What has been made perfectly clear this week is that a majority of our Congressmen and Senators are displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what's going on in the Muslim world. But also, at the same time, Islamic militants have shown a very thorough understanding of how our society works and how they can go about defeating us without actually fully facing our military.
Here's a simplified flow chart of the Islamists strategy:
1. Carry out small acts of violence that capture attention---> 2. Feed the story the Western media which is looking for any type of bad news to get ratings and reflect badly on the Bush administration---> 3. Allow this media to dramatize and inundate Americans with the stories, which will end up convincing them the fight his hopeless and really has nothing to do with their own security---> 4. The American people and a few politicians remain uninformed about the severity of the threat, forget what happened five years ago, and lose their will. The rest of the politicians actually do realize the threat, but care more about positioning themselves politically than taking care of the country--->5. Finally, (thankfully we're not quite here yet) we throw in the towel in the war on terror, no longer proactively engage terrorist infrastructures overseas, let the Iranians do whatever they want, and allow militant Islam to expand in ferocity and influence.
This will only lead to even more radicalization of the 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and we'll end up with a devastating clash of civilizations.
31 March 2007
25 March 2007
Saddam Cont'd
Mark Eichenlaub gave me a link to his posting about a Greek news article describing Saddam practically using the Athens and other embassies as weapons depots for possible terrorist activities.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Greece's geographical sandwiching between the Middle East and Europe has long made it fertile ground for launching terrorist attacks aimed at the West. Modern Islamic terrorists are unlikely to overlook that fact, and rumors of a terrorist weapons stockpile in Athens makes good sense.
You can read the post at Regime of Terror.
Don't miss the rest of Mark's blog either. It's a great compilation of oft overlooked news stories and other purported evidence linking Saddam and terrorism. The implications could be stunning if even a fraction of the assertions are true.
And PA people in District 10 ought to be highly interested in the December posting about Chris Carney's Saddam-Qaeda comments when he was a Pentagon terrorism analyst.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Greece's geographical sandwiching between the Middle East and Europe has long made it fertile ground for launching terrorist attacks aimed at the West. Modern Islamic terrorists are unlikely to overlook that fact, and rumors of a terrorist weapons stockpile in Athens makes good sense.
You can read the post at Regime of Terror.
Don't miss the rest of Mark's blog either. It's a great compilation of oft overlooked news stories and other purported evidence linking Saddam and terrorism. The implications could be stunning if even a fraction of the assertions are true.
And PA people in District 10 ought to be highly interested in the December posting about Chris Carney's Saddam-Qaeda comments when he was a Pentagon terrorism analyst.
21 March 2007
Progress in Iraq...
According to an AFP article, human rights organization Minority Rights Group International says, "Somalia has overtaken Iraq as the world's most dangerous country for minority groups."
The article says Iraq's shift now places it proudly between Somalia and Sudan.
MRG's entire list can be found here.
The top 20 are:
1. Somalia
2. Iraq
3. Sudan
4. Afghanistan
5. Burma
6. Congo
7. Nigeria
8. Pakistan
9. Angola
10. Russia
11. Burundi
12. Uganda
13. Ethiopia
14. Sri Lanka
15. Haiti
16. Cote d'Ivoire
17. Rwanda
18. Nepal
19. Phillipines
20. Iran
The article says Iraq's shift now places it proudly between Somalia and Sudan.
MRG's entire list can be found here.
The top 20 are:
1. Somalia
2. Iraq
3. Sudan
4. Afghanistan
5. Burma
6. Congo
7. Nigeria
8. Pakistan
9. Angola
10. Russia
11. Burundi
12. Uganda
13. Ethiopia
14. Sri Lanka
15. Haiti
16. Cote d'Ivoire
17. Rwanda
18. Nepal
19. Phillipines
20. Iran
20 March 2007
Mohammad Atta and Iraqi Intelligence
Con Coughlin wrote a follow-up story about the Iraqi intelligence memo linking Mohammad Atta to the Saddam regime. It appeared in the Telegraph on 12/14/2003.
The report claims the memo was handwritten by former Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. It is addressed to the Iraqi president, and describes training Atta received at Abu Nidal's residence in Iraq. It mentions his leadership of a team that would be attacking "targets".
I'm still unable to find any clarifications of the legitimacy of the memo, but the Telegraph also published an August, 2002 story about the killing of Nidal by Iraqi agents, purportedly over a disagreement between Nidal and the regime over reactivating his terror cells and assisting Al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan.
It's become common knowledge that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was more an enemy than a friend of Al Qaeda. I find it odd that possible evidence to the contrary disappeared from the media without any further examination.
The report claims the memo was handwritten by former Iraqi intelligence chief Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti. It is addressed to the Iraqi president, and describes training Atta received at Abu Nidal's residence in Iraq. It mentions his leadership of a team that would be attacking "targets".
I'm still unable to find any clarifications of the legitimacy of the memo, but the Telegraph also published an August, 2002 story about the killing of Nidal by Iraqi agents, purportedly over a disagreement between Nidal and the regime over reactivating his terror cells and assisting Al Qaeda terrorists fleeing Afghanistan.
It's become common knowledge that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and was more an enemy than a friend of Al Qaeda. I find it odd that possible evidence to the contrary disappeared from the media without any further examination.
19 March 2007
Saddam and Atta
Anyone remember this story from the U.K.'s Daily Telegraph in 2003?
The headline is "Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam," and claims that a handwritten memo was uncovered by Iraq's coalition government detailing Atta's training by Abu Nidal's organization in Iraq the summer before 9/11.
It also talks about a shipment from Niger to Iraq, via Libya and Syria, which--despite documented liar Joe Wilson's assurances--could possibly have been uranium.
Several of my web searches only turn up different versions of the same story, all from 2003. A follow up to this story, whether proving or disproving it, would be good for my peace of mind.
The headline is "Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam," and claims that a handwritten memo was uncovered by Iraq's coalition government detailing Atta's training by Abu Nidal's organization in Iraq the summer before 9/11.
It also talks about a shipment from Niger to Iraq, via Libya and Syria, which--despite documented liar Joe Wilson's assurances--could possibly have been uranium.
Several of my web searches only turn up different versions of the same story, all from 2003. A follow up to this story, whether proving or disproving it, would be good for my peace of mind.
16 March 2007
Unleash Hell
Remember the opening scene of Gladiator?
"On my signal, unleash hell," says Russell Crowe.
What I take this to mean is that if you're going to fight a war, don't use half measures. There's a strong case that being overwhelming and brutal and deadly can be humane. It ends the war as quickly as possible and, in the case of the U.S., it ensures that the good guys prevail. Ask Maximus if you don't believe me.
I'm not getting at Iraq here. The way we're fighting that war speaks for itself. The initial fight was over fast and was scarily efficient. We weren't hamstrung like we are now in the occupation. Then again, it's the nature of nation building to slow down and make friends, so the change of pace shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
What we need to take a long hard look at is a very plausible future war with Iran. The Bush administration rightly seems to be of the mind that we cannot let the Iranians develop the bomb under any circumstances. And the no compromise rhetoric spewing out of Tehran isn't promising.
Even though this war may be preventable, if armed conflict does come, we're already on our way to making it a much more difficult battle than it needs to be.
Countless television pundits and experts insist that there is a vast, grassroots movement against the Islamist government of Iran. College campuses are hotbeds of unrest and the roots of pro-western revolution reach all across the business, education, and underground media sectors of the country. The regime hangs on only through brute force and bullying. All we need to do is give this opposition the impetus it needs to topple the tenuous hold the mullahs are clinging to.
Prove it, please. Convince us this is true and tell us exactly what needs to be done to handle the problem before the Islamist crazies over there excalate the situation into a war.
It won't happen that way and here's a few reasons why:
"Textbooks used in Iran’s schools are instilling students with hatred toward the West, especially the United States, and urging them to become ‘martyrs’ in a global holy war against countries perceived to be enemies of Islam."
That's from the New York Times, which is likely not itching to foment support for another George Bush-led war.
And here's some excerpts from Mark John's Reuters story about Iranian elementary education:
"All the textbooks were underpinned by the belief that Iran was a world power preparing for global "jihad", or holy struggle, with the aim of world dominance of Islam."
"Stories and poems aimed at primary school-age children hailed martyrs killed in defence of their country and faith, such as those who died in the 1980 to 1988 war with Iraq, with one illustrated with a rainbow dripping with martyr's blood."
"The United States was the 'Great Satan', the 'World Devourer' or the 'Arrogant One'".
The article, like all the TV pundits, then assuages our fears somewhat with this qualifier:
"Despite official opposition to the U.S. government, many Iranians remain sympathetic to the American people and held spontaneous vigils to show support for them after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."
How many is many? A nice showing of a few thousand in downtown Tehran? Out of 68 million people that's not as encouraging as it might seem.
The problem here is that Iranian children are indoctrinated with anti-western, anti-American, anti-Semitic claptrap every single day. At home, at school, in the media and in the Friday prayers where they are led in chants of "Death to America". The same as Palestinian kids, but, for some reason, the Palestinians danced in the streets and passed out candy on 9/11 while the Iranian people grieved with us.
Prove it. Show us. Where are the polls? Where's the footage?
The fact is, the Iranian people do not love the West and they feel they are in a death struggle with us. They continue to value Islam above all and the U.S. and Israel are the chief enemies of Islam in today's world.
So with this logic, what happens if we go to war with Iran? Administration official talk about how we are in solidarity with the poor, oppressed Iranian people and our disagreement is with the regime that, darnit, is just a problem for all of us.
What's happening here is the end of total war, a.k.a. decisive war. In WWII we were at war with Germany and Japan. Not the Nazis and not Hirohito. We fought those countries. We did everything we could to defeat the menace and that included bringing the war to them in any form and in any place.
I'm beginning to worry that this is over. That we will fight the politically correct battle from now on and we'll never be able to flatten our enemies quickly and throughly, like our military is imminently capable of doing.
Enough with half-measures. Stop thinking in shades of gray. It's black and white. Good and bad. Us versus Them, and we'd be doing ourselves and the world a favor by uncomplicated things that should never have been complicated in such a dangerous and pointless way in the first place.
From now on, when war comes and the time is upon our military men and women to put their lives on the line in the good fight, our leaders need to be able to say to them confidently and unequivocally:
At my signal, unleash hell.
"On my signal, unleash hell," says Russell Crowe.
What I take this to mean is that if you're going to fight a war, don't use half measures. There's a strong case that being overwhelming and brutal and deadly can be humane. It ends the war as quickly as possible and, in the case of the U.S., it ensures that the good guys prevail. Ask Maximus if you don't believe me.
I'm not getting at Iraq here. The way we're fighting that war speaks for itself. The initial fight was over fast and was scarily efficient. We weren't hamstrung like we are now in the occupation. Then again, it's the nature of nation building to slow down and make friends, so the change of pace shouldn't be a surprise to anybody.
What we need to take a long hard look at is a very plausible future war with Iran. The Bush administration rightly seems to be of the mind that we cannot let the Iranians develop the bomb under any circumstances. And the no compromise rhetoric spewing out of Tehran isn't promising.
Even though this war may be preventable, if armed conflict does come, we're already on our way to making it a much more difficult battle than it needs to be.
Countless television pundits and experts insist that there is a vast, grassroots movement against the Islamist government of Iran. College campuses are hotbeds of unrest and the roots of pro-western revolution reach all across the business, education, and underground media sectors of the country. The regime hangs on only through brute force and bullying. All we need to do is give this opposition the impetus it needs to topple the tenuous hold the mullahs are clinging to.
Prove it, please. Convince us this is true and tell us exactly what needs to be done to handle the problem before the Islamist crazies over there excalate the situation into a war.
It won't happen that way and here's a few reasons why:
"Textbooks used in Iran’s schools are instilling students with hatred toward the West, especially the United States, and urging them to become ‘martyrs’ in a global holy war against countries perceived to be enemies of Islam."
That's from the New York Times, which is likely not itching to foment support for another George Bush-led war.
And here's some excerpts from Mark John's Reuters story about Iranian elementary education:
"All the textbooks were underpinned by the belief that Iran was a world power preparing for global "jihad", or holy struggle, with the aim of world dominance of Islam."
"Stories and poems aimed at primary school-age children hailed martyrs killed in defence of their country and faith, such as those who died in the 1980 to 1988 war with Iraq, with one illustrated with a rainbow dripping with martyr's blood."
"The United States was the 'Great Satan', the 'World Devourer' or the 'Arrogant One'".
The article, like all the TV pundits, then assuages our fears somewhat with this qualifier:
"Despite official opposition to the U.S. government, many Iranians remain sympathetic to the American people and held spontaneous vigils to show support for them after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks."
How many is many? A nice showing of a few thousand in downtown Tehran? Out of 68 million people that's not as encouraging as it might seem.
The problem here is that Iranian children are indoctrinated with anti-western, anti-American, anti-Semitic claptrap every single day. At home, at school, in the media and in the Friday prayers where they are led in chants of "Death to America". The same as Palestinian kids, but, for some reason, the Palestinians danced in the streets and passed out candy on 9/11 while the Iranian people grieved with us.
Prove it. Show us. Where are the polls? Where's the footage?
The fact is, the Iranian people do not love the West and they feel they are in a death struggle with us. They continue to value Islam above all and the U.S. and Israel are the chief enemies of Islam in today's world.
So with this logic, what happens if we go to war with Iran? Administration official talk about how we are in solidarity with the poor, oppressed Iranian people and our disagreement is with the regime that, darnit, is just a problem for all of us.
What's happening here is the end of total war, a.k.a. decisive war. In WWII we were at war with Germany and Japan. Not the Nazis and not Hirohito. We fought those countries. We did everything we could to defeat the menace and that included bringing the war to them in any form and in any place.
I'm beginning to worry that this is over. That we will fight the politically correct battle from now on and we'll never be able to flatten our enemies quickly and throughly, like our military is imminently capable of doing.
Enough with half-measures. Stop thinking in shades of gray. It's black and white. Good and bad. Us versus Them, and we'd be doing ourselves and the world a favor by uncomplicated things that should never have been complicated in such a dangerous and pointless way in the first place.
From now on, when war comes and the time is upon our military men and women to put their lives on the line in the good fight, our leaders need to be able to say to them confidently and unequivocally:
At my signal, unleash hell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
