Comments

Recommended reading: Bill Whittle — 91 Comments

1. >>And it is just so with terrorism. When the results of terrorism do the terrorist more harm than good, terrorism will go away.

2. ? The terrorists don’t care. You have to get the surrounding populace, that is either afraid of, or secretly rooting for, the terrorists on your side.

3. Haven’t read the essay, yet, but the fragment you quoted set off the following reflections:

   – If the distinction given between Hawks and Doves is a defining one, then most people, apart from complete pacifists at one end, and complete belligerents at the other, are both, though not at the same time, or under the same circumstances — that is, most people understand that sometimes the choice is between fighting or not fighting, and sometimes the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.

   – Appeasement, it’s true, doesn’t work, since it’s merely a frightened response to aggressive bullying, and it simply invites more of the same. But appeasement can sometimes be confused with compromise, and it shouldn’t be, even when the compromise is in the face of aggression. The problem is that it often isn’t so easy to tell the difference, particularly when you are frightened, and would like to believe that your inclination to capitulate is just a rational attempt at compromise.

4. The Barbary Pirates didn’t have a religious obligation to defend a city named in their holy text.

   We have influence, but influence is to control as a rich uncle is to a prison warden.

   The USA recently prevented Venezuala from taking a seat on the UN security council by influencing the smaller voting countries. You can’t brag about America’s international largess if it’s strategically withheld to undermine the UN.

5. “You have to get the surrounding populace, that is either afraid of, or secretly rooting for, the terrorists on your side.”

   No you don’t, actually. You have to do that if you want to defeat the terrorists without violence, but like most of the left’s solutions, it presumes that the impossible is not only possible, but would be easy, if it wasn’t for sabotage by thoughtcriminals.

6. Thanks for the link. That is a fantastic essay.

7. The Barbary Pirates didn’t have a religious obligation to defend a city named in their holy text.

   Now there’s a statement that’s ripped directly from al Qaeda’s press kit. Who on earth believes that terrorism is motivated by piety or their ‘obligation to defend a city’?? Terrorism is a billion-dollar business. Terrorists are dealing drugs, smuggling diamonds, killing innocents and taking large baths in oil money for the same reasons any money-grubbing capitalist warmonger does these things. Because they want to and they can.

   We can’t take away their greed or their need to grab power by oppressing, but we can take away their ability to wage war, mostly by fighting asymetric warfare asymetrically. Terrorists are well-defended, but their financial supporters are not. Kill the bankers and politicians who support terror first. They’re the most vulnerable targets.

8. I read the article, but I still disagree with him on chickenhawk. He ignores the fact that there is a different kind of expectation for those who lead their country to war. Yes, certainly one should be allowed to have an opinion on fields they have no experience in– but hasn’t it been a pretty long tradition to have expected our leaders to at least have been willing to fight. Wasn’t this why the military had no respect for Clinton? Why the Kennedy campaign exagerated/ fabricated PT109? Why Eisenhower was elected/ re-elected? Why I trusted Bush 1 when it came to matters of war much more than I could ever trust Bush 2 and draft deferment Cheney. We can’t discount the chicken hawk arguement, whether you’re a dove or a hawk.

9. I ejoy these essay’s to Neo. Sort of a polemical bayonet charge agaist a straw man. Tom Friedman does this as well. They almost always read like parodies. “The World is Flat, etc….”

   “Doves think the choice is between fighting or not fighting. Hawks think the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.

   If you understand this, you understand everything that follows. You don’t need to think the other side is insane, or evil. Both hawks and doves are convinced they are doing the right thing. But it seems to me there is a choice between peace at any price and a peace worth having.”

   I’t so simple you can heat it up in the microwave. Oh I love it. When people don’t know what the hell they are talking about,they talk just like this. It’s like asking for an architectural blueprint with shematics, material costs and timelines, and instead getting random quotes from Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead.”

   No wonder it appeals to you Neo.

10. When people don’t know what the hell they are talking about,they talk just like this.

    And they write just like you.

11. *at least check for typos before you go scolding people for lack of sophistication.

12. We can’t discount the chicken hawk arguement, whether you’re a dove or a hawk.

    There is no “chickenhawk argument” — there’s only “chickenhawk” namecalling. Lefties, most of whom really are “chicken”, think this is such a telling label largely because it’s one they would fear themselves. But to most people it has no effect because it just seems juvenile.

13. When people don’t know what the hell they are talking about,they talk just like this.

    And they write just like you.
    knoxgirl | 11.11.06 – 6:50 pm | #

    OH, SNAP!

14. There is no “chickenhawk argument” — there’s only “chickenhawk” namecalling. Lefties, most of whom really are “chicken”, think this is such a telling label largely because it’s one they would fear themselves. But to most people it has no effect because it just seems juvenile.
    Sally | 11.11.06 – 7:06 pm | #

    The administation isolated every combat veteran that stood in their way.

    When the war begain to look like it wasnt going to end, and we needed more troops. Niether the administration or it’s supporters called for a draft.

    After Jay Garner was relieved from Iraq, the president offered him Cuba next time, and sent him on his way. No that’s not juvenile.

    Chickenhawk is a sound label for the administration and it’s supporters.

15. Well Donk, that’s about as powerful an argument as you could expect to get from an Ass.

16. Well Donk, that’s about as powerful an argument as you could expect to get from an Ass.
    Sally | 11.11.06 – 7:29 pm | #

    OH, DOUBLE SNAP!

    see donkey, ass, get it? teeh hee!

17. Donkey Kong pinned it – the essay deals in absolutes and stereotypes – meaningless.

    And while Sally and Kong duke it out – they more or less said the same thing.

    “If the distinction given between Hawks and Doves is a defining one, then most people, apart from complete pacifists at one end, and complete belligerents at the other, are both, though not at the same time, or under the same circumstances — that is, most people understand that sometimes the choice is between fighting or not fighting, and sometimes the choice is between fighting now or fighting later.”

    Sally, though – your ridiculous posturing about ‘labelling’ and the fact that you spend a great deal of time doing exactly the same thing, well…

    Chickenhawk is the best label there is – what better than to point to somebody advocating fighting and killing and dying by others, that to fight than to do it themselves – very effective…

    And lets fact it – most of the people advocating war are the last ones who you would want taking up the fight if the shit really hit the fan and there was a ‘necessary’ war…

18. All the chickenhawk wannabes either shut up or start talking about how a person didn’t serve in the front lines. See, the attack is mercurial, adaptable. I’ve seen them call active military servicemen chickenhawks, because they are in logistics or some such. I’ve heard they call military veterans chickenhawks cause they are back here in the states safe and sound.

    It doesn’t matter, the ends justify the means for the totalitarian Left here.

19. My apologies Yammer – I didn’t know the term was “mercurial” or adaptable.

    I thought it was specifically coined for civilians advocating war.

    I wouldn’t think anybody would refer to active servicemen as chickenhawks, sounds silly – but there you go…

20. By the way Yammer – which “ends” and what “means”???

    The totalitarian left indeed LOL….

21. Chickenhawk is the best label there is

    Nu-uh. “Chicken”‘s got it beat. That’s the one pasted on the foreheads of the lefties who are so afraid of their country’s and their civilization’s enemies that they’ll make common cause with them and turn on their own country.

22. Oh great, Anon is confused again. What happened to Trolling Anonymous, aren’t they supposed to help people here?

23. Ymarsakar, why attempt to attribute identity to an anonymous comment? I write anonymously all the time, and only one of the anonymous comments above is mine. Don’t bother. Just deal with the issues that strike you as relevant.

24. I wrote:
    The Barbary Pirates didn’t have a religious obligation to defend a city named in their holy text.

    Mary wrote:
    Now there’s a statement that’s ripped directly from al Qaeda’s press kit. Who on earth believes that terrorism is motivated by piety or their ‘obligation to defend a city’??

    People who have taken the time to inform themselves.

    Before suicide bombers blow themselves into tiny pieces, they make a video tape to leave to posterity.

    “I am Abdalla Khalil Jabar. I chose martyrdom …”

    “I am the living Shaheed Mohammed Bin Abd Ali …”

    “I am the living Shaheed Imad Ibn Atuya …”

    “… I am a warrior in the name of God, the living Shaheed Mohammed Rivhi Badawi … I am a warrior in the name of God”

    “We are the group of the Al Aqsa martyr troopers …”

    “We are the followers of Waffa Edris the woman Shaheed …”

    “… I am the living Shaheed Mohammed Assa Elgun …”

    “… the living Shaheed, member of Izzadin El Qassam, the military wing of Hamas …”

    Those are all subtitles from the first 1’21” of a documentary called “In the Name of God: scenes from the extreme.” The movie opens with a sequence of these martyr videos, before proceeding to introduce a genuinely alien culture about which you clearly know very little. So you’re the ideal target audience for the film.

    You can download it from the peer-to-peer network.

    ‘In The Name of God takes us inside extreme fundamentalist communities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon and Palestine, communities where western secular men and women rarely set foot. It illustrates how suicide bombers known as “Shaheeds” are regarded as home town heroes following their deaths, and how school children are being indoctrinated with hatred in their classrooms. The documentary includes: Graphic scenes from the festival of “Ashura”, in which some believers, including young boys, commemorate the sacrifice of the “martyr” Imam Hussein by participating in a “blood-letting” process. A school for girls, in which they are taught that as women they are expected to raise future generations of “martyrs”. The swearing-in ceremony of new “Shaheeds”. Interviews with parents who explain that it would be an honor to sacrifice their sons.’
    – source

25. kungfu: I read the article, but I still disagree with him on chickenhawk. He ignores the fact that there is a different kind of expectation for those who lead their country to war.

    Why should we have that expectation? Can a president who has never served in combat lead a nation in wartime? Was Clinton a chickenhawk for all the military interventions he ordered (Kosovo, Somalia, etc.)? Certainly, in every way, he and his followers fit the chickenhawk label as well as Bush. What expectations, and what limitations, are we setting for future presidents by insisting on military service as a prerequisite for wartime leadership? Are they expectations and limitations we really _want_ to emplace?

26. Anonymouse above provides a good illustration of the fear that pervades leftist appeasers, and that they hope to spread to others.

27. “And it is just so with terrorism. When the results of terrorism do the terrorist more harm than good, terrorism will go away.”

    –Well when we start fighting terrorists instead of Iraqi’s and insurgents we might get back to fighting terrorism and terrorists.

28. “That’s the one pasted on the foreheads of the lefties who are so afraid of their country’s and their civilization’s enemies that they’ll make common cause with them and turn on their own country.”
    ~Sally

    –Lefties are not afraid of their country or enemies. Lefties are demanding that righties (when they are in charge) have a good reason for going to war and go after the correct enemy.

    You will find the military full of both the left and right and they both are dieing for nothing in Iraq.

29. Neo, the essay is really beautiful, and this author other works (a have read them all) are very, very good. I also perceive striking similarities in style and spirit with two other pilots-literators, Antuan de Sent Exupery and Richard Bach. It seems, a view of Earth from pilot’s cabin becomes an integral part of general world-view, and tremendously elevate man spiritually. Even being self-proclamed atheist, Bill Whittle posess so impressive religious feeling which I rarely encounter in people declaring their religiosity.

30. Lefties are not afraid of their country or enemies.

    They’re not afraid of their country, true, which is why they take such relieved delight in denouncing it at every opportunity. They’re deathly afraid of their country’s enemies, however, which is why they’re so anxious to appease them whenever they can.

    Iraq is a good example of a war that we’ll have to fight sooner or later, and, if we lose it now, both sooner and later. The Saddam regime was the most hostile one in the Middle East, was openly harboring and supporting terrorists, had every intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, and was the keystone to an entire region, which was breeding terrorists like weeds and exporting them throughout the world. Telling yourself it’s the wrong war is only a way of sticking your head in the sand, or worse, and hoping the bad people will just go away.

31. “Lefties are not afraid of their country or enemies.

    They’re not afraid of their country, true, which is why they take such relieved delight in denouncing it at every opportunity.”

    I am not quite sure I agree with this. Many of those on the left seem to be absolutely terrified of their country — think of conspiracy theories about 9/11, much (though not all) of what’s said about the Patriot Act, and the constant comparisons of Bush to Hitler.

    But I don’t think it stops — or starts — there. I think that many of them might be terrified of themselves.

32. “Many of those on the left seem to be absolutely terrified of their country — think of conspiracy theories about 9/11, much (though not all) of what’s said about the Patriot Act, and the constant comparisons of Bush to Hitler.”

    They claim to be terrified of their own country. This claim, however, is just a useful lie that allows them to pretend to be more brave and noble than any active duty soldier, while never actually risking their own lives.

    If the government ever actually was carrying out the kinds of conspiracies they claim it is, they would be either desd, or servants of the government out to collect the names of anyone who did believe their conspiracies, like O’Brien in 1984.

33. Terrorism, just as Nazism, is a complex phenomenon, which includes combination of delusional extremist ideology with utter cynicism and big business interests. Exactly this makes it especially dangerous. Shahides are cannon fodder; but their movers and shakers are bankers, brazen political intrigants like Arafat and geopolitical strategists like Soviet Politburo members who use them all to their own ends.

34. I would not dare to perform exact psychoanalysis of leftist mind; I simply expect, on the basis of my experience with its communist variety, a weird entanglement of logically incompatible beliefs and multi-layered stratification of illusions and self-deceptions to cover up all inconsistencies. Do not expect logic when really is only sound and fury.

35. The distinction between terrorism and pirates is that terrorism is more like organized crime than simple street gang. So the rules of fighting organized crime apply: you need centralized dedicated agency, agent-provocateurs infiltration, and hunt on big bosses rather than on rank-and-file. Can it be effective? Yes! In Russia so-called “Ochranka”, secret political police, formed after Alexander II assassination, in ten years eliminated vast terrorists conspiracy.

36. Anonymouse above provides a good illustration of the fear that pervades leftist appeasers, and that they hope to spread to others.

    “Anonymouse”. lol. This is the type of sinkhole I’m trying to avoid by posting anonymously.

    Fear? It has nothing to do with fear. Radical Islamic culture is genuinely alien and bizarre to me, and therefore fascinating. Sally: it’s five years after 9/11 and you’ve clearly not gone to the trouble of understanding radical Islam. Impressive. Oh, but you’re also cultivating the public’s misunderstanding with your comments, and you wrap the package inside mindless, tribal insults.

    I speak with Muslims in my department and social circle. I read Al Jazeera. I read radical Islamist websites translated into English. I read academic papers about the radical Islamist culture. I’ve read the Qur’an. I’ve posted here at on occasion to share some of that knowledge. All of that requires effort and time. I’ve just recommended a documentary that will only take an hour of your time.

    I try to add value to the dialogue in this community with an informed, outside perspective. Who’s the troll here, Sally?

37. The distinction between terrorism and pirates is that terrorism is more like organized crime than simple street gang. So the rules of fighting organized crime apply: you need centralized dedicated agency, agent-provocateurs infiltration, and hunt on big bosses rather than on rank-and-file.

    Exactly. One of the main reasons why we’ve been so ineffective against Islamofascists is the fact that we pay more attention to what they say than what they do.

    If we listen to their words, we’re dealing with a group of people who are motivated by religion.

    If we pay attention to their actions, we realize that we’re dealing with a bunch of gangsters. They’re well-organized gangsters, funded by millions in oil money, but they’re gangsters all the same. They want more money and power (as much as they can get), and they use guns to get them. Some are knuckle draggers (Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda), and some wear suits and move money around (wealthy Sauds, millionaire Mullahs). If ‘Anonymous’ wants to learn more about politics in the Middle East, he’d be better off watching the Godfather.

    Of course these ‘holy men’ lie about their motivations, of course they dupe gullible people into being martyrs. They’re at war with us, lying and deceiving is their job. It’s our job not to be fooled by them.

    I also perceive striking similarities in style and spirit with two other pilots-literators, Antuan de Sent Exupery and Richard Bach. It seems, a view of Earth from pilot’s cabin becomes an integral part of general world-view, and tremendously elevate man spiritually.

    Yet another reason why Bill Whittle is a great writer.

38. Radical Islamic culture is genuinely alien and bizarre to me, and therefore fascinating.

    “… and therefore fascinating.” Interesting way to put it, no? Would this be the same culture that inspires zealots to fly airliners into tall buildings? To blow up nightclubs, trains, and subways? That murders film makers and politicians, tries to murder novelists, threatens to cut the head off of cartoonists and popes? That riots over beauty pageants, slaughtering dozens? That blows up places of worship other than their own (and often enough blows up their own in internecine war)? That kills homosexuals, hangs girls, stones women, and is threatened by females who drive, or learn, or show their faces in public? That the culture you mean?

    You find that “fascinating”, maybe you’d be interested in rediscovering the literature of the Third Reich. Though, in comparison, that would probably not be quite “alien” enough for your refined tastes. No, I think you’ll just continue to steep yourself in the literature of this … “bizarre” culture. And keep repeating to yourself that you’re not afraid, repulsed, or appalled — you’re just “fascinated”….

39. I’ve posted here at on occasion to share some of that knowledge.

    And how would anyone actually check to see if that was true?

    For all the claims of having read this or that, you don’t even have an identity, and without an indentity, there is no scientific method.

    Ymarsakar, why attempt to attribute identity to an anonymous comment?

    Because I’m not ymar. I’m Neo or Sally.

40. Sally, you’d have people reading this thread believe that having an informed point of view and sharing what you learn is a character flaw.

    Ymarsakar, I always cite my sources.

41. Cite your sources in order to what, identify yourself? If you go to the trouble of using sources to identify yourself, why would putting a name in a line be over the top? The logic doesn’t parse. If informed positions interest you, then it would be consistent to inform people of whose writing they are reading. If you liken your cited sources as a means to inform people, then it should logically follow that you should have no difficulty writing in a line under “name”, when you go to the trouble of typing and pasting html links.

42. I have no desire or even curiosity to dig into sewage collector of Muslim terrorist mentality. I follow rule of a thumb: if something looks like shit and smells like shit, it, most certainly, is a shit. Do not try to touch or taste it! Never accept anything criminals or psychopaths say at face value. And terrorists are both criminals and psychopaths. Undue trust to what they say is, indeed, a character flaw.

43. Ted Kennedy speaks about morality! How he dare to? After killing a girl by recless, drunk driving and failing to inform anybody about it for several hours? And Mathew Parris, openly gay… Certainly his moral judgments are as weird as his sexual habits.

44. stevie. Deleted.

45. you’d have people reading this thread believe that having an informed point of view and sharing what you learn is a character flaw.

    A few suggestions, Anonny: slavishly copying and pasting other people’s texts is not the same thing as “having an informed point of view”; quoting tired old limousine liberals isn’t exactly “sharing what you learn”; and a fascination with evil is indeed a character flaw.

46. Fine, I’m a flake, a git, whatever. But understand this, anon: I’ve no more desire to “debate” with those who find islamofascists fascinating than I would with those who find the KKK “interesting”. In either case you just come away covered in slime.

47. Stevie again. Deleted again. He must be having a boring day today, because he’s been doing a lot of trolling. I’ve kept a couple up just to explain to the other commenters that many of the “anonymous” posts were stevie.

48. lol. Sally’s conflating two (or more) anonymous commentators. I suspect somebody may be trying to teach me a lesson.

    You can’t win a war if you don’t understand the enemy.

49. stevie’s back. Deleted.

50. Incidentally, radical islamists have been studying the genocidal practices of both Nazis and communists in formulating their plans for the Jews or any that fail to exhibit the proper dhimmitude. Oh, and incidentally, people who exhibit a fascination with vicious, misogynistic and/or racist ideologies but who claim to find them “distasteful” are quite often either lying or self-deluding, whether or not they’re academics — in fact, they’re quite often misogynists and/or racists themselves.

51. Academic Anonymous:

    Would you be so gracious as to indicate:

    1) Just what you credentials are, if any. You do sound like a sincere sociology minor at times. If you got ’em, show ’em.

    2) Just where you labor in the academic vineyard…could be Bob Jones University for all I can tell. You do sound like a fundamentalist.

    After all, there always is a blurb about the Author on the end papers of decent book. Right now you could be Ali Baba broadcasting from darkest Tehran.

    Speak up, young man…time to stand up and be counted. If you have an honest reason for shyness, let us know.

52. PS:

    After many thoughtful thoughts and deeply deep musings, I am opening my own blog.

    Check it out…under construction now, but the banner has gone up.

    Next, the biography.

    Stay tooned…it might be fun.

53. I don’t take a name because I consider myself an outsider here, and, with all due respect, I wish to remain so. The minute I take a name the focus moves off the issues and onto me, personally. I’m here, weekly if not daily, to learn from the subtle conservative points of view, not for abuse from the uneducated authoritarians. I also try to contribute the outsider’s pov occasionally.

    I’m a 40-year-old Canadian socialist, in graduate school studying communication. I’m fascinated by many things, not just radical Islam, but my chief interest is the effect of media balkanization on civil society.

54. Thanks for the explanation. I don’t agree with Sally concerning academic interest in the Islamic Jihad being a kind of soul deep preclusion.

55. At the Zoo has some good stuff on Europe strategic relationships with the US.

    Link

56. Just for the record: the problem isn’t with an “academic interest” — the problem is with an awed, quasi-apologetic “fascination” with suicidal murderers, supposedly operating under a “religious obligation”. When we’re actually talking about psychotic zealots about as religious as the Columbine killers.

    And I have no idea what a “soul deep preclusion” is supposed to mean.

57. Oh, is that what we’re actually talking about, Sally?

58. Hey haven’t you guys realizaed the neocon dream is dead yet? It reeks of the fetid corpse of a repugnant ideology in here. No move along the HazMat crews will be here soon.

59. Yeah, that’s what we’re actually talking about, Anony.

60. Anon’s position is mercurial and vague enough, without necessitating that you attack strawmen positions based upon distortions of his views. His words are already distorted through freely chosen ambiguity, you can’t add your own interpretations on top of it without getting totally off the mark.

    Studying people who are anti-social and their motivations, whether religious or not, is a good idea. But that means you can’t simply preclude motivations such as religion, just off the bat because of some other example you saw, sally.

61. “I speak with Muslims in my department and social circle. I read Al Jazeera. I read radical Islamist websites translated into English. I read academic papers about the radical Islamist culture. I’ve read the Qur’an. I’ve posted here at on occasion to share some of that knowledge.”

    But, of course, this “knowledge” must not itself be subjected to examination, especially by stupid neocons. After all, no Muslim would ever lie to a co-worker, now would he?

62. Once hate does the hater more harm than good ,hate will go away. Not.

63. It certainly did Pelosi a lot of good.

64. “Once hate does the hater more harm than good ,hate will go away. Not.”

    Well, hate is needed for survival now, thanks to the suicidal example set by non-hating leftists. So, naturally hate is going to flourish.

65. Hate is a normal human emotion, and, as any other emotion, it needs some control and restraint. But idea to eradicate it completely, just as idea that decent person should always feel shame for feeling hate to anybody is a fallacy, a dangerous utopia. It creates lots of hypocrisy and neurotic self-hate, so typical of many peaceniks and humanitarian activists.

66. I feel I simply MUST give this link to a very recommended reading:

    http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000129.html

67. Here is a Michael Totten insight on Muslims, specifically, Hizbollah Muslims.

    http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001296.html

    Read it if you want to go through the Looking Glass at how the mind of the enemy works. They are rational, not psychotic, perhaps psychopath yes, but not psychotic. They know what reality is. They just don’t care.

    We should make them care.

68. You know, Bill Whittle is correct, as usual. The choice really is if we fight Islam now or fight them later–we don’t have a choice to not fight them. Unless, that is, Islam realizes that unless they stop their agressive ways and actually do try to live in peace that they will be wiped out.

    And you know, it’s funny. When the Dems have a non-military veteran as president, they all chime in with “it doesn’t matter if the president was in the military!” But when A Republican gets in who didn’t see combat (even though he WAS in the military), then it’s a big deal to the Dems that the pres didn’t get into combat. But that’s to be expected with lefty hypocrites.

69. Ymar, the arguments Totten’s Hezbollah poster forwards don’t seem rational to me. Sure, he doesn’t curse, or throw a tantrum, or display any outward sign of his irrationality. When you look carefully at his arguments, though, they’re all really saying the same thing.. “I have the right to do whatever I want, and you have no right to do the same.” Even in his debate with the other commenters he complains constantly about how people keep “de-legitimizing” his arguments, as if a debate is really supposed to be only about him telling people his point of view, and everyone else agreeing with it!

    He is not rational, just reasonably good at pretending to be. Of course, he knows English, so it stands to reason he’d at least be smart enough to pull off such an act.

70. Of course that makes sense to them, they are the believers after all. When you look at the broader picture, everything is consistent within the mind of a terroist, or any fanatic really. If there was any inconsistency, any doubt, then they might start to disbelieve. And that is death, on more than a physical level, for a true believer.

    Now, if you believe in crack, then you will naturally gravitate towards a self-enclosed and self-justifying defense mechanism. If you believe in the reason for the 1st Ammendment, that beliefs can only get stronger through debate, argument, facts, and more information, then you will have a mindset that is open to new ideas and changes. Adapting your beliefs to the situation, without changing your core principles. The terroist doesn’t change anything, it is all reasonable to him, in his world.

71. But sometimes all the solutions are awful, and it is the mark of a responsible adult, and a responsible adult nation, to realize that some problems you can not get around. Some problems you have to go through.

    Or you could just pull your military bases out of the Middle East, pay a hell of a lot more for oil, and let them run their own damned civilization.

    Of course, Israel would still piss them off.

    Garry K, putting “radical” before “Islam” matters. It’s just seven letters, won’t sprain your fingers to type it.

72. Anon, the problem is that nowadays there is no such thing as non-radical Islam. All recognized schools of Islam are radical. Of course, there are lots of Muslims-in-the-name-only; for example, 300 000 Moscow Tatars are so deeply assimilated that their Muslim identity revealed itself only several days in year in religious holiday celebrations. Islam is expansionist, belligerent and intolerant teaching in its core, not in some modern deviations; and 95% of madrasses in Europe and US are funded and manned by Saudi, by their most intolerant Wahhaby sect.

73. The truth is clear and simple, when you have enough moral clarity, courage and common sense to see it. It became very, very complicated, if you discard needle from your moral compass and make every precaution to avoid seeing it. That is why I love Bill’s essays: he cuts through all these layers of cowardly self-deceptions and self-excuses that comprise the core of neo-liberal ideology, especially devised to avoid contact with reality when it raise its ugly head.

74. Well, gee, Sergey, there’s only 1.4 billion expansionist, belligerent and intolerant Muslims out there. You and Garry K better get cracking if you want to wipe them out.

    I know: you could follow Ymarsakar’s advice and let off a nuke in an underpopulated area of the Middle East. That would pretty much do the job of convincing Muslims that the West has moral clarity, courage and common sense.

75. Or you could just pull your military bases out of the Middle East, pay a hell of a lot more for oil, and let them run their own damned civilization.

    Of course, Israel would still piss them off.

    Oh, and of course muzzle your free press, censor your film makers and novelists, cover your women, kick out their own dictators for them, pay them protection money, and let them run your own damned civilization.

    Of course, “Andalusia” would still piss them off.

76. AN ASIDE — or request for help. I’m doing a video review on “The World Tribunal on Iraq”

    Here are some of the questions I need to examine “…the legality of the U.S. and UK invasion and occupation of Iraq. Do the Iraqi people have a right to resist aggression?”

    Can anyone point out some links or suggestion?

77. there’s only 1.4 billion expansionist, belligerent and intolerant Muslims out there

    Well, this at least puts its finger on the basis of a wide-spread and debilitating fear. “My God,” say the frightened, “what do we do? They’re crazy, these muslims, they fear nothing, least of all death! We can’t kill them all! We can’t even defeat an insurgency in one little country! Maybe they’d be appeased if we, if we … closed our military bases in Saudi Arabia, say! But can’t we just ask them what they’d like us to do? Who do we ask?”

    Which brings us back to the difference between compromise and appeasement. In this case, there’s no one to ask. And it wouldn’t matter if there were, first, because the number of things that “piss them off” are endless, in any case, and second, because at some point those in the West who still retain some sense of both decency and courage will (re)discover that they too have values, and that they too can be “pissed off”. When that finally happens, numbers and craziness will no longer inspire the fear they do now. More importantly, Islam will no longer be able to use the West’s own values against it — including that “moral clarity, courage, and common sense” that Anony so ironically invokes, but also, of course, tolerance, rationality, and justice among other things. This is because, in standing up for itself, the West will have finally realized that the value of tolerance, in particular, cannot be extended to those who deny it.

    In speaking of “the West”, however, it’s necessary to point out that this no longer really includes the majority of the contemporary left, who, having lost their god repeatedly in the last century, are now ready to follow any one or any thing thing that still inspires their demoralized, depraved psyches with fear and trembling. Nothing better for that than 1.4 billion (and counting, rapidly) muslims, ready to radicalize at the drop of a cartoon.

78. Among other things, the chickenhawk argument requires we elect only combat veterans as presidents.
    Because there may be a time when we go to war. And we can’t have a non-combat veteran in the WH, can we?

79. To Isaiah Hunahun:
    In battle for survival the victors will decide what is legal and what is not. At international level there is no instance to judge it, except Almighty One. UN and ICC did not count because of their very tarnished reputation. And at domestic level bi-partisan Congress resolution is enough.
    To Anon: There is no need to wipe them out, it sufficient to keep them in bay. Crusades did it wonderfully, for centuries, but some lessons need to be repeated to those who are too dumb to learn it at once. And crusaders had no nukes.

80. Of course, Iraqi people have every right to resist aggression from Syria, Jordan, Iran and any other Wackistan. They have elected government to organize this resistance, and they form long lines before army and police recruit offices in order to do so; sometimes they are blown up in these lines by enemy agents. And they also have every right to count on US help in defending themselves, because they were given promises, which should not be betrayed.

81. Those are thoughtful expressions Sergey and ones I agree with, thanks.

    If you or anyone knows of a good article on “the legality of the UN Coalition invasion and occupation of Iraq.” and “Do the Iraqi people have a right to resist aggression?” please let me know — thanks 🙂

82. And what is legitimacy, by the way? Legitimacy only exist in some legal system. What system do you imply? If it is Sharia law, then any aggression against infidels is legitimate – see Quran. For Jews and Christians any war of self-defence, including preemptive one, is a just war (see Wiki). And for cheese-eating and beer-devouring surrender monkeys and their American copy-cats NO war is just. Clearly, these very diverse notion of legitimacy are irreconcilable. You want to decide it by majority vote? The result is known, these 1.4 bln Muslims are clear majority. So at this moment of history legitimacy is a void notion.

83. Another note about legitimacy: it turned out that Ahmady-Nejad, current president of Iran, was among liders of terrorist gang that invaded US embassy in Tehran and for a year kept its personnel as captives. See these fotos:

    http://mignews.com/news/scandals/world/141106_120039_79252.html

    Now, US have legitimate right to issue international order to arrest and render this very terrorist to stand before US court of justice. And, also, moral right to assassinate him at spot to return a debt.

84. 
    Garry K, putting “radical” before “Islam” matters. It’s just seven letters, won’t sprain your fingers to type it.
    Anonymous | 11.14.06 – 12:40 am | #

    “Bob” is 3 letters, and it won’t sprain your fingers to type it in the box.

    What do these people think they are, Gods?

    I believe that if you have the power, you have the right. This is predicated upon the premise, that without power, you don’t have any rights. As we see in Darfur, this supports my premise. In America, the people have power, therefore we have rights. Those without power, have no rights, either de jure or de facto.

    There’s two levels of looking at it. Rights on an idealistic and philosophical level. And rights on a real, pragmatic, effective level.

85. I find the following text on moral clarity in time of war to be very useful contribution to this discussion:

    http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0301/articles/weigel.html

86. I find Whittle to be far more clear in his thinking than anyone on the left.

    Unfortunately the Iraqis are killing each other, and have ceased to be worthy of the sacrifice that noble minded anglospheric troops may make.

    Rumsfeld did a good job of transforming the military, but there’s no military on earth that’s optimized to deal with the type of fratricide you see in Iraq. Think of it as a preview of the entire arab world–wherever Shia and Sunni coexist.

87. http://mignews.com/news/ scandals…0039_79252.html

    Just to be objective — the image strikes me as photoshoped at first look.

88. To Isaiah Hunahun:
    Tha article was in Russian, hardly you read it. It contend that the photos were shot in 1980 in Tehran by Soviet diplomat, and negative was found in his archive. It was old celluloid film camera, not digital. The negative was studied by experts, they claim that there was no image manipulation or photomontage. You cannot photoshop negative film. If, of course, the whole story is not a hoax.

89. Okay thanks

90. Why would the story be a hoax, who would benefit from such and for what motivations?

91. “You cannot photoshop negative film.”

    Sure I can. Just take a picture of a photoshopped scene with a finer resolution than the grain size of the film, using a specialized monitor with an refresh rate adjusted to exactly triple the camera’s shutter speed. Poof, you have a negative of a scene that could be phony as a three-dollar bill.

    Of course, these methods weren’t publicly available in the 80’s. Age of the negative and examination for telltale aliasing are part of any good battery of tests, but it would be easy to just skip them if one assumes, as most people do, that “negatives never lie.”

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>