yassin M. Aref and Mohammed M. Hossain, were convicted yesterday of dozens of terrorism-related charges in U.S. District Court. A jury deliberated for four days before handing down the verdict.

Aref, the local imam of the Central Avenue Mosque and a Kurdish refugee, was found guilty on 10 counts. Hossain, a 51-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant and pizza shop owner, was found guilty of 27 counts.

From TimesUnion.com:

Yassin M. Aref, the religious leader, and Mohammed M. Hossain are accused of taking part in a fictitious plot to help launder money from the sale of a shoulder-fired missile to terrorists plotting an attack in New York City.

Aref faced separate charges for allegedly lying on a green card application and while being interviewed by FBI agents about his ties to a Kurdish political party.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 04:52 AM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 2 kb.

From Turkey, with love and kisses I’m sure.

CNN: BRINDISI, Italy (CNN) -- Passengers from a hijacked Turkish plane carrying 113 people are leaving the aircraft after the two unarmed Turks who hijacked the plane, protesting the pope's upcoming visit to Turkey, agreed to release them.

Italy's transport minister announced the release on NTV, and the network reported that the passengers were disembarking from the plane.

Authorities have also said the two hijackers have indicated they were ready to surrender to authorities, but one of their demands was that a message be delivered to Pope Benedict XVI.

Update: I was wrong. It turns out these weren't Turkish Islamist these were Christians desparate to escape from Turkish Islamists. Specifically they feared persecution in the Turkish Army.

Turkish officials said one of the hijackers, identified as Hasan Ekinci, wrote a letter to the pope in August asking for help in avoiding service in the Turkish army.

"I am a Christian and don't want to serve a Muslim army," he wrote, adding that he had been attending church since 1998.

The hijacking incident began Tuesday afternoon when the Turkish airliner departed Tirana, Albania, heading to Istanbul, Turkey. The hijackers entered the plane's cockpit over Greek airspace, officials said.

Posted by: Howie at 01:15 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 267 words, total size 2 kb.

A copy of a videotape depicting a pre-9/11 party attended by the key players in the hijackings has surfaced.

From TimesOnline.co.uk:

It is the first time that a videotape has appeared of Mohammed Atta -- who flew an American Airlines plane into the north tower of the World Trade Center -- at a training camp in Afghanistan. It fills in a significant gap in the timing of the build-up to the attacks on the United States.

Dates on the tape show Atta was filmed on January 18, 2000, together with Ziad Jarrah, the pilot of United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after the passengers apparently stormed the flight deck.

[ ... ]

The high quality, unedited film shows Bin Laden addressing his followers at the mud-walled complex near Kandahar. One of the main figures in the September 11 plot, Ramzi Binalshibh, is identifiable in the crowd, as is a bodyguard whose task was to kill Bin Laden with two bullets to the head if he faced capture.

Dating on the tape indicates that the Al-Qaeda leader was filmed on January 8, 2000, 10 days before Atta and Jarrah recorded their wills.

Watch the video.

Companion post at Interested-Participant.

Upated by Howie: The Jawa Report has the original unedited Videos from al-Qaeda. There are five parts. Watch all five of the Atta, Jarrah, bin Laden, al Qaeda videos here. Or seperately as follows.

Part I.
Part II.
Part III.
Part IV.
Part V.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 06:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 265 words, total size 2 kb.

(Kuwait City) Not surprising, Ayman al-Zawahri opens his mouth and people get jumpy.

From Arab Times Kuwait:

The Ministry of Interior has raised the security level around the country particularly the sea following threats issued by the deputy leader of the al-Qaeda network Ayman Al-Zawahri to strike at Kuwait, reports Al-Qabas daily quoting senior security officials.

A reliable source said the terrorist might most likely try to infiltrate into the country via the sea during the month of Ramadan.

Nevertheless, everybody would be less jumpy if Ayman Al-Zawahri's mouth were shut ... permanently.

Posted by: Mike Pechar at 02:09 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

Apparently, politicians are no longer allowed to use the term "jihadist fascist" to describe fascist jihadists:

"Representative McCotter should use his time on the House floor to foster dialogue and mutual understanding, not to introduce hot-button terms that will further damage our nation's image in the Islamic world," said CAIR's Michigan Executive Director Dawud Walid.

Walid said President George W. Bush had stopped using the term "Islamic fascist" after Muslims in America and around the world had protested that it was ill-defined and counterproductive in persuading people in the global conflict against terror.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:53 AM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 103 words, total size 1 kb.

An ABC News producer in Pakistan was phoned by Mulla Dadullah Akhund, military commander of the Taliban concerning rumors of Osama bin Laden's death that circulated recently.

ABC News reports:

Mulla Dadullah Akhund, said Osama bin Laden is alive and that there is no truth to the rumors of his death from typhoid.

"Sheikh Osama is all right. He is safe," Dadullah told ABC News' Rahimullah Yusufzai. Dadullah would not disclose the location from where he was calling.

In the past, Dadullah has issued statements to the effect that bin Laden and Taliban leader Mulla Mohammad Omar are alive and leading the resistance against U.S.-led foreign forces in Afghanistan.

Dadullah had more to say:

When pressed for evidence to show that bin Laden is alive, Dadullah hinted that there is a possibility of a tape being sent to media organizations to prove that the al Qaeda head isn't dead. Dadullah, however, declined to say as to when this tape would be made available.

Posted by: Bluto at 03:15 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 191 words, total size 1 kb.

Dick Morris fact checks Clinton's weekend outburst:

Clinton said conservatives “were all trying to get me to withdraw from Somalia in 1993 the next day” after the attack which killed American soldiers. But the real question was whether Clinton would honor the military’s request to be allowed to stay and avenge the attack, a request he denied. The debate was not between immediate withdrawal and a six-month delay. (Then-first lady, now-Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) favored the first option, by the way). The fight was over whether to attack or pull out eventually without any major offensive operations.

The president told Wallace, “I authorized the CIA to get groups together to try to kill bin Laden.” But actually, the 9-11 Commission was clear that the plan to kidnap Osama was derailed by Sandy Berger and George Tenet because Clinton had not yet made a finding authorizing his assassination. They were fearful that Osama would die in the kidnapping and the U.S. would be blamed for using assassination as an instrument of policy.

UPDATE : Judge Napolitano fact checks Clinton.

Posted by: Ragnar at 11:02 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 187 words, total size 1 kb.

Over at The American Thinker, Noel Sheppard destroys Bill Clinton's attempt to rewrite history. In an interview yesterday with Chris Wallace, Clinton made the following bold assertion:

I think it’s very interesting that all the conservative Republicans who now say that I didn’t do enough, claimed that I was obsessed with Bin Laden. All of President Bush’s neocons claimed that I was too obsessed with finding Bin Laden when they didn’t have a single meeting about Bin Laden for the nine months after I left office. All the right wingers who now say that I didn’t do enough said that I did too much.

Newt Gingrich: "Well, I think the United States did exactly the right thing. We cannot allow a terrorist group to attack American embassies and do nothing... So this was the right thing to do."

Trent Lott: “Despite the current controversy, this Congress will vigorously support the president in full defense of America’s interests throughout the world.”

Jesse Helms: “The United States political leadership always has and always will stand united in the face of international terrorism.”

Nice try, Bill.

Read it all here.

Hat tip to Michelle. Brains, beauty and backbone in a single, compact package. If there was ever a better argument for cloning, I don't know what it was...

UPDATE: None of the above should be taken as a particular indictment of Clinton's approach to handling bin Laden. He certainly didn't do as much as he could have, but he was also in good company. The above should be taken as an illustration of the fact that the Dems are either blatantly lying or woefully misinformed when they claim, in an effort to justify their own poisonous rhetoric, that Republicans made it a practice of attacking Bill Clinton whenever he tried to combat terrorism.

Posted by: Ragnar at 02:09 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 355 words, total size 3 kb.

Imagine that.

Abbas throws them a lifeline, and they spit and ululate in his face.

The row centres on agreeing a political agenda for the unity coalition that is clear enough in recognition of Israel to satisfy the West but vague enough for Hamas to say it does not contradict their charter, which calls for Israel's destruction.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

Killing him wasn't enough, apparently they want his son too.

Here's why he was murdered.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:57 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 16 words, total size 1 kb.

... if the War on Terror ever becomes a War on Islam:

[Mike Gallagher] described what he said was an off-the-record session with Bush and a gaggle of radio right-wingers, including Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham.

Bush told them "we'll lose" if the War on Terror becomes a fight between Christianity and Islam, Gallagher said.

"Remind me never to invite you to an off-the-record session," Coulter told him.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:41 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto

From the New York Post:

September 12, 2006 -- WELL, here it is, five years late, but here just the same: an apology from an Arab-American for 9/11. No, I didn't help organize the killers or contribute in any way to their terrible cause. However, I was one of millions of Arab-Americans who did the unspeakable on 9/11: nothing.
The only time I raised my voice in protest against these men who killed thousands of innocents in the name of Allah was behind closed doors, among the safety of friends and family. I did at one point write a very vitriolic essay condemning their actions, but fear of becoming another Salman Rushdie kept me from ever trying to publish it.

Well, I'm sick of saying the truth only in private - that Arabs around the world, including Arab-Americans like myself, need to start holding our own culture accountable for the insane, violent actions that our extremists have perpetrated on the world at large.

Yes, our extremists and our culture.

Every single 9/11 hijacker was Arab and a Muslim. The apologists (including President Bush) tried to reassure us that 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam, but was a twisting of a great and noble religion. With all due respect, read the Koran, Mr. President. There's enough there for someone of extreme tendencies to find their way to a global jihad.

Via Stop the ACLU.

Posted by: Bluto at 06:45 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 261 words, total size 2 kb.

We here at the Jawa Report normally don't shy away from posting graphic images illustrating the depravity of the global jihad, but I really wrestled with the idea of posting this.

However, it's up to you whether or not to click on the play button.

By way of Plains Feeder.

Update: Who needs ABC?

Read it.

This too.

The true Path to 9/11.

You can look here, too.

And this.

Links courtesy of Patrick's sidebar.

Posted by: Vinnie at 11:23 PM | Comments (71) | Add Comment
Post contains 86 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Thanks for the link, Doc. Too Americans many are afraid to look directly at our enemies and what they did. They fear that what they see will cause them to feel hatred and fill them with a lust for bloody revenge. They think that to have such thoughts will stain their souls. Maybe they are right, but it is a dangerous indulgence.

Posted by: ptg at September 09, 2006 08:48 PM (rVWj9)

2 The media won't show this because they're corporate controlled and they don't want to expose the crimes the Bush administration and it's neocon puppet-masters (you know jay-oh-ohs) perpetrated on the American people.

/leftist nonsense

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at September 09, 2006 09:20 PM (Zwt48)

3 greyrooster: too many people saw only planes crashing into buildings followed by the collapses. They don't understand that people really died because they didn't see it. They usually vote Democrat.

Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at September 09, 2006 09:23 PM (vBK4C)

4 Even worse than the falling bodies are the crushed, indistinct corpses on the pavement, looking as pathetic as stepped-on ants. The up close shots of the inferno in the building are just as bad.

I live in NJ and the WTC was part of my local landscape, visible from my old office building in Lyndhurst. I was no stranger to the WTC; I took my wife-to-be to a dinner at the "Windows on the World" Restaurant there in February 2001, and we even had the waiter snap a picture of us together because we knew it was a special evening, which we wanted to remember.

That photo is now a momento from a vanished world.

Five years on, what bothers me most is how divided our country is in combating the threat of Islamo-fascism, and how willing the Left is to sweep the whole conflict under the rug, since they are incapable of using this country's military power to advance national interests. The Bush administration has made many mistakes in the war on terror, but if the Democrats return to power we can expect a complete retreat, as if 9/11 had never happened at all.

Posted by: Redhand at September 09, 2006 10:22 PM (7G9b2)

5 Deleters have ugly mothers.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 09, 2006 10:45 PM (7yR8J)

6 leopold,

conspiracy theorist wackos make regular ol Leftists seem like pillars of logic and rationality by comparison. I despise Leftists, but the conspiracy wackos positively make my skin crawl, much like roaches do.

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 09, 2006 10:47 PM (8e/V4)

7 JLC: point taken. What really bothers me, though, is that I used to be able to have serious, engaging, challenging conversations with leftists/progressives -- but now they seem to have all gone the way of The Nation and become little more than partisan democrats (who are increasingly conspiracy wackos).

An exception, if anyone's interested -- check out Paul Berman's Terror and Liberalism.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at September 09, 2006 11:09 PM (Zwt48)

8 Thanks guys; you've provided a service. On 09/11 I was in D.C. and watched the Pentagon butning out of my office window. In the mid-eighties I took bicycle messenger gigs in Manhatten during the summers, and have been up those towers many times.

Think I'll post this on my little music blog tomorrow without comment.

Posted by: Hucbald at September 10, 2006 12:23 AM (JkNHw)

9 This clip should be shown everyday to adults and school children alike...

It doesn't pay to FORGET who we are dealing with in the war on terror

Posted by: juandos at September 10, 2006 04:19 AM (c4Sbe)

10 God those poor people who felt that they had no choice but to take their own lives


My heart goes out to all their loved ones even after5 years I bet the pain has not faded.

I think altough this video is sad and shocking I think that it MUST be seen by as many people as possible. That day was not about planes or buildings it was about human beings.

Posted by: steve at September 10, 2006 08:08 AM (Ca/I9)

11 bush got his way. He got the Government, power and everything is in his control. But he cant fool people for long, especially those who use their heads and do not buy everything he feeds them.

Posted by: therapy at September 10, 2006 08:08 AM (aXa+K)

12 How does one know what the truth is when deleters are around?

Posted by: greyrooster at September 10, 2006 08:16 AM (DxQNj)

13 Vinnie: Then leave my comments up and let others decide if this ghoulish bullshit is neccessary. Some years ago we had two babies ran over by the tires on a semi. No one needs to see their deaths over and over to understand what happened. Same here.
I can see some kid in NYC watching the video and saying "the man falling from the 82nd floor looks like my daddy" Nice to know you daddy didn't die quick.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 10, 2006 09:04 AM (DxQNj)

14 "No one needs to see their deaths over and over to understand what happened."
GreyRooster,
I don't remember the exact portion of our population, but it was like 1/3 who think Bush staged 9/11.

Yes, people really are that stupid.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 09:16 AM (+PWjE)

15 You know, I can't stop there. With 9/11 being forgotten and relegated to the past as the Democrats move to take power and ensure we have to deal with this whole episode again, I figure let's rub the truth in your wounds Grey.
How many people deny the Holocaust?
People like the insane Basiji leader are striving for nukes, denying the Holocaust, and threatening to wipe Israel, read Jews, off the face of the planet.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 09:19 AM (+PWjE)

16 Watching this after a week of hearing the Clintonistas protest that they dealt effectively with terrorism makes my blood boil. Disney and ABC are shit for caving to them.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at September 10, 2006 09:34 AM (DdRjH)

17 "Disney and ABC are shit for caving to them."

They haven't caved as far as I know. From what I have heard they are simply editing out the extra lines they put in for dramatic effect. I believe they are leaving in the truth about Clinton being a lying, manipulating, and cowardly president.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 09:40 AM (+PWjE)

18 A very good rememberance

http://www.fdnylodd.com/BloodofHeroes.html

Posted by: Steve at September 10, 2006 10:14 AM (e7N3t)

19 This film is a close-up of tragedy.

Part two of the tragedy is the Bush administration follow-up over these past five years. When one thinks of how many more of the Al Queda perpetrators could have been brought to justice, how much better our limited resources (yes, even America has limited resources) could have been used, how much more progress in our efforts against Islamic extremism we could be making, and how much safer America itself could be at this very instant, it makes you even sicker to look at this film.

The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is going to have to spend years undoing the foolhardyness of this president and his minions. I wish them luck.

Posted by: grinnel at September 10, 2006 10:36 AM (H6XTF)

20 The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is going to have to spend years undoing the foolhardyness of this president and his minions. I wish them luck.

Just as appropriate during the 2000 elections. True, the handling of the GWOT by the Bush administration has not been perfect. However, one has to wonder what the outcome to date would have been if Democratic politicians and their cohorts in the lobby groups and media outlets had not sought to undermine efforts at every opportunity, at home and abroad.

Posted by: Graeme at September 10, 2006 11:09 AM (Tak+M)

21 "The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is going to have to spend years undoing the foolhardyness of this president and his minions. I wish them luck."

Al Qaeda is the symptom, the middle east is the disease. Obviously you are the type of person who takes asprin to ward off the symptoms of Cancer until you are terminal.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 11:11 AM (+PWjE)

22 >>>The next administration, Republican or Democrat, is going to have to spend years undoing the foolhardyness of this president and his minions. I wish them luck.

Well, if the Dems win back the White House in '08 they better start thinking of what they'd do different, because so far it's a complete mystery. They have no plan. They just give us empty rhetoric (much like yours).

Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at September 10, 2006 11:26 AM (8e/V4)

23 Then leave my comments up and let others decide if this ghoulish bullshit is neccessary. Some years ago we had two babies ran over by the tires on a semi. No one needs to see their deaths over and over to understand what happened. Same here.

Oh, please. Islamic terrorism is an ongoing problem and we are likely to see another attack on this scale in the future, so we have to maintain clarity about what it is we are dealing with. Two babies in a traffic accident is, well, an accident and is of a completely different nature from deliberate mass murder.

Often in trials prosecutors show the photos of the crime scene to the jury even though the jury knows what happened. Is this "ghoulish"? Or is it an effort to convey more clearly the nature of what someone deliberately did in order to strengthen the will of the jury?

Posted by: caspera at September 10, 2006 11:39 AM (jylGY)

24 I had never before watched any clips of those poor souls who felt they had no other choice but to jump. Damn those people who think it is the President's fault. This is not one man's fault (Bush's or Clinton's), but the legacy of an insanity that teaches that hatred and its actions are a religious experience...an ignorant and bigoted 'faith'.

Posted by: Mrs_Who at September 10, 2006 11:44 AM (xN5zQ)

25 When one thinks of how many more of the Al Queda perpetrators could have been brought to justice, how much better our limited resources (yes, even America has limited resources) could have been used, how much more progress in our efforts against Islamic extremism we could be making, and how much safer America itself could be at this very instant, it makes you even sicker to look at this film.

Translation: Al Qaeda did this, but I would prefer to displace my anger onto the traditional object of my hatred, President Bush. And as a bonus, I will offer that if a genius such as myself were in charge, none of this would be happening.

Your statements are adolescent and are nothing more than an adult variation of a child's "If I Were President" essay. If I were President, I would use the nation's limited resources to cure world hunger, end war and terrorism, and eliminate homework. The administration came up with a reasonable plan for addressing terror: reform the political culture of the states that sponsor it one at a time. This plan was bound to be a boondoggle given the intransigence of the people on the other side, but guess what: there probably are no good plans out there for dealing with the fact that for somewhere between 10 and a hundred million Muslim men in this world, this video of the jumpers brings tears to their eyes. Tears of joy, that is.

Posted by: caspera at September 10, 2006 11:53 AM (jylGY)

26 Reading this I see exactly what's wrong with this country. While complaining about the particanship on the left I see the statement "I despise Leftists".

Start using your brains and thinking about what's best for the country as a whole. While I shudder to imagine how 9/11 would have been addressed by the Gore administration, I also think Bush has done far more damage to this country than the terrorists could ever hope to accomplish.

Consider candidates from both sides of the isle, think for yourself, don't just mash the Republican button because you "despise Leftists".

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 11:54 AM (89Rw1)

27 Reading this I see exactly what's wrong with this country. While complaining about the particanship on the left I see the statement "I despise Leftists".

Start using your brains and thinking about what's best for the country as a whole. While I shudder to imagine how 9/11 would have been addressed by the Gore administration, I also think Bush has done far more damage to this country than the terrorists could ever hope to accomplish.

Afghanastan was the right thing to do but was crippled from the start due to poor planning. The Afghan effort was then further crippled with the foolish incursion into Iraq. Iraq was not part of the GWOT until we were there and seen as an occupying force. Bush has manage to distract us from the real GWOT while wrapping his policies in the cloak of the GWOT.

Consider candidates from both sides of the isle, think for yourself, don't just mash the Republican button because you "despise Leftists". Trust me, I certainly won't be support many Democrats.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 11:59 AM (89Rw1)

28 Damn, sorry about the double (now triple) post.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 12:01 PM (89Rw1)

29 "However, one has to wonder what the outcome to date would have been if Democratic politicians and their cohorts in the lobby groups and media outlets had not sought to undermine efforts at every opportunity, at home and abroad"

"Obviously you are the type of person who takes asprin to ward off the symptoms of Cancer until you are terminal."

"Well, if the Dems win back the White House in '08 they better start thinking of what they'd do different, because so far it's a complete mystery. They have no plan."

"Al Qaeda did this, but I would prefer to displace my anger onto the traditional object of my hatred, President Bush. And as a bonus, I will offer that if a genius such as myself were in charge, none of this would be happening."

"but guess what: there probably are no good plans out there for dealing with the fact that for somewhere between 10 and a hundred million Muslim men in this world, this video of the jumpers brings tears to their eyes. Tears of joy, that is."

And I get the empty rhetoric award, JC?

These, I guess you'd call them "retorts", have the vacuous ring of rhetoric: devoid of fact, rife with opinion based upon preconceivd political beliefs and agendas, and utterly without merit. What would have happend with a Democrat in charge? Well, one wasn't so why pose such rhetorical nonsense in response? Evidently to answer your own statements.

On the other hand, we DO know what has happened with a Bush in charge--notice how I do not use the word Republican or conservative because the man and his administration represent neither.

Posted by: grinnel at September 10, 2006 12:08 PM (H6XTF)

30 "Afghanastan was the right thing to do but was crippled from the start due to poor planning."

We went into Afghanistan to SUPPORT the Northern Alliance instead of going with the Vietnam and Iraq style occupation. Which in the eyes of every person who has any clue what they are talking about, is a much better option as it gives us legitimacy in the eyes of much of the country, keeping the fighting low scale and thus out of YOUR rants about too much death. Afghanistan is a support operation to wage a long term plan to effect their society, it is an attack upon a single symptom of the disease, and thus is not worth a Vietnam and Iraq style occupation when we have a much better chance by being their allies instead of their overlords.

"The Afghan effort was then further crippled with the foolish incursion into Iraq. Iraq was not part of the GWOT until we were there and seen as an occupying force. Bush has manage to distract us from the real GWOT while wrapping his policies in the cloak of the GWOT."

Afghanistan was but a symptom of a far larger disease. Treating symptoms is what morons do, treating the cause is what doctors do. We are being doctors and slowly trying to bring EFFECTIVE governments to an area that has never seen them. By bringing effective government, Democracy in the Mid East, we get the people there to TAKE CARE OF THEIR OWN DAMN PROBLEMS. The war is fought by the people who know it best, stopping most major plots long before they can ever reach the attack phase, not to mention making terrorist sanctuaries and supply depots into terrorist hunting grounds.

As of yet, you and your entire party of finger pointers HAVE DONE NOTHING, NOT ONE SINGLE ALTERNATIVE PLAN. Trust me, WE HAVE/ARE/WILL BE LISTENING FOR ANOTHER PLAN. When you come up with one please tell us all, until then please think before opening your mouth.

Then again, knowing your party, this probably is your plan, do nothing. Appeasement and opening dialogue.

Go talk to Neville Chamberlain's ghost before you start trading away our allies.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 12:23 PM (+PWjE)

31 Naieve, thank you, you just proved yet another point. Foaming at the mouth zealotry is too common.

I am NOT a Democrat. I care for them about as much as I do any politician in general.

I also have no trouble with war and understand it's consequences (death). I completely realize that war is sometimes the only way to fix a problem.

I would NEVER agree with appeasement. We should hunt down these animals and kill them. The problem is, we're not doing that. The Bush administration distracted us with Iraq and the foaming zealots happily followed along.

Please, I beg you, for the good of man kind, start thinking or stop talking.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 12:31 PM (89Rw1)

32 "We should hunt down these animals and kill them."

The governments in the area will not help us, which makes this a military matter. Anyways, Al Qaeda is a SYMPTOM, as I said only morons concentrate solely on SYMPTOMS. If you do not treat the cause, it will KILL YOU.

"The problem is, we're not doing that."

We aren't? What planet are you on?

"The Bush administration distracted us with Iraq and the foaming zealots happily followed along."

Iraq is the beginning of the ONLY PLAN yet put forward that will realistically change the CAUSE of this war.

Keep ignoring the CAUSE, and keep telling everyone to fight only the SYMPTOMS.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 12:36 PM (+PWjE)

33 "I also have no trouble with war and understand it's consequences (death). I completely realize that war is sometimes the only way to fix a problem."

So, since we have some form of help from Pakistan and Saudia Arabia, we should ignore Iraq and the help we get from the Pak's and Saudi's and declare war on them.

After all, Mushareff just decleared the Tribal Areas out of his control and said we cannot go in there.

Pakistan is one of the main problems in this war, do you advocate war with a nuclear power then?

PLEASE GIVE US A PLAN, NOT SOME EMPTY RHETORIC.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 12:39 PM (+PWjE)

34 "I would NEVER agree with appeasement. We should hunt down these animals
and kill them. The problem is, we're not doing that. The Bush
administration distracted us with Iraq and the foaming zealots happily
followed along."

You decry foaming zealotry, and then go on to call Bush supporters and Iraq supporters "foaming zealots."

"Foaming at the mouth zealotry is too common.
"



People who live in glass houses....

Posted by: Good Lt at September 10, 2006 12:46 PM (jWYAe)

35 Naieve, I do agree, we must treat the cause, not the symptoms. Afghanastan was about something else though. The stated purpose was to "get" Al Qaeda and to deny terrorists in general a base of operations. Only after the operation started did the "spreading democracy" rhetoric start. Rhetoric which I agree 100% with btw.

So, base on the purpose of our entry into Afghanastan, we effectively failed on both fronts. Bin Laden is still running around and the south of Afghanastan holds numerous Taliban training grounds. This is a job we need to complete.

As for Iraq, we're there and you know my thoughts on how we got there but, now we need to finish the job. Spreading democracy there would be a good idea. Having a friendly democracy would be even better. We're also failing on both points there.

The occupation there is causing the common people there to hate us. This is becoming more of a problem as time goes on. The democracy is being jeopardized by the sectarian violence and we're largely powerless to do anything about it.

Considering this, and what Iraq would become if we pulled out, we need more troops on the ground there, not less. An overwhelming force is what we needed in the first place and it's what we need now. It's not like we can make them hate us anymore now and at least with that approach we can show them far more progress much quicker.

It's clear we will not accomplish our goals if we "stay the course." This effort needs to be seriously re-evaluated. This administration is simply unwilling to do that.

Specific enough for you? Look, I hate empty rhetoric as much as you. Watching the speeches of Rumsfeld and Bush the last few weeks, that's all I'm seeing. Well, that and a poor grasp on world history.

It must be clear even to you that the current strategy is not working. Adjustments must be made with the goal of winning. Most Democrats (pull out ASAP) and most Republicans (do exactly what we're doing now) are not talking about positive changes in any direction.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 12:56 PM (89Rw1)

36 Greyrooster's point is valid.

Naieve is a fool or a deceiver.  Showing a death doesn't show the killer.  These images are the effect, not the cause.  The Truthers know the effect, they claim a different cause.

Posted by: QC at September 10, 2006 01:03 PM (ebe/J)

37 Good Lt, I would agree with you however, I'm not advocating any particular position.

I'm advocating using your brain. I'm simply stating the obvious, our current strategy is flawed and it needs to be re-evaluated. The current administration has stated they're unwilling to do that.

The zealots I was referring to are ones that will never consider the possibility that the Bush administration is making serious mistakes. When I watch world events, I'm not thinking "oh, I really like him," I'm considering the implications and the alternatives.

As an example, I'm actually a big fan of Rumsfeld and his general demeanor. He's obviously a very intelligent man and I have great respect for him. He's my favorite individual in the administration and I think he's served the country honorably. He also needs to be replaced.

It doesn't matter what I think of him, it's for the good of the country. Even if it just comes down to national unity, it's worth it. There are other qualified people out there.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 01:04 PM (89Rw1)

38 "Naieve, I do agree, we must treat the cause, not the symptoms. Afghanastan was about something else though. The stated purpose was to "get" Al Qaeda and to deny terrorists in general a base of operations. Only after the operation started did the "spreading democracy" rhetoric start. Rhetoric which I agree 100% with btw."

Wow, what a 180...

"So, base on the purpose of our entry into Afghanastan, we effectively failed on both fronts. Bin Laden is still running around and the south of Afghanastan holds numerous Taliban training grounds. This is a job we need to complete."

Yes we traded short term goals for long term benefits... Do you ever wonder what would have happened had we sent massive numbers of troops into Afghanistan like the Soviets did? How about if we just go into Pakistan into the off limit tribal areas and see what happens to Mushareff? After all that is where pretty much every expert thinks Bin Laden is. Is catching him worth a strong risk of nuclear war?

"As for Iraq, we're there and you know my thoughts on how we got there but, now we need to finish the job. Spreading democracy there would be a good idea. Having a friendly democracy would be even better. We're also failing on both points there."

We are 3 years in to a 20 or so year job, there is no shortcuts to building a nation.

"The occupation there is causing the common people there to hate us."

They already hate us, or didn't you notice?

"This is becoming more of a problem as time goes on. The democracy is being jeopardized by the sectarian violence and we're largely powerless to do anything about it."

Except build a government that will contain the problem.

"Considering this, and what Iraq would become if we pulled out, we need more troops on the ground there, not less. An overwhelming force is what we needed in the first place and it's what we need now. It's not like we can make them hate us anymore now and at least with that approach we can show them far more progress much quicker."

We need more Iraqi troops on the ground and we need thousands more advisers. This war can only be won by a strong Iraqi Government, us beating them down means nothing to them. Once we leave they will think they lost to us and not their government and the Sunni will try what they always try, etc...

"It's clear we will not accomplish our goals if we "stay the course." This effort needs to be seriously re-evaluated. This administration is simply unwilling to do that."

Why won't we accomplish it if we spend the next twenty years building up their forces? The only reason we won't finish it is because people like you spend the whole day Bush Bashin.

"Specific enough for you? Look, I hate empty rhetoric as much as you. Watching the speeches of Rumsfeld and Bush the last few weeks, that's all I'm seeing. Well, that and a poor grasp on world history."

How many times have I asked you FOR A WORKABLE PLAN NOW. You have nothing.

"It must be clear even to you that the current strategy is not working. Adjustments must be made with the goal of winning. Most Democrats (pull out ASAP) and most Republicans (do exactly what we're doing now) are not talking about positive changes in any direction."

This is a long term war, and people like you do not have the will to fight it. Changing a culture and installing an effective government takes decades.

Since you have no plan, all I can assume is that you think we should do nothing....

So when the next major attack happens, let's meet back here, and we will once again decide if doing nothing is worth thousands of lives, trillions of dollars of destruction and funds needed sent to security, and ignoring the problem until it becomes ten times as bad.

"I'm advocating using your brain. I'm simply stating the obvious, our current strategy is flawed and it needs to be re-evaluated. The current administration has stated they're unwilling to do that."

Once again, WHAT IS YOUR ALTERNATIVE PLAN BESIDES ATTACKING THE SYMPTOMS. YOU AGREE WE MUST ATTACK THE CAUSE BUT YOU DO NOT SAY HOW. PLEASE TELL US ALL AS WE REALLY WANT TO KNOW.

"The zealots I was referring to are ones that will never consider the possibility that the Bush administration is making serious mistakes. When I watch world events, I'm not thinking "oh, I really like him," I'm considering the implications and the alternatives."

WHAT ALTERNATIVES????

GIVE US ONE ALTERNATIVE TO FIGHT THE CAUSE OF THIS PROBLEM!!!

"Naieve is a fool or a deceiver. Showing a death doesn't show the killer."

Yes, sure, why would we ever want to know how evil these people are. We can just ignore it and let the conspiracy nuts make up whatever they want.

Let me guess, there was no Holocaust and it was all an evil Jewish plot by the Elders of the Protocols of Zion....

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 01:44 PM (+PWjE)

39 Naieve firstly, you say "Yes, sure, why would we ever want to know how evil these people are."  It is the "these people" part that the Truthers question, and these images show nothing to identify.  Your failure to identify this indicates you are either a fool, or you're being paid to play one on the internet.

The GWOT, including Iraq, is one of constant change.  Adapt and overcome.  Spoofing and psy-ops are part of it, and the enemy's best source of intelligence is our media. They can't tell you the plan without telling the enemy the plan too. So you don't know the plan.  Know your role Jabroni.

Posted by: QC at September 10, 2006 01:59 PM (ebe/J)

40 Naieve, you keep demanding a workable alternative as if our current course is working just fine. You keep saying I have nothing however you have nothing but what's been spoon fed to you.

Nothing I said was a "180" from my earlier statements. That comment simply proves you have already decided what I think and are trying to force my actual statements into the shape of your preconceived notions. It's this kind of zealotry that is damaging our country. We need a calm, rational and informed debate, you do seem informed so one out of three ain't bad, just work on the other two.

"The only reason we won't finish it is because people like you spend the whole day Bush Bashin."

This is obviously false based simply on my own words above. Yes, I have problems with Bush but I back it up with reasons. I don't blindly follow anyone, which is a whole lot more than I can say about others.

"people like you do not have the will to fight it"

Again with the over reaching generalizations when you have no clue who you're talking to. One more time for the "special" ones in the crowd: I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE FIGHT, I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HOW IT'S BEING FOUGHT.

I've basically been saying "fine, we're there, we're stuck, let's win it". The current approach is not working. The "alternative" you keep screaming about is to simply re-evaluate what we're doing and make serious changes. For probably the dozenth or so time, I'm not arguing to cut this short, I simply want us to win. We're certainly not on a winning path right now.

Also, I find the statement "We are 3 years in to a 20 or so year job, there is no shortcuts to building a nation." very interesting. Originally the Iraq war was sold as something we'd get in and out very quickly, a matter of a few years. No where near twenty. Everyone with half a brain knew that wasn't the case of course. You don't have a problem with your elected officials lying to you?

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 02:09 PM (89Rw1)

41 Uhmmm... my bad on the plan thing Naieve.  I misread your last post, as to who was quoting who.  It is I that is the Jabroni.

oops.

Posted by: QC at September 10, 2006 02:10 PM (ebe/J)

42 I'll tell you what the plan of the Democrats is. They have made no secret of it. The first step is to set a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, also to tamp down the action in Afghanistan by withdrawing from the border area with Pakistan, and seeking to engage the Islamists in a series of negociated settlements. As a matter of fact, OBL has offered a hudna. This would fit very well into the Democratic plan to withdraw from the area and disengage the terrorists. The terrorists have offered a truce, so this in itself is evidence of great harm being done to them and their networks. It is doubtful whether a truce would stop the Islamic planning for the Caliphate or grand Islamic state they so desire in order to dominate the World for Islam. The Democratic plan would allow a temporary respite from the attacks of the terrorists, but would result in us or our children having to handle the problem from a relative position of weakness. You see, the problem of Islamism will have to be confronted, either now or in the future. Now we are in a relative position of strength, later the Islamists will be in a much better position, or that is how I see it.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 10, 2006 04:17 PM (rUyw4)

43 jesusland joe is absolutely right on their plan for Iraq, unfortunately.

As for Afghanastan and the negotiation stuff, do you have any links backing that up? I find that incredibly hard to believe. It would be about the worst approach to the situation possible and I can't believe that anyone of any importance in the US thinks that's the correct approach.

I'm sure you can find some random nutjob leftwing commentators talking about this but I would like to see quotes from a Democratic legislator suggesting negotiating with Al Qaeda.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 04:29 PM (89Rw1)

44 To all: Show me pictures of the killers being killed and I will watch. With beer and popcorn. I do not watch innocent people squashing themselves on pavement to avoid the pain of fire.
Nor do I watch the beheading videos. If that's your bag. I know many creeps do. I question the mentality of anyone getting their rocks off watching a poor soul having his throat cut and bleeding to death.
I have nothing against killing. I have killed before. But I can't say it was worth watching time after time.

Naieve: I concur with your statement " Iraq is the beginning of the ONLY PLAN yet put forward to change the cause of this war" It hits the nail on the head. The left continually berates our government (something lefturds don't realize) but offers nothing as a alternative but surrender in one way or the other.

Naieve, Rich, welcome to the blog. You are both needed. Do not let the posters ruin your enthusiasm.
Advocating the Good Lt use his brain. Ha, Ha. Thats a bigger task than the war in Iraq.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 10, 2006 05:01 PM (zCLF8)

45 grinnel, go reread your original post.

This film is a close-up of tragedy.

Wow. What trenchant insight. These seven paltry words are all you can devote to the rather compelling video of innocent American caught in an inferno and deciding that jumping to their deaths from the 87th floor is the less painful course of action before you switch the subject to what you really would rather talk about -- how awful Bush is, and on this subject you go on at much greater length without links or facts, but rather with gauzy dreams of how much better things would be under President Josiah Bartlett. The subject of the post was the video. You had nothing to offer on that subject but to use it as a springboard to jump into another topic that you like better. That you did this, my friend, is a fact. Next time if you want to fool more people, offer at least as many words on the topic at hand as the one you would prefer to expound upon.

You offer fantastic rhetoric about how swimmingly things would be going in the alternate universe that you constructed for yourself where Al Qaeda would be practically all rolled up by now, and when others critique your fantasy world where Bush is not President, you say, "Hey, why are you guys talking about a theoretical Democrat President when Bush is President right now?" Well, you brought it up! Amazing! You changed the subject of your change-of-subject!

And also in that post, you offer no provable assertions, and then criticize the "retorts" for not addressing the facts of your fact free post. Again, amazing!

Posted by: caspera at September 10, 2006 05:07 PM (jylGY)

46 Rich, I did not mean to suggest direct negociations, but those along the lines of what we just saw in Pakistan where the government there ceded control of the Waristan regions to Al-Queda and its supporters, including OBL. There is no doubt in my mind that OBL is holed up there. And it is not out of the realm of possibility that Bush could do the same thing if the pressure from his Party becomes too great, especially if the Democrats take control of the House, and even more of a possibility if the Republicans lose both the House and Senate. I am basing my conclusions on what I believe has been inferred by certain key Democrats, not a specific plan. This is my belief, nothing is written in concrete, but again, it is along the lines of what the Islamists have offered, and what the Europeans would support as well. Just my thoughts.

Posted by: jesusland joe at September 10, 2006 05:37 PM (rUyw4)

47 "Show me pictures of the killers being killed and I will watch. With beer and popcorn. I do not watch innocent people squashing themselves on pavement to avoid the pain of fire.
Nor do I watch the beheading videos. If that's your bag. I know many creeps do. I question the mentality of anyone getting their rocks off watching a poor soul having his throat cut and bleeding to death."

Not to watch this will build a barrier between us and reality and subconciously we will say, "Hey, that all happened to someone else, why sould I care? It'll never happen to me." We must associate ourselves with the victims, they are the reason we fight, so it never happens again.

I don't really want to watch terrorists dying, the fact they died is enough for me, if I could do it myself I would gladly spare others the nightmares, with my back I cannot fight this war as I would wish and am relegated to trying to explain why we fight. I think we have a duty to those they kill to remember what their last seconds were like, so we never forget why we are fighting this war. Without our support the Military cannot win this war.

"We're certainly not on a winning path right now."

And the winning path is what?

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 05:40 PM (+PWjE)

48 Rich,
I see what you are saying now.
What I am saying is that there is no easy or good way to fight this war. Iraq is exaclty how this thing will have to be fought, spending 15 + years building strong working governments in every nation that is our enemy is as of yet the only plan. We should not look at Iraq and wonder why it is so bad, relatively speaking Iraq is a low scale conflict that is being massively publicized to the point that people are starting to realize how ugly war is, yes war sucks, it always has and always will, that is why you don't go to war unless you have to. We all realized yes we had to go to war, now its here. We should be looking at Iraq and wondering why we wasted so much money and how we can do better on the next country on the list while instituting those changes in Iraq(like the woefully undermanned advisers and massively wasted funds). There are thousands of years of problems to work through in that area, even after we leave we will spend centuries riding herd on those nations to keep them going the right direction. Iraq was the most likely target to start at when the plan to bring effective government to the Mid East became the plan, the diplomatic way was obviously not going to work with Saddam like it did in Afghanistan so we went to the war option, like we will probably have to do in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan after all diplomatic routes are closed. In fact when you look at places like Pakistan and Iran, you realize we started off with the easy guy first. Things will get much much worse before they get better.

Either that or we wait and see what happens as Iran and Israel get into a Cuban Missile Crisis. Or sit and hope the terrorists aren't given a nuke. Imagine some of that Niger yellowcake being processed by the same method used by NK, Pak, and Iran, all of who will willingly trade that information to other muslims as they have oft repeated, we would have a fun time trying to figure out who to nuke as teh list of suspects grows, or whether to nuke them all which our morality will not let us do.

Posted by: Naieve at September 10, 2006 06:07 PM (+PWjE)

49 Naieve: Judging how others feel to the same stimuli is a mistake. I don't need to see a person die by fire to understand what it must feel like. If you need to watch death videos over and over to be reminded of 9/11, so be it. I don't and I won't forget because of it. But to each his own.
Your assessment of the future in the middle east is plausible. However, this nation will not spend 15 years over there. My solution. Islam needs a lesson. A lesson that will show them the west will not stand for this crap.
You will not terrorize us, threaten us, make hostages of us or kill us. My suggestion? Make Iran drop to its knees and beg us to stop. They can change their behavior or die.
Peace never follows talk and agreements.
Peace follows complete and utter victory. Example: Germany, Japan, Italy, Turkey. Now nations we are at peace with.
Another example. North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq. Countries we didn't stomp into submission when we should have. Nothing but trouble.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 10, 2006 07:09 PM (zCLF8)

50 Would we be in this middle east mess today had we taken care of Iran when they took the embassy hostages? We should have stomped them into submission then.
BUT A COWARDLY DEMOCRAT WAS IN CHARGE. So a Republican must take the heat for doing his job years later.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 10, 2006 07:12 PM (zCLF8)

51 "What I am saying is that there is no easy or good way to fight this war."

Agreed.

"Iraq is exaclty how this thing will have to be fought, spending 15 + years building strong working governments in every nation that is our enemy is as of yet the only plan."

At the most basic level, I agree. It's the actual implementation in Iraq now that's the problem.

"We should not look at Iraq and wonder why it is so bad, relatively speaking Iraq is a low scale conflict that is being massively publicized to the point that people are starting to realize how ugly war is, yes war sucks, it always has and always will, that is why you don't go to war unless you have to."

I do agree with this as well. The media in generally heavily publicizes every little thing and provides absolutely no context. This applies in areas where I imagine you'd rather it not apply as well though. For example I wish the media in general would explain the historical flaws and inaccuracies of Rumsfeld's and Bush's recent speeches but, I'm getting off topic (yes, those speeches really irritated me, I don't like being compared to Nazi sympathyzers)

"We all realized yes we had to go to war, now its here. We should be looking at Iraq and wondering why we wasted so much money and how we can do better on the next country on the list while instituting those changes in Iraq(like the woefully undermanned advisers and massively wasted funds)."

I agree 100%. That is my problem with the current administration. They have expressed a complete unwillingness to evaluate any portion of the effort and make changes in response. Even what you just said contradicts the statements of the administration and that's not a good thing. These things should be occuring in their heads too.

"There are thousands of years of problems to work through in that area, even after we leave we will spend centuries riding herd on those nations to keep them going the right direction. Iraq was the most likely target to start at when the plan to bring effective government to the Mid East became the plan, the diplomatic way was obviously not going to work with Saddam like it did in Afghanistan so we went to the war option, like we will probably have to do in Iran, Syria, and Pakistan after all diplomatic routes are closed. In fact when you look at places like Pakistan and Iran, you realize we started off with the easy guy first. Things will get much much worse before they get better. "

This is essentially what I've been saying for years (obviously not on this site). We went for Iraq because it was low hanging fruit and had little to nothing to do with WMDs. Again, I agree with the concept but I hope the strategy is findamentally changed.

Yes, there's serious problems in that region and this administration has had some valid ideas on how to address it but, what we need is a group of people that are open to other ideas. This whole condescending approach of the administration is insulting to the American people.

The current approach in Iraq may bear fruit in a hundred years or so (once the current and next generations of Muslims die off) but, we and our children need to live in the world now. The approach needs to be tempered so as not to create more terrorists now.

I am not talking about appeasement. I'm concerned entirely about innocent Iraqi civilians. With our approach today we're causing them and their children to hate us and contrary to what seems to be popular opinion here, they all do not already hate us. If at the same time as aggressively pursuing the terrorists we could manage to cultivate some good will imagine how much easier our job can be. This could even be something as simple as a few more weeks of cultural training for the troops and slight modifications to the rules of engagement (yes, I understand you need to assume anyone there could be a terrorist, this of course should be kept in mind in any changes).

My whole problem, and why I come off as a simple "Bush Basher," is that the administration is unwilling to do any of these things. Bush has said, as recently as a couple weeks ago, he wouldn't change a thing if he could go back and do it over. That's just wrong. A truly great man is capable of learning from his mistakes and I don't think anyone here would argue that his administration has made ZERO mistakes.

Posted by: Rich at September 10, 2006 07:18 PM (89Rw1)

52 Never forget, never forgive.

I still cant work out why the U.S. was so restrained in its
reaction to the horrific, cowardly acts of that nightmarish
day, especially compared to Pearl harbour.
America should have declared all out world war on Islam,
and every decent, democratic nation in the world should have got right behind it! I fear that until we do this, we
will never get on top of this whole problem.
On this day especially, we are all Americans.

Posted by: Aussie Jeff at September 10, 2006 08:07 PM (iIT4F)

53 I pray that on this day more than any other, all muslims who harbor hatred in their hearts for any person who may disagree, spends 24 hours with an intense feeling of fear of everything around them. For until that happens they will not understand the depth of trouble they currently find themselves in.
 
BTW, they better hope Newt doesn't get elected. If you want to win this war, open your mind to Newt. He understands the threat, and also is a believer in history repeating itself.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 10, 2006 09:20 PM (n4VvM)

54 I'm with Aussie Jeff. Rich. You care too much about people that ALREADY hate you and wish to kill you. Takes a major shock to bring them back to reality. The reality is we will kill you back. If you attack us or allow your people to attack us we will hurt you. We will hurt you real bad.
We will not consider your innocents any more than Islamics consider our innocents. The problem is liberal thinking has prohibited us from striking back with the fervor we have in the past.
Islamic nations have allowed the terrorists to attack the west. They should pay for what they spawned.
When Islamics riot and kill in countries like England their entire neighborhoods should be bulldozed and the people repatriated back to the middle east.
Try this approach and the terror will end.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 11, 2006 01:47 AM (vfmPU)

55 I honestly don't care about people that already hate us. It's unfortunate but what's done is done and your approach there is appropriate.

However, just as it's largely our lunatics here that get on the news, the same goes for over there. By all accounts the majority does not hate us. Ignoring the inevitable argument over this point, I'm curious.

If the majority of Muslims do not hate us, would that change your thinking at all?

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 02:09 AM (89Rw1)

56 I would answer the majority of people in prison for murder do not hate me. Yet, I say leave them there.
I doubt if the majority of people in Japan or Germany hated me. Yet, we bombed them into submission. As it turned out, it was the correct thing to do. No more war. No more gas chambers, no more rockets over England, freedom for the people of Europe and even more important. Peace and prosperity for the people who received our bombs.
As before. History has taught peace comes after unconditional surrender.
Who are these 10s of thousands of people that take to the streets whenever some of us are killed? The ones who don't hate us? Are you listening to Al Jazeera or MSN?
Anyway keep up the good work. You and Caspera are most refreshing. Good to have constructive thought on opposite ends.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 11, 2006 02:39 AM (vfmPU)

57 I see you don't sleep either. I do 4 hours per day. 2 hrs at a time.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 11, 2006 02:43 AM (vfmPU)

58 The people in prison are criminals, they belong there no matter who they hate. So that's kinda a false analogy.

It's funny, I agree completely with the "unconditional surrender" idea. I'm in the school of thought that thinks using the nukes in WWII saved innumerable lives. I however disagree in how you get there with the Muslim terrorists.

Although it seems to be a popular position here, you just can't go and declare war on an entire religion. Especially not one that is second only to Christianity (in population).

What is needed here is measured annihilation. Identify large targets but, quite a bit more specific than "Islam," and go after them viciously. The operation in Iraq to retake a large city northwest of Baghdad (whose name escapes me now) is a great example of that. While it was criticized heavily in the press the results can't be argued with.

Yes, tens of thousands do take to the streets to celebrate our deaths. Tens of thousands are not a majority amongst millions. Like I said, the vocal lunatic fringe always gets the most air time.

Btw, if anyone would like to drop a MOAB on one of those celebrations, you'll hear no complaints from me.

Also, thank you for the welcome. It's interesting that everyone here sees me coming from the liberal side. On liberal sites they see me as a loony conservative. I'm not from any particular side in politics. I just look at things and come to my own conclusions. I'll show you just how jumbled my political stances are:

- I was and still am for the Afghan and Iraq wars. I just disagree (strongly) on the details.
- I'd vote for McCain in a heart beat (I'm not real sure if he's popular here though) but hell would freeze over before I'd vote for Hillary (or any Democrat that seems to be out there right now for that matter).
- While I had high hopes for them (especially after 9/11) I think the Bush administration has been the most damaging presidential administration to the foundations of our country.

There's a lot more but, I like to maintain some mystery =)

And no, I don't sleep much.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 03:25 AM (89Rw1)

59 I seen these clips a few months back, very dramatic to watch. Poor people.

Keeps you focused!

Posted by: Dan at September 11, 2006 05:05 AM (ILHet)

60 One thing this did. It made me and many other normal everyday people hate islam like only a Moslem can hate.
Islam, Moslem and Hate those words go together.

Posted by: Barry at September 11, 2006 11:16 AM (uy3W4)

61 Falluja. The city was Falluja.
 
I say we take Saudi Arabia first. We will hold Mecca and Medina hostage, and force the muslims to sign a pact forcing all muslim nations to disarm. If they refuse we take their lump of space rock and put it on display at Ground zero.

Posted by: SeeMonk at September 11, 2006 11:21 AM (n4VvM)

62 Rich: False analogy? Terrorists and their supporters are not criminals. Anyone who applaudes indescriminate murder is a criminal. Those dancing in the streets to murder are criminals. Those who know the terrorists and don't turn them in are criminals. Anyone who supports terrorism in any way, shape or form is a criminal. We obviously have different opinions on what a criminal is.
"You cannot declare war on a religion" Have you lost it. Islam has declared war on us years ago. Who is raising the terrorists? The Hindus?
Quit doing the liberal thing and equating what I said to include all Islam. I said stomp Iran into the ground until they beg for mercy. Not all of Islam. This will serve two purposes. (1) Get rid of the biggest pain in the ass in the world. (2) Show Islam that they may not continue with their stupid Jihads, threats, murders, hostages taking and any other bullshit they are presently taking part in.
The threat of remember what happened to Iran will be understood by backward shits who understand nothing else.
Of course, if it don't work. I am not against ridding the world of the biggest threat to world peace. Islam.
A gutter religion that I believe should be outlawed.
Bush Admin damaging? What would you have done? More talk. I know what I would do tomorrow if I were king.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 11, 2006 07:02 PM (rdpiS)

63 greyrooster: I referenced Muslims as a whole. You then compared that to the prison population. It's a false analogy because not all Muslims are criminals. Our definitions of what a criminal is don't differ though. "Anyone who supports terrorism in any way, shape or form is a criminal." is a statement I'd make myself.

As for declaring war on a religion, let me rephrase it. We (as in the US) should not declare war on a religion. Yes, fanatical muslims declared war on all non-muslims years ago. We must not follow the same path as them, no matter how tempting it may be.

Also, I honestly thought you were talking about all Islam. I wasn't doing any "liberal" thing, it was just a mistake, sorry about that.

As for Iran, absolutely, pound them into submission, this brinkmanship is getting old. Personally I've always thought Iran was a bigger threat than Iraq and should have been dealt with prior to Iraq.

"I am not against ridding the world of the biggest threat to world peace. Islam. A gutter religion that I believe should be outlawed."

It's this kind of talk that's truly disturbing though. As long as this attitude is common the GWOT will never end. Both sides are advocating the total destruction of the opposing side's religion. When it comes to their religion people are fiercely protective. Obviously this results in a self feeding cycle.

As for why I think the Bush admin is damaging, I doubt you want to get into that. It touches on many topics other than the GWOT, a few of which I consider far more important.

Posted by: Rich at September 11, 2006 08:41 PM (89Rw1)

64 This joke of an administration or any other fool who thought we could go up against mosquitos with an elephant gun never learned any lessons at all from Vietnam, Somalia or whereever we have tucked our tails and cut and run. We find out again and again that the people we try to help love nothing more than dragging our smoking corpses through the streets. A more long-range defensive approach such as blockades and bombing any threats that crop up, and last but not least border security would have been the order of the day if I were president! Off to the left of this page it says remember 9/11 and never forget there are people out there who want to kill us. Now, because of the mishandling, I fear there are many, many more who want to kill us than before. And I, like greyrooster have no inclination to watch any de-capitating videos or desperate people jumping to their deaths. I, like greyrooster will enjoy beer and popcorn if it a jihadist who is featured in the snuff film. 

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 11, 2006 10:27 PM (Dd86v)

65 I agree that these photos do not need to be posted everyday to be reminded of what happened. I remember every moment from that day. I remember when Fox news showed a man falling on tv live as he was actually falling. I must admit that watching this clip made me sick. More so than the Eugene Armstrong clip. What is really sad is that Islam is to be treated with kid gloves in this country. We are suppose to be apologetic to muslims as if it our fault that 9/11 happened. Sure, islam is a very misunderstood religion that gets its basic doctrine from Jewish and Christian beliefs, but it teaches hate and death, and I am suppose to be tolarent of that? War in the middle east should have taken place decades ago. You dont what until roaches overtake your home, you exterminate them early and at the root. And the name Hillary08 is just to get your attention. if she wins the election im moving to Mexico. All the Mexicans are gone, they live here now!

Posted by: Hillary 08 at September 11, 2006 11:39 PM (zPhrx)

66 I agree that these photos do not need to be posted everyday to be reminded of what happened. I remember every moment from that day. I remember when Fox news showed a man falling on tv live as he was actually falling. I must admit that watching this clip made me sick. More so than the Eugene Armstrong clip. What is really sad is that Islam is to be treated with kid gloves in this country. We are suppose to be apologetic to muslims as if it our fault that 9/11 happened. Sure, islam is a very misunderstood religion that gets its basic doctrine from Jewish and Christian beliefs, but it teaches hate and death, and I am suppose to be tolarent of that? War in the middle east should have taken place decades ago. You dont what until roaches overtake your home, you exterminate them early and at the root. And the name Hillary08 is just to get your attention. if she wins the election im moving to Mexico. All the Mexicans are gone, they live here now!

Posted by: Hillary 08 at September 11, 2006 11:41 PM (zPhrx)

67 Rich: You give our enemies a big advantage when you separate good muslims from bad muslims. The Islamic enemy doesn't do the same. All Americans are bad. Period. They do not separate you from me when they bomb.
Islam should police Islam. If they don't (and they haven't)then it isn't worth saving. Outlaw Islam.

Your earlier comment on only tens of thousands in the streets to celebrate dead Americans. There was not 100s of thousands because the streets are not big enough. It takes space for diaper heads to dance in celebration of 3000 innocent deaths.

Posted by: greyrooster at September 12, 2006 07:37 AM (YyQDW)

68 greyrooster, again, I agree, the enemy doesn't do what I expect us to do. I do not want us to be the same as them. We are different. We are better than them. We can fight a war on our own terms, we've proved it before. Outlawing Christianity and other faiths is just what they want to do (and have done in Afghanastan), outlawing Islam would be no different.

As for the "tens of thousands," yeah, I know it would be a multiple of that in most any major mid-east city. I said "tens of thousands" because whoever I was responding to said it.

Posted by: Rich at September 12, 2006 09:43 AM (89Rw1)

69 In response to Rich's statement about fighting this war on our terms is why we are at a stand still in this war. This is anything but a traditional war. Far from the jungles of Vietnam, and centuries from the battlefields of WWII. This war is in OUR backyards. Mark my words, it is only a matter of time when right wing groups in th U.S. such as the KKK, the Arian Nation, the Michigan Militias join forces with terrorists groups for one common goal..., to destroy the American government and the American way of life. You may say this will never happen because the terrorists hate the so called Christian doctrine the KKK proclaims. The KKK and the Neo Nazis are so called brothers and the Nazis hate Christianity. Not so you say, read Some of Hitler's memoirs. The Nazi party was founded on Buddist beliefs. So yes it is so. Because Bin-Laden knows the best way to infiltrait this country is with her own people. We got to start given these rag heads more credit. If we don't we will all be proclaiming Allah!!!

Posted by: Hillary 08 at September 14, 2006 07:38 PM (q5/JT)

70 Don't think it is edifying to watch snuff film. Not pleasing to God. An old girlfriend of mine had a scar on her knee. When I asked how she got it she said as a child she was running to go see a dead man the neighborhood kids had discovered. She tripped and cut her knee bad on a rock. Good way to pick up a curse. Forward to the future. There was a cab driver who went down an imbankment and was killed when he hit a building down below. Out of morbid curiousity I walked the path the cab had taken down the embankment, imagining what it must have been like careening down the sharp incline, glancing off a tree and then hitting the building. Somehow I felt unclean afterwards, like I had picked up a curse. AWord to the wise!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at September 14, 2006 11:13 PM (Dd86v)

71 Hillary 08, your statement is a little frustrating to see. It's due to total and complete incompetence in fighting this war that we're at a standstill not a moral crisis.

Our military is poorly equiped and trained to fight this kind of war due to both political parties and they've had their hands tied behind their back by the current civilian pentagon leadership.

I agree that this is nothing like any war we've fought previously but, if we give up what it is that makes us superior to them, what makes us American, we might as well surrender because we've lost anyway.

Posted by: Rich at September 16, 2006 06:58 PM (89Rw1)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

The connections between the Nazi regime and what we are currently seeing accross the globe are vast, and it would have been impossible to try to outline even a fair number of those connections in a ten minute video, but I hope to have laid the groundwork for viewers to at least do some added research in to the arena.

I have long contended the Muslim Brotherhood movement during the early 20th Century is primarily responsible for the deaths we are seeing today (coincidentally that's another reason why I mocked their email to me) and one of the group's early philosophers was one Amin al-Husseini, otherwise known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti was an ally of Adolph Hitler, but we also see the movement of Nazism within the Middle East as an extension of the teachings of the MB and I'm hoping the video will shed some light upon those other connections and why the hatred we see today could rightly be called the Islamonazi Final Solution.

Posted by: Chad at 02:30 PM | Comments (27) | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Cross-posted at Mein Blogovault.

If you are subscribing to the conventional wisdom (which doesn't seem all too wise these days), then Hezbullah won simply by virtue of its existence.

Cardinalpark over at Tigerhawk has a great post up reminding us that the reason Hezbullah is claiming "victory" is because the bar is set so pitifully low for them and so impossibly high for Israel that it makes it easy for Western dupes to fall into the ass-backwards "tortured calculus" of Arab "victory" : more...

Posted by: Good Lt. at 09:27 AM | Comments (36) | Add Comment
Post contains 1005 words, total size 6 kb.

1 There is one basic flaw in your premise Lt., and that is that you have not taken into consideration that Hezballah is fighting a guerilla war. Guerilla war is not a war of military conquest, but of political conquest, and like the Communists in Vietnam, their victories do not hang on military victory, but on the propaganda value of the campaign itself. The Vietnamese lost almost every engagement with US forces, but turned their losses into propaganda victories by always representing them as such, and the Western media did their part to help; remember Walter Cronkite's misrepresentation of the Battle of Hue? We won Hue handily, but it was touted as a Communist victory, and our political will was crushed. Ho Chi Minh, warning the French in 1946, said: "You can kill 10 of my men for every one I kill of yours, yet even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." Why was he so confident? Because he had learned to turn every engagement into a propaganda vicotry, and thus build and maintain the political will to win. That lesson has not been lost on the muslims. Remember Somalia? We lost 19 but killed around 1000, but it's still represented as an American loss, because we couldn't achieve our goal. Hezballah's goal is not to win battles, but to survive them, and garner propaganda from them. This is a war of a thousand small victories for them, but our standards are much higher, and thus much more difficult to obtain.
Hezballah won because they got the world's nations to step forward and show their allegience, and even the US sided against Israel by demanding that they stop fighting Hezballah. Let me reiterate: We ensured the survival of our enemy by restraining our ally. Who's side are we on anyway? The muslims won this battle, and they will win every one subsequent by virtue of the fact that our will to win is absent, but their resolve to win is absolute. It will take a political revolution in this country, with an almost complete replacement of elected representatives with those who have the will to win, before we can begin to see real victories on the battlefield. Our leaders and people do not currently have the will to win. Their leaders and people do. Wanna lay odds on who gains ground and who loses before things change?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 09:56 AM (v3I+x)

2 We ensured the survival of our enemy by restraining our ally. Who's side are we on anyway?
 
IM -
 
Israel's side, hard as it is to swallow. Fair criticism, and I tried to slip a little of it into the post to balance it out.
 
I think you are leaving out a few critical details. Olmert (and by proxy, Bush, but not the other way round) is going to take it on the chin politically for not being aggressive enough (not using the IDF plan instead of the Olmert-gov't plan), and you are also holding Israel to the impossible standard that Cardinalpark illuminated in his post - either they destroy ALL Hezbos, or it is a loss.
 
The IDF was prepared to do just that, and was kneecapped by Olmert and the centrism of the Israeli politicos calling the shots. I can't say I'm impressed with the Bush Admin's handling either, but I still want to see how the next few weeks pans out before coming to a more definitive judgement. Until then, I'm sticking with the "not as bad as it seems, not as good as it seems for Israel" view.
 
As it stands right now, the Hezbos are the ones scrambling around trying to secretly rearm and lick their wounds and whose infastructure and armament was crippled - the Israeli army is simply on standby waiting for Round 2 (shoud it materialize).
 
I know these are "propaganda" victories, but what isn't? The nature of propaganda is to spin any loss into a victory. Well, then it spins both ways.
 
The problem, as you correctly note, is that Westen and Arab media won't note any of this in any significant way. That doesn't change the cold hard facts of the logistical or military blows that the IDF has inflicted on Hez. (however few you think they may be), but these propaganda sideshows affect the perceptions of those blows rather than the blows themselves.
 
I will stick with the military and logistical assesment, since in the end, this is what realistically matters in terms of Israel's self defense.
 
 

Posted by: Good Lt at August 15, 2006 10:11 AM (yT+NK)

3 I'm with IM on this one. The fact that Hizb'Allah's leadership and resolve survived, nay, flourished, in this war is a clear indicator of not only political victory, but to some extent a military victory as well. You must remember that Arab armies such as Syria and Egypt folded up under attacks by the IDF, yet Hizb'Allah not only stood and fought, but inflicted loses on Israel. The fact that Hizb'Allah was still firing rockets at Israel even as the cease fire went into effect is telling. Yes, Hizb'Allah sustained damage in this fight, no doubt, but this is damage they were prepared for, and I think the damage was much less than they had expected. IMHO.

Posted by: jesusland joe at August 15, 2006 10:20 AM (rUyw4)

4 Any losses the Hezzies suffered are already being made up by Iran and other muslim nations, so that is a moot point. The real goal of this whole operation was to make Israel look bad, to garner worldwide criticism of Israel, and to shake the US-Isarel alliance. Mission accomplished, thanks to the help of our cowardly administration. Bush is good at starting things, but he lacks the balls to finish. In this, as in so many other things, Bush has shown that he is nothing but a liberal.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 10:22 AM (v3I+x)

5 Tough crowd here. :-)

I still feel it is far too premature to wrap-it-up and to go home sulking/blaming/hand-wringing.

I don't think Bush lacks the will to win - I think he lacks the will to win decisively and quickly. He's gun shy.
And in all fairness, he didn't "start" the Israeli-Hezbo conflict - Hezbullah did, so I don't see how Bush failed to "follow through" with that one, other than in a purely diplomatic sense (and we all know how valuable diplomacy is to the so-called "peace process...").

This is bacause there will invariably and inevitably be a very high civilian body count from such an approach. I'm OK with that if it means security of our allies and respect from our foes, but I'm not in charge.

I will certainly concede that we are fighting far too timidly and inconsistently to instill real fear in the types of governments that oppose our actions (of which there are many, and the Hezbos, basically a division of the Iranian army that Israel just spanked, don't count as a soverign nation).

I would caution about being too "chicken-little" about this whole thing, since negativity and pessimism both have a way of feeding off of themselves and spiraling out of control.

Keep hope. This isn't over.

:-)

Posted by: Good Lt at August 15, 2006 10:33 AM (yT+NK)

6 You're nuts if you ever think you'd convince Hezbollah to think it has lost. Down to the last man they will claim victory, and even then their fellow Muslims would claim victory for them in that they went down fighting.

And that's exactly what needs to be done.

Posted by: Ernie Oporto at August 15, 2006 10:43 AM (WvUov)

7 "You're nuts if you ever think you'd convince Hezbollah to think it has lost. Down to the last man they will claim victory, and even then their fellow Muslims would claim victory for them in that they went down fighting."

Youre exactly right.

That's why I indicated in the post that there is an intrinsic difficulty engaging Hezbos and Arabs that support them in a rhetorical war, since these animals think that suicide is a victory, as is remaining alive. There is no way to "win" in a rhetorical sense against those who feel their own deaths are victories.

Except when you actually kill them and they cease to be.

I am in agreement with your sentiments, but I don't think this UN ceasefire (already teetering) is the end of this chapter of the war. Or maybe I'm just hoping against hope that it isn't.

Posted by: Good Lt at August 15, 2006 11:00 AM (yT+NK)

8 From a military point of view it was basically a draw, but only because Israel let that happen.

From a polical point of view it was a terrorist win.

But, the above are only tactical outcomes.

A much bigger, much more decisive war is looming.

W will not allow Iran to have nukes. Period.

Posted by: eman at August 15, 2006 11:30 AM (SD4ZE)

9 The only possible good that can come of this is that the Israelis will hold an election soon and boot out all the milquetoast liberals with whom they've saddled themselves. Every election cycle for the last few decades their government has gotten more and more liberal, and things have gotten progressively worse for the Israelis, (maybe this is what's meant when liberals call themselves "progressives"), but now, I think - no, I hope - the Israelis, and American Jews, will get smart.

Posted by: Impobulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 12:51 PM (v3I+x)

10 I can't type my own freaking name today. I'm ready for fall.

Posted by: IM at August 15, 2006 12:56 PM (v3I+x)

11 My name and email is already auto-filled before I post. But then again my name is Last gasp Larry...

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 15, 2006 01:56 PM (gLMre)

12 It seems to me the Israeli government is poised at the edge of a political crisis and is ready to fall. If that is the case, it will be encumbant upon the members of the Israeli (Knesset?) to make any transition a smooth one. Also, I hope we catch Iran and Syria with their hands on the weapons as they attempt to resupply Hazbollah.
 
It is frustrating to be forced to the sidelines as these events unfold. We need to turn Baghdad over to the Iraqi's and move our troops to the Syrian and Iranian borders.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 15, 2006 02:21 PM (7teJ9)

13 Israel could not have it's northern border so strong with the enemy when Iran is sent back 50 years. Perhaps, late this year, or early next year, the political process will be over.

It will take a long time to rearm the moon god worshippers. Israel is ready to go now, and has learned a great deal.

I think I.M. is correct on every point he made, but the real deal is when Iran gets the shit kicked out of them.

Posted by: Leatherneck at August 15, 2006 04:19 PM (D2g/j)

14 I know what happened; I filled it in wrong the first time, and wasn't awake enough to catch it. I picked the wrong day to quit horse tranquilizers.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 05:02 PM (v3I+x)

15 There is only one kind of victory and it is in the field! Everything else is BS and spin. BS & spin (intended for an outside audience) works only if that audience allows it. BS & spin for the home crowd don't mean jackshit.

I will never compare arab muslims with the Vietnamese. I begrudingly respect the Vietnamese to much, and have absolutely no respect for these arab F-troopers. They want respect as fighters - then freakin' earn it for real in the field.

Say what you want about Charlie, but he really fought balls to the wall. When these 3rd rate camel jockeys over-run one Israeli outpost or settlement - and are willing to spend hundreds of lives to achieve it - just to hold it for a few days or even hours - then I will take notice. Until then, they are an inept joke fighting (stupidly) for an inept people, and a stupid cause.

Maxie - I am shocked! Shocked I tell ya!

Posted by: hondo at August 15, 2006 05:13 PM (XrexX)

16 Who won? Whose country has been leveled and reduced to rubble? Maxie - I am shocked! Shocked I tells ya! I'm going to have to give that a try... giving up the horse tranquilizers that is. %>

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 15, 2006 05:27 PM (gLMre)

17 Hondo, I wasn't making moral equivocations, but merely pointing out similarities in strategy. The 'slamoturds are using the same strategy as the Vietnamese, which is no coincidence, since that was the only war we ever lost, and not due to military means, but political. I'm somewhat of an amateur expert on guerilla warfare, and I believe without a doubt that our enemies have the winning strategy, but mainly because we are trying to fight another limited engagement while they wage total war.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 05:29 PM (v3I+x)

18 But there are no real similarities in strategies - though I don't doubt the muslims would wishfully think so. Trust me - even the Vietnamese (albeit quietly) think they are a joke and laugh at them.

Maxie - you give our enemies far too much credit - far more than they deserve. A putz is a putz, and will always be a putz. Granted they are crazy which makes them dangerous - but still putz's.

You have become too much of a pessimist particularly about our abilities and commitment in dealing with putz's. Sure - elements of the West (and some here) have no stomach or balls for dealing with them - but other elements do and I firmly believe there are more than enough of them to deal with muslim putz's. Say I'm being overly optimistic - say I have faith - Yes! I do.

Posted by: hondo at August 15, 2006 05:50 PM (XrexX)

19 This war will end when we have killed so many of their people, that the despair will so totally overwhelm them. We can break their will. When all of the men are gone, and their children are starving, when all that is left are the feeble old men who have been hiding, and manipulating their people, they will fall. That is why you bomb civilian areas. That is why we bombed Berlin, and Dresden, and Tokyo and Osaka. That is why we bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To hell with their hearts and minds. They are just so much dust in the rubble. We must roll over them like a cat 5 hurricane of death and destruction. Isolate them, and pound them into submission. We don't need nukes. We can do everything we need with Napalm and HE. They don't know the meaning of terror. But they will. When the gloves finally come off, and the B-52's roll again, they will know fear.

Posted by: SeeMonk at August 15, 2006 07:26 PM (n4VvM)

20 Behaving like bombastically arrogant loud-mouth arseholes is inseparable from the Arabo-Islamic character.
F&*k them!
Nuke Mecca and Medina NOW.

Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at August 15, 2006 07:28 PM (Bp6wV)

21 Can I finish my falafel and yogurt sandwich first? ;>

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 15, 2006 08:41 PM (gLMre)

22 Go ahead Larry. That last one, well, a lil' over the top.

Posted by: hondo at August 15, 2006 09:12 PM (XrexX)

23 Hondo, we limited our options in Vietnam - the Vietnamese didn't. They won, and we lost. We are limiting our options in this war - our enemies aren't. They grow stronger while we grow weaker. We won't carry the war to the enemy's hiding places because of our fear of offending muslims - they carry the war to us by every means at their disposal, without regard for who they kill. We try to avoid civilian casualties - they try to create civilian casualties.
Our "leaders" lack the resolve to win, which is evinced by the fact that they don't want to do what every sane person knows what must be done, which SeeMonk so perfectly explained. We have to wage total, unlimited warfare, and stop pussyfooting around. We have to round them up and deport them from our countries, and turn their cities into rubble. We have to let millions of them taste our wrath, because brute, overwhelming violence is the only thing they understand. They are not civilized people, and cannot be dealt with as such.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 09:44 PM (v3I+x)

24 maxie

I really don't think it's lack of resolve - for the lib/left maybe but they got a lot of personal issues.

Its like - a mob of midgets (spastic no less) kicking you in the shins and insulting you. Yeah, it hurts.

But their still midgets! In body and mind!

We want to be civilized people - we want to do the right thing (as often as possible). We look back on history and say we want to do better, find better ways of dealing with things. We try (not always successful).

We smack one back and 10 topple over - we hope they'd get the hint - we say to ourselves "Hey midgets! Look in the freakin' mirror for Christ's sake!"

A lot of us are really hoping that these muslim idiots may one day come to their senses. Maxie - neither I nor you really want to get medievil on their freakin' lil' asses - not because we care about them - but we care about ourselves.

Come on maxie - beatin' them down like you say is like beating up the kids on the Special Bus. I really don't want to do that.

However - if the time does come - can't we find a way to simply euthanise them in a civilized fashion?

PS - I used the term "midgets". I mean no disrepect to lil' people, the really vertically challenged or circus folk.

Posted by: hondo at August 15, 2006 10:22 PM (XrexX)

25 Hondo, I admire your refusal to give up that which makes you a civilized human being, and thus better than our enemies, but they neither understand nor respect civility or restraint. Nothing less than heads on pikes and piles of skulls gets the point across to uncivilized barbarians like muslims. When they have a boot on their neck, then they can behave, but not until then.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at August 15, 2006 10:42 PM (v3I+x)

26 I wonder if dozens of innocent people dieing everyday at the hands of the terrorists are concerned with our morality, civility and restraint? Morality is a good thing, while there is still a choice. Before long it may be a moot point when we have to pull out all the stops and fight for our lives tooth and nail!

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 16, 2006 10:37 AM (gLMre)

27 The Jews got a good hiding, Hezbollah won, so just please stop the excuses.
I love reading about how many Hezbollah soldiers were killed, accepting Israeli facts without proof, laughable.
Hezbollah has no airforce, no navy, no armour, just a few thousand fighters and it came not only survived but fought back !
Saying that Israel won is like saying that the US won the Vietnam war.
Also as for Somalia the US 20 of it's best fighters, and the Somalis lost about 150, mostly from airpower. The claims that the US killed 1000 is nonsene. It actually killed 3000 innocent civilians by the indescriminate use of airpower, something the US is famous for.
Please don't just rely on Hollywood and propaganda fom CNN for your facts, try to use your brains now again.

Posted by: Bob at August 16, 2006 10:51 AM (xk7zE)

28 The news reports say that Hezbollah won. In the eyes of the entire muslim world they won. Israel says they would never negotiate a prisoner exchange for their kidnapped soldiers. Now they say exchange is possible. Israel is pulling back to the original border. Labanese (pro hezbollah) are replacing them. Israel said they would not stop until hezbollah was destroyed and the danger to their border was secure. Not. Hezbollah is re-arming and moving back to their orginal positions. The United Nations demanded a cease fire knowing that this would hurt the Israeli cause.
Every muslim nation is celebrating in the streets. Lebanese muslims, Christians and others moving back to their homes to find the Israelis destroyed them. The highway system, power systems and airports have been destroyed by Israel.
Hezbollah is assuring citizens of Lebanon that they will replace or repair their homes destroyed by Israeli bombing. Hezbollah is supplying food and water to those without it. Iran and Syria says they will continue to aid Hezbollah as long as America aids Israel. Groups of muslims from Egypt to Indonesia begging their governments to allow them to go to Lebanon and fight the Israeli aggressors.
I don't know who is advising Israel these days. Probably American Academics with the ostrich syndrome.
Who won?
Are we talking about hearts and minds or the kill count?

WHO WON?
SHIT!

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2006 10:57 AM (vCjBd)

29 Good Lt.s Iranian nut licker continues to take the attention away from the sponser of all this shit. American worst enemy. Iran.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2006 11:12 AM (vCjBd)

30 So Hezbaby won? Er, OOOOKKKKKKK ...

Well then, will somebody please tell me what exactly is it that they won.

Oh, and please don't say respect - I fell on the floor already laughing about that possiblitiy.

Posted by: hondo at August 16, 2006 11:50 AM (XrexX)

31 They lived thought it. They never surrendered and the muslim world takes that as a victory. They are still there, waiting to kill again. The queston could be asked what has Israel won? Again, nothing. This action was poorly ran. Don't know why. Hezbollah and their supporters needed a true ass kicking. Not the slap on the wrist they received. They will be back with longer reaching rockets and perhaps even worse.
Hondo think of the Muslime mind. Hezbollah fought against a country with fighter jets, tanks and every modern weapon available. And they are still standing in defiance. How does this look to religious fanatics. Surly, God must be on their side as they had no fighter jets, tanks, etc:
This is bad. Far worse than anyone wishes to admit.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 16, 2006 01:40 PM (vCjBd)

32 Greyrooster, I really hate to agree with you, but you're damn right.

Having gone in to this folly, they should have finished it. I'd have much rather it was sorted out over the diplomatic table - but as soon as the first shot was fired, Israel *needed* to make a very strong point.

You're right. Opting out half-way through just encourages the militants. I'd rather have no conflict than any conflict - but if conflict happens, we need to go for the uncompromising win.

They're like Obi-Wan, in this respect. Killing a few just makes them stronger. If we opt for killing, we need to kill the lot.

Posted by: Your very own mother at August 16, 2006 07:24 PM (BV7IP)

33 Perhaps they are following the Bush way. Stir 'em up and then let them finish themselves off, like Iraq....

Posted by: Last gasp Larry at August 17, 2006 12:25 AM (gLMre)

34 There might be something to that.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 17, 2006 08:22 AM (W1CgA)

35 Your very own mother: You must be a teacher by profession. Academic types are the only ones with their heads buried deep enough to believe in the diplomatic table.

Diplomatic table: Bullshit. To the western mind the diplomatic table is something you go to in an effort to avoid bloodshed. To the Islamic mind the diplomatic table is something you go to when you are weak. If the Islamotards were winning they would not seek the diplomatic table. They would just continue killing.

Posted by: greyrooster at August 17, 2006 08:29 AM (W1CgA)

36 I'm not saying that the diplomatic table is the be-all and end-all... just a first port of call. Nine times out of ten, it won't work, but it's worth pursuing for that one time out of ten that it might.

And then, if the shit hits the fan, we must go in *hard*. I'm not a great fan of war, but it's necessary sometimes - and if it happens, it needs to be absolute. No messing around.

Posted by: Your very own mother at August 17, 2006 06:55 PM (BV7IP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My second composition video on using children as tools in a war upon non-Islamic civilization is below. Please enjoy.

Previous video: Arafat wanted proof
Related: Baby Jihad

Posted by: Chad at 02:41 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

This is a video tribute to 100 Israeli children murdered by Palestinian Arab terrorists. Heartbreaking losses like these represent the price of appeasement of the Islamist thugs that infest the Middle East. And when the Israelis have the audacity to try to stop the murdering of their children, they're denounced as "warmongers". This is the state of the world in which we live:

Props to LGF.

Posted by: Ragnar at 09:34 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 70 words, total size 1 kb.

So I wonder what the Hezbullah murderers were aiming at? A military target? Nope. The goal is to kill as many civilians as possible from as far away as possible.

Where is the moral indignation of the UN? France? Russia? The EU? The American left? Hezbullah is deliberately targeting civlians with shrapnel-tipped warheads fired from dozens of miles away. Where is the outrage? Where is the condemnation?

Here's video from July 17 of a rocket attack in Haifa. Note the lack of children used for human sheilds and casualty magnets:

The double-standard becomes more evident each day this continues, which I think is another sub-reason media organizations and Arab governments are frantically trying to get a "ceasefire" implemented to keep Hezbullah from being crushed. They are running out of ways to spin the news in Hezbullah's favor. Don't let yourself be fooled by these Islamist pigs.

And don't forget the anti-Israel narrative when you leave: They're killing civilians! How can you kill civilians! This is an outrage! Disproportionate force! Cease fire!

Cross-posted at Mein Blogovault.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:40 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 184 words, total size 2 kb.

A synagogue attacked in Sydney? Psha! Keith Olbermann is on, dude!

Cross-posted at Mein Blogovault.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 06:11 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 21 words, total size 1 kb.

You can tell how obetient and frightened Hezbullah supporters are of the the Blue Helmets from this pic and the others in this article.

Hezbullah - your days are numbered. When the next several thousand rounds of negotiations, shuttle diplomacy and letters condemnimg Israel accords are over, then there may be a possibility that the UN just may at some point issue some very strongly worded-language to the supporters of this militant Islamic group.

Beware!

EDITORIAL NOTE: Some of the comments have been deleted, due to one particularly rabid Hezbullah supporter ("Cedar Revolution") spewing Nazi-like rhetoric all over the thread. GM has responded dutifully as any good man would with some pointed words of his own - he is not repeating himself ad nauseum. The comments he was rightfully spanking were corrosive and in this humble Jawa's opinion, warranted deletion. Apologies to GM and the readers for the confusion.

Cross-posted at Mein BlogoVault.

Posted by: Good Lt. at 10:37 AM | Comments (63) | Add Comment
Post contains 160 words, total size 2 kb.

I was just GoogleEarthing the Israeli/Lebanon border. I haven't done any homework to see if this has been pointed out anywhere else, but I thought I'd share the screen shots with you anyway.

Building on the prophetic Michael Totten dispatches from earlier this year and last, these ariel shots of the landscape also somewhat revealing. Notice the brown, dried up fields on the top portion of the screens. Contrast them with the Isaeli side on the bottom half. I don't know if there is a sudden patch of heat and dry land after you cross that white borderline, but something seems weird there. The landscape is dead. Hostile. Threatning. The IDF has been monitoring the areas for years now, and against all cibvebtuibs if common sense, refrained from incurring into soverign Lebanese territory. The spoke of the Hezbullah infested region with seriousness and dissapointment. Emphasis mine.

“I have worked on the Jordanian and Egyptian borders,” he said. “This is the worst. The strangest feeling here is that the other side is a no-man’s land. There is no authority that you’re working against. It is extremely out of the ordinary to see any Lebanese police or army. Only Hezbollah is armed.”

“What do you see when you look at Lebanon?” I asked the lieutenant.

“I see poverty and difficult circumstances,” he said. “I see poor farmers who work hard. After so many years of war, the last thing they probably want is more war.”

“Do you know what you’re looking at when you look into the towns?” I said.

“We track movement on the other side,” he said. “I can tell you exactly what each of those buildings are for.”

Posted by: Good Lt. at 04:07 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 3 kb.