“Stop trying to terrorize me with Islamic boogeymen.”

Saturday, January 14, 2006
SusanG. posted a brief essay earlier today on the Daily Kos blog.

She ridicules the war on terror. SusanG. is convinced that it is much ado about nothing. “Hell, my neighbors terrorize me and mine when they drive too fast down the street, an immediate threat of the first order.” Is SuzanG. an exception to the rule? No, she represents the mainstream of today’s Democratic Party. They consider our conflict with the Islamic nihilists as nothing more than a con job to keep George W. Bush in power and enrich Halliburton. Do you agree? If not, you are compelled to do your best to make sure that people like SusanG. are kept out of power.

108 comments:

Buddy Larsen said...

So, Bush is making her neighbor drive fast?

Buddy Larsen said...

As in, he quits the war, and her neighbor slows down?

terrye said...

I just finished Robert Spencer's book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam [and the Crusades].... and it scared me.

My brother says that right wingers are trying to scare people so that they can get power. Oh yeah, he says, there are terrorists, but they are not that big a deal.

So I would say that is the mindset of a lot of Democrats, they just don't see it.

The fact that jihad is alive and well, that dhimmitude is something that Muslims still believe in strikes them as bizarre.

The Final Solution would have seemed bizarre too, in 1935, but ten years later it was terrifyingly real.

Buddy Larsen said...

Terrye, in the years before globalization's easy, cheap and voluminous travel, and before the diffusing of high-tech lethal weaponry, in the days before a USA GDP-sized slosh of black money was transferring itself around the globe at light-speed, before 911 and it's attendant promises to do more and bigger 911s, in those days, the size of our GWoT effort perhaps could've been rightfully seen as excessive. Please tell your brother he would be right, all else equal, in 1978.

terrye said...

buddy:

I love my brother, but this is something we do not speak of.

Knucklehead said...

This is a fairly common opinion held among moonbats and even a fair number of reasonably sensible people hold on to the "terrorism is not that dangerous relative to..." portion of the meme.

There really is no way to counter this. They will not believe Islamofascist terrorism is dangerous until it hits close enough to home. And for a large portion of Americans, the WTC in NYC, and the Pentagon, and a field in PA, and the three planes, and especially embassies, military barracks, and so forth are just not close enough to home to make and impression.

flenser said...

Everyone has to do their own risk assessment, and its possible that Susan is in fact in greater danger from speeding drivers than from terrorists, at least for the foreseeable future.

But part of the social contract we live by is the understanding that an attack on one of us is an attack on all. I don't think its an acceptable response to say, in Kos's phrase, "Screw 'em".

Buddy Larsen said...

Flenser, you may be seeing a result of two gens of 'separating' politics. If your ID is with an aggrieved interest group, then, right, the rest of the interest groups, yep, "screw 'em". Americans, and humans in general, screw 'em and screw 'em.

Buddy Larsen said...

'swhy we so often hear leaders such as the Popes, Blair, Bush and others of the caliber, drop in those phrases about how we need to 'look at what we have in common'.

Knucklehead said...

Buddy,

A good friend's response to the WTC attacks was, "I never liked cities and have no use for skyscrapers." I was stunned nearly speechless, then got far angrier than one should get with a friend. It was some time before I could speak civilly to him again.

I don't understand the thought process.

chuck said...

I think the point of US policy is to nip Islamic Terrorism in the bud. The idea is that, while it is true that it is not a great *immediate* danger , certainly not in the same league as German Nazism was, it has the potential of being a great future danger. This point, depending as it does on future events, can be validly argued on both sides. I don't believe that Bush is pushing his point of view to gain power, and indeed I think that a little action now can buy greater peace in the future, but those who argue the other side are not prima facie nutcases. The fact that many of them are so in practice is a sad state of affairs.

Buddy Larsen said...

It's like looking out a familiar window expecting to see what's always been there, but instead it's a yawning dark chasm.

Buddy Larsen said...

Knuck.

Buddy Larsen said...

Chuck, if the world wasn't so intimately wired together now, to the point where hits like 911 can cost a worldwide depression and the chaos that follows, then the other side would have a MUCH better argument.

As is, their position has to minimize something that we lucked out and survived (in near-original state) ONE of, but would not escape the second so easily, nor probably a third at all.

IOW, we-the-reckless can afford to be wrong, they-the-prudent cannot.

Buddy Larsen said...

SusanG could have her traffic problem cured by people walking rather than driving--to the bread lines. A badly handled international situation gave us our previous bread-lines, and the world was magnitudes less vulnerable, in many ways, then.

Peter UK said...

This little gem encapsulates the strange dichotomy of leftist thinking.

"After years of soul-searching, I've decided to take my chances in a risky and unpredictable world - one from which your administration can't fully insulate me anyway, even with the best of intentions - than to live my life duct-taped and "safe" in a wire-tapped American closet where I'm not free to tell you I think you're a nincompoop and a danger to humankind".

One the one hand SusanG(no relation?)is not free to speak,on the other she vents her spleen against a veritable danger to humanity.
Truth to Power Without Tears

BTW The neighbours drive fast for obvious reasons,ant slower and she might stop them and talk.Well that and the RPGs.

Peter UK said...

BTW,
Is not this known as "Seceding from the Union"?

Buddy Larsen said...

she misses the point entirely--it's the global system that's at risk far more than her personal butt.

flenser said...

I love this; I'm not free to tell you I think you're a nincompoop and a danger to humankind".

Not free? Not free?

I've heard nothing for the last several years from these people but how stupid and dangerous they think Bush is. Why do they persist with this pretence that their shrill and piercing voices are not being heard?

Buddy Larsen said...

I wonder how devil-may-care she would be if her oppressive gov't had not foiled one or two of the various plots on her country that that oppressive gov't has in fact foiled?

Say the Brooklyn Bridge, LAX/Millenium, and a half-dozen jetliners in various Richard Reed-style crosshairs--alone, not to mention others of which we know no details, because the persons up to the deeds were busted, or dissuaded by the layers of security.

SusanG could be said to be an ingrate, and a cheap opportunist playing politics with national security.

Peter UK said...

Here in Britain such selfless community spirit is known as "Bugger You Jack I'm All Right".

Buddy Larsen said...

I've heard of that:
"I'M alright, Jack!"

Peter UK said...

The very same,at the time Jack equated to Pal.

Barry Dauphin said...

There are some of the Kos types who will never acknowledge Islamism or Islamofacism. They have other agendas or are agenda driven (glory to Gaia, capitalism is only bad, etc.). They are unpersuadable for the most part because they won't accept the premises of the WoT or they see any horror in the world as ultimately our fault. It is a form of self aggrandizement coupled with moral masochism. They get pleasure from self blame, because they seem to blame all us Americans, but they really mean you Bushies. It is like whipping the other guy while pretending to feel guilty. "Oh woe is we, we're so bad. Take that, you f'n Bushie."

Then, there is a group, of not insignificant numbers, that have been lulled into passivity by the successes of the WoT. Whenever anything bad for our side happens, it's on the evening news. But there are many, many quiet successes that are not or cannot be seen. Measuring success in the overall WoT is difficult, although measuring success in Iraq at least has some yard sticks.

Some folks believe that 9/11 was a one shot deal. Such a worldview, though wrongheaded in my opinion, is understandable to a large degree. Being of that opinion suggests that we can simply get on with things and not have to worry much. It is comforting.

Most Americans desire safety and have a basic contentment with isolationism. After 9/11 most Americans understood that ensuring safety meant kicking some ass. I think that the indefinteness of the WoT will continue to cause tremendous political rifts in the country. The safer we are, the greater the temptations to say, OK we're done here.

Buddy Larsen said...

And there you have GWB's great failure. As you say, whether "we're done here" or not is impossible to know--it requires being in the head of the enemy. HE chooses whether or not 'we're done here'.


If there was some way for GWB to put it into words that we mustn't leave that choice to suicidal ideological hysterics, that choice of whether or not 'we're done here', then perhaps some of this corrosive truculence would abate.

Thing is, who knows? How and when does GWB 'know'? All he can rightly do is try to err on the side of caution.

And if ONE nutjob does something nasty to us on the basis of "Iraq's occupation", then the left will have been right--for all their willy-nilly scattershot non-thought processes. The left will have been right, even tho GWB was STILL doing the correct thing in terms of risk/reward, even tho it is possible to be right for the wrong reasons, as well as wrong for the right reasons.

Skookumchuk said...

Buddy:

And if ONE nutjob does something nasty to us on the basis of "Iraq's occupation", then the left will have been right--for all their willy-nilly scattershot non-thought processes.

And that is the luxury terrorists have. You plot your moves for years in advance, you strike, and you then blame whatever Western action of the moment you judge most likely to gain you sympathy and support. Without the self-hate and caution of the West, terrorism would have very poor soil in which to grow.

Peter UK said...

Meanwhile back at Iranch,the President with the green ring of confidence Ahmasmadasahatter,is patiently waiting for the the Mahdi
When Iran has nuclear weapons we can all look foreward to the Second Coming

Specter said...

The first time some crazy terrorist plants and IED next to her kids swing set - because of the fact that she has more than the "freedom fighters" and is considered evil - SusanG will change her story. You'd think they would've learned when the towers went down...sheesh

Knucklehead said...

Buddy,

Bush chose to take an action for which "success" can never be measured.

For context, consider how the the political leaders of the UK or France would have been judged had they, in 1936 decided to not tolerate Germany's move of military into the Rhineland and responded by attacking and wiping out his fledgling buildup. Maybe 10, 20, even 30,000 people might have died. Or if they'd reacted in 1938 following the siezure of the Sudentenland. Perhaps 100,000 would have died.

But tens of millions might have been saved.

Chamberlain, rather than being villified as the poster boy for appeasement would, instead, be villified as a war monger.

George W. Bush chose the second. I, for one, am grateful to him. This war had been going on for decades prior to 9/11/01. We just chose not to engage as it escalated. Bush had the good sense to engage before things got further out of hand. Perhaps tens of millions will be saved by his actions but no ledger will ever record the savings.

Luther McLeod said...

Well, that's the thing. Impressing on the Susan G's the perilousness of the situation we are in. It's a tough deal. Keep the country normal, but at the same time put us on a semi-war footing. A fine line we walk. I think GW has done just about the best that could be done. Not perfect, but attainable.

There are those, Left and Right, who walk in the fog of everyday. The local is their world. All else is too distant for worry. And that's OK, in a way.

Except for the Towers, everyone should be awake now. If not, the fog is too thick. And how to thin the fog? Heat. Open up the information. Tell us what is going on. What attacks have been prevented? How deep is the rot. In other words, level with the people.

Western Civilization is facing its greatest danger ever.

Barry Dauphin said...

In the search for markers, I'd say that when most Americans can actually pronounce Ahmadinejad's name, we'll know that the situation must already be red hot.

Peter UK said...

It is 2006 folks.do we really need this:-
"Iran’s dominant “Twelver” sect believes this will be Mohammed ibn Hasan, regarded as the 12th Imam, or righteous descendant of the Prophet Mohammad.

He is said to have gone into “occlusion” in the ninth century, at the age of five. His return will be preceded by cosmic chaos, war and bloodshed. After a cataclysmic confrontation with evil and darkness, the Mahdi will lead the world to an era of universal peace.

This is similar to the Christian vision of the Apocalypse. Indeed, the Hidden Imam is expected to return in the company of Jesus."

Makes you nostalgic for the "Empire of Evil".

Barry Dauphin said...

Christopher Hitchens said that when he was in Iran, a lot of the cab drivers were saying they thought that maybe Bush was the 12th imam. How many disillusioned Iranians are there and what are they willing to do?

Peter UK said...

It's "Greenmantle" all over again!

Buddy Larsen said...

I wouldn't think twice, if I'm Hitchens in Iran, when one cab driver says that. When a second cab driver says that...uhhhh...and if a third, oh, lord.

Buddy Larsen said...

Greenmantle--apocalysm novel?

Peter UK said...

For your enjoyment Buddy,"Greenmantle"
all the chapters

Syl said...

After reading 'State of Fear' it seems to me that people like SusanG are dismissing real threats but have no problem making up threats of their own. Fast drivers. I'm sure she'd be on board for every study that 'proved' thus-and-so causes cancer or otherwise is an imminent danger for all humanity. She probably also believes that global warming is the biggest.threat.ever.

She needs to be afraid and spread fear around just as she accuses others of doing. It's just that she wants to decide which threats are real and which are bogus depending on which political party the threats apparently benefit.

Buddy Larsen said...

Geez, Peter--that Mahdi link--truly needs to be read by all. This Apocalypse stuff is starting to loom suddenly over Iran, like a ship in the fog (in Wretchard's memorable phrase).

Speaking of Wretchard, this is a must-read.

"One of the biggest factors of instability in the world today is that the other major political party in the United States has no 21st century foreign policy."

Even Wretchard--who largely steers clear of SusanG-topics--is getting exasperated.

Buddy Larsen said...

That's the whole book--online--spot on, old chap!

Seneca the Younger said...

Well, mathematically, SusanG is probably right: she is at greater personal risk right now from that speeder.

But what about in 5 years? or 25?

There's probably something to be written in the notion that people can worry about hoqw radioactive fission wastes will be in 10,000 years, but not about what Col Abdullah is going to do to us with a candle stick in the library.

Buddy Larsen said...

You're right--in a one-danger world, where there is but one thing threatening, then proximity is the only consideration.

Peter UK said...

If it is expert opinion SusanG needs here is John Keegan
Yes we have an enemy, but we haven't met him yet,but it is five to the hour,there is time but not much.

SusanG can party like it is 1939,but not for long.

markg8 said...

We were attacked on 9/11 by adherents to a fanatical subsect of Islam. Al Qaeda is a serious adversary, they should have been the number one national security priority for the Bush administration as they came into office. Instead for the first 9 months of 2001 they rattled sabres at China and North Korea. On 9/11 itself Condi Rice was scheduled to make a speech excoriating Senate Democrats for trying to take money from the National Missile Defense Shield program and put it into terrorism defense.

Over 4 years have passed since 9/11 and the perpetrators behind that attack are still alive enough to make inspirational video broadcasts to their followers. Our attack on Afghanistan dispersed them but just when we could have killed or captured their leadership we diverted our attention to Iraq in a faulty attempt to make an example of a recalcitrant Arab nation.

On the surface Iraq seemed a good choice. Misruled by a thug hated by a huge majority of his people, with a relatively well educated, fairly secular populace 1/10th our size, it's armed forces crippled by years of sanctions, it looked like a pushover whose people would welcome our troops with candy and flowers. Initially most of it's army melted away rather than turn Baghad into another Stalingrad.

To the Bushies it seemed a quick and easy military victory could be followed up by installing a friendly government and swapping out Hussein's Stalinist/black market economy for a Grover Norquist laizzez faire style free for all that could serve as a prosperous engine of growth and modernity the rest of the region would emulate. They were so confident they could pull this off, paying for it with Iraq's own petro dollars, they happily divided our country with vitrolic dishonest political attacks even though initially they had overwhelming support from both political parties and castigated most of our allies who had doubts about their justifcations and thought it would be a much longer more expensive slog.

I could go on about all the mistakes
but they are evident so I won't bother. Now our military is bogged down in Iraq fighting to protect it's supply lines with occasional
large sweeps or destruction forays into neighborhoods and towns like Fallujah as punishment that simply pushes the insurgents into new areas. The "Pillsbury Doughboy affect" as General Casey called it, "whack a mole" as others have.

In the meantime Al Qaeda has morphed into a movement that uses Iraq as the prime example of not only US imperial ambitions but how easily Gulliver can be tied down by Lilliputians in their PR campaign. That has tremendous appeal to the powerless who live under the thumb of our Arab allies in the area. The tinpot dictactors and oil shieks have no intention of giving up their positions or wealth in any meaningful way. This is borne out by the support in money and manpower coming from outside the ocuntry for the insurgency.

The invasion of Iraq isn't a winning strategy in the GWOT. Neither is trashing the US constitution in the name of protecting us. As Iraq turns to either Iranian Shia style religious rule or civil war the more vicious the attacks on the party out of power become here at home. In it's most desperate hour the administration and it's followers once again turn to cynical scare tactics. You run the risk of crying wolf once too often and giving Americans terrorism fatigue. As I said fanatical Islamic jihadism is a serious threat. Ressurecting the fear, loathing and anger of 9/11 and attempting to point it at the political opposition here at home is
a ploy to shift the blame for failure. As Abe Lincoln said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Quit trying to divide us. Karl Rove may want to take us back to the dark days of the early 1970s.
You don't have to fall for it.

Peter UK said...

"Nobody on my side of the political spectrum thinks Al Qaeda has the remotest chance of winning in Iraq. They've never been estimated as anymore than 10% of the insurgency by anyone as far as I've seen. Same goes for their dream Taliban style caliphate from Indonsesia to Morroco."
Markg8

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
David Thomson said...

“Well, mathematically, SusanG is probably right: she is at greater personal risk right now from that speeder.

But what about in 5 years? or 25?”

Yes indeed, let’s do the math. There are reportedly 1.2 billion Muslims on this planet. Even if only 1 percent were devoted to Islamic nihilism---we would still have roughly 12 million people eagerly trying to kill the “Great Satan.” That’s a hell of a lot of people.

The Bush administration’s policy of actively pursuing the terrorists has made us safer. It is extremely difficult to plan new attacks while you are running for cover. We would likely have experienced further terrorist incidents on our soil if the Democrats were in power.

flenser said...

One could pick excerpts at random from marks screed and find falsehoods and misleading statements. I count only one true statement in the whole thing.

We were attacked on 9/11 by adherents to a fanatical subsect of Islam.


Even "As I said fanatical Islamic jihadism is a serious threat" is a lie, as peter noted. mark is in full troll mode today.

Barry Dauphin said...

I could go on about all the mistakes
but they are evident so I won't bother.


I understood the author's statement to be self rreferential.

Peter UK said...

"Al Qaeda hates the idea of a Iranian Shia style theocracy."
You know this from your contacts do you Markg8?

The fact that Iran shelters al Qaeda members,gives finacial support and is supplying weapons,such as shaped charges for IEDs and armour piercing bullets,is of course irrelevant.

As is the fact that the Taleban were an extremely theocratic regime and al Qaeda fought for them.

Oh yes,and the triviality that one of the reasons for mounting Sunni opposition to al Qaeda is its strict adherence to Sharia law.
Yes,it is very plausible that the secular al Qaeda would be at odds with a Shia Theocracy as exemplified by Iran.

However,considering the hanging of homosexuals and little girls,the oppression of women,the demand for the annihilation of Israel,America as the Great Satan and autocratic rule Islamic fundamentalism,what is it al Qaeda does not like?

Markg8,have you ever considered the novel option of keeping your mouth shut on topics of which you are ignorant?

Buddy Larsen said...

No way Saddam would've had any contact with AQ, either. Other than the exact same sworn enemies, and interchangeable war plans, what on earth did they have in common?

flenser said...

mark

You run the risk of crying wolf once too often and giving Americans terrorism fatigue.


Oh, really?


As I said fanatical Islamic jihadism is a serious threat.

There you go crying wolf again. In your screed, these two statements followed one after the other. How come some little alarm bell did not go off in your head?


Try to make your mind up. Is terrorism a make believe threat being used by the cynical and dishonest Bushies in order to scare people into supporting them? Or is it a real and serious threat? It cannot be both.

flenser said...

mark

Lets pretend that all your words are not simply an effort to tear down Bush. Lets pretend that you actually mean this;

As I said fanatical Islamic jihadism is a serious threat.

A prime example of "fanatical Islamic jihadism" is Iran. What actions could Bush take against Iran which you would support?

markg8 said...

Do you even know there is a difference between Shia and Sunni Peety? Who does Al Qaeda in Iraq target? US troops when they can but mostly Iraqi Shia. Now they're p*ssing off Sunnis who are trying to plant their own operatives in the Iraqi security forces either as spies or to form government legitimated units to police their own areas by carbombing them. Sunnis won't accept Shia or Kurdish soldiers manning their checkpoints anymore than white southerners would have accepted blue coated Union black soldiers policing their towns after our civil war. Zarqawi's boys don't want any accommadation with the American backed government and have a vested interest in keeping the Iraq war going. If you can't see that you're blind.

Seneca the Younger said...

Over 4 years have passed since 9/11 and the perpetrators behind that attack are still alive enough to make inspirational video broadcasts to their followers. Our attack on Afghanistan dispersed them but just when we could have killed or captured their leadership we diverted our attention to Iraq in a faulty attempt to make an example of a recalcitrant Arab nation.

Mark, your insight into military strategy is stupefying.

I am a little curious how you can discount the notion that the opening of the Iraqi campaign has no part of the apparent disarray of the al-Q and their decreasing abailaity to successfully carry out major operations ... given the fact that losing Iraq lost them major logistical (note not "operational") support.

Peter UK said...

Exactly Buddy,just as it was ludicrous to expect Protestants,Catholics and jews to share the same foxholes in WWII.
Or the great demonstration of secularism by saddam Hussein,that of having the Koran written in his own blood.Inexplicable these fanatical secularists.

Buddy Larsen said...

In Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", Humpty Dumpty harumphs to Alice, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less."

A sneer at the deceit that goes before those 'great falls' from which the world's Humpty Dumpties are never put back together again--though 'all the king's horses and all the king's men' have to continually waste time and energy trying (HD being a fellow citizen).

Peter UK said...

The Sunnis and al Qaeda are killing each other Slightly stronger than "pissing off" you use your elegant terminology Markg8

Peter UK said...

Markg8,
"Do you even know there is a difference between Shia and Sunni Peety? "
Perhaps you should enlighten us all.no cut and paste, in your own words,now!

markg8 said...

"No way Saddam would've had any contact with AQ, either. Other than the exact same sworn enemies, and interchangeable war plans, what on earth did they have in common?"

Saddam and Bin Laden both had dreams of being big daddy preznit king of the Arabian peninsula someday. But Saddam had enough trouble keeping his people in line even with 5 KGB/Gestapo/secret police outfits. Letting in violent Saudi Whahhabi nutballs to stir up trouble among his Sunni base wasn't in his plans. Despite Steve Haye's goofy cherrypicking articles to the contrary they were competitors and the few contacts they made over the years convinced them both that the other was a charlatan.

Just look at Osama's shout out the Iraqi people just before the Iraq invasion. He encourages Iraqis to fight for Allah and says it's alright to fight alongside "socialists" (meaning Saddam's baathists) but:

"The jurisdiction of the socialists and those rulers has fallen a long time ago.

Socialists are infidels wherever they are, whether they are in Baghdad or Aden."

Read the whole thing.

Peter UK said...

Osama bin Laden is surely thriving on the War on Terror.

BEFORE

AFTER

Buddy Larsen said...

Damn, Mark, could The Iraqi Congress, the White House, the Pentagon, the EU and the UN, and really, all of humanity, ever use your expertise, intimate knowledge, and ability to tell the future. In fact, I think you ought to carry your message to Jerusalem, riding on a donkey, next Palm Sunday.

Peter UK said...

"with 5 KGB/Gestapo/secret police outfits."
The word you are struggling for Markg8 is "Mukhabarat",please get thes details right.Thingees will not do!

Peter UK said...

We have the donkey Buddy,it is who is going to ride him.

markg8 said...

"A prime example of "fanatical Islamic jihadism" is Iran. What actions could Bush take against Iran which you would support?"

flenser no I'd say most people in Iran have no desire to get their country bombed back to the stone age. Their new president is a bigmouth who is having trouble getting his hackulicious cabinet confirmed by their legislature. Saying mean things about Israel pumps up his street cred among the riff raff and bolsters his political support. Soudns like they have Persian George Bush on their hands.

Having said that Iran is playing games with enriching nuclear fuel. If they don't back down I support getting them referred to the Security Council and getting Russia to support sanctions and China to at least abstain. Sanctions worked remarkably well keeping Saddam from
messing with WMD. It can work again. Seeing as we don't have anybody in this country clamoring to expand our army by the few million or so it would take to invade and occupy Iran to search for and dismantle their nuclear sites and can't guarantee we'd get them all with bombing strikes it seems the way to go.

Buddy Larsen said...

And, ya gotta hand it to Bush, too. Amazing how he can keep mum hundreds of thousands of diplomats and soldiers, and allied gov't's diplomats and soldiers, and hundreds of thousands more involved citizens across the globe, all mum, on the big conspiracy to never end the war, never catch Osama, and never allow the terrorists to quit terrorizing.

markg8 said...

Peety I usually have to dumb it down for people like you. Mukhabarat, his fedayeen controlled by his son Qusay etc. He had 5 lil secret police outfits in all. And he had them keeping track of each other too to keep the coup plotters at bay. It speaks to his weakness not his strength. He was no threat to the US or his neighbors in 2003. Thanks for helping point that out.

Seneca the Younger said...

Letting in violent Saudi Whahhabi nutballs to stir up trouble among his Sunni base wasn't in his plans. Despite Steve Haye's goofy cherrypicking articles to the contrary they were competitors and the few contacts they made over the years convinced them both that the other was a charlatan.

Wishing it to be so doesn't make it so, mark.

And as far as "cherrypicking", if you assert "there are no black swans", exhibiting a black swan disproves your assertion.

Peter UK said...

Quick googling Markg8,we knew all this,but it was obvious that you didn't otherwise your ego wouldn't have let you keep quiet.
How are you doing with the Shia/Sunni dichotomy?

flenser said...

Saying mean things about Israel pumps up his street cred among the riff raff and bolsters his political support. Soudns like they have Persian George Bush on their hands.

So mark considers the Israelis to be analogus to the jihadis. Nice of him to come out and say so.

flenser said...

mark

Iran's allies on the Security Council will never impose any meaningful sanctions on it. Just as they never imposed any meaningful sanctions on Iraq.

If Iran test fires a nuclear device tomorrow, where will the responsibility lie?

flenser said...

mark, you still have not responded to this question.

Is terrorism a make believe threat being used by the cynical and dishonest Bushies in order to scare people into supporting them? Or is it a real and serious threat?

You have claimed both on this thread.

Peter UK said...

"Having said that Iran is playing games with enriching nuclear fuel."

No they are simply trying to develop a nuclear bomb.


"If they don't back down I support getting them referred to the Security Council and getting Russia to support sanctions and China to at least abstain".

Just like last time,the only reason anything was gained from Saddam Hussein,is because his aremed forces were pulverised.It still left him in the position to resist in OIF.
Russia of course refused support because of the lucrative deals with Iraq.
Has France changed?

"Sanctions worked remarkably well keeping Saddam from
messing with WMD."

Since Oil For Food corrupted the worlds polity,how tight are sanctions going to be?

"It can work again."

It didn't work then! Since Iran is a major world oil supplier and overlooks the waterways which carry the traffic in oil from the other major producers,who is going to sanction who?

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...

Hitler had the Gestapo,the SS,the SA,the Abwehr. And he had them keeping track of each other too to keep the coup plotters at bay. It speaks to his weakness not his strength. He was no threat to the US or his neighbors in 1935. Thanks for helping point that out Markg8.

flenser said...

Germany's deputy foreign minister, in comments from an interview to be broadcast Sunday on German radio, said that imposing economic sanctions on Iran would be a "very dangerous path" and would hurt both sides, according to Reuters. He favored imposing travel restrictions on Iran.

That'll show 'em!

By "hurt both sides" he meant "hurt Germany's business ties".

Peter UK said...

Flenser,
Why where was Iran going.They are frightened of this

Buddy Larsen said...

The very best thing your party could do for posterity, Mark, at this point in time, is to offer up some assurance to the nascent Iranian democracy movement that USA support doesn't depend on which of our two parties wins our elections.

All else is commentary, and you people have a long way to go, and had better shut down the domestic-fog generators and get busy.

Because history will eventually sort out the truths, and we are all even now being held accountable.

Buddy Larsen said...

The world is trying build itself a future, against the usual obstacles thrown up by the bad side of human nature.

The obstacles have different labels at different times, but they always retard the best in people, by demonstrating that there is a worst in people, too.

The Jihad is doing this, and the American Democratic Party is doing this, too.

Not everyone in it, but a large part of the leadership (along with some of the other party, disappointingly), is.

Your dictatorship of the proletariat has to prove it offers liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. Until then, its only model is its bloody, miserable, past.

Peter UK said...

Buddy,
" Motion passed at the Oxford Union, 9 Feb. 1933:
``That this house will in no circumstances fight for its King and country.''

On February the 28 1933 The Reichstag passed the ennabling act.

Less than a decade later these same young people were fighting and dying across the Globe.
Whether today's natsayers have the same intestinal fortitute,or whether Canada is going to get very crowded I know not.

Buddy Larsen said...

Peter, I like that Hemingway insight, "Wars are caused by unguarded treasure".

Not just by bad guys, but by good guys who choose to ignore the reality of history, that human nature doesn't include an infinite resistance to temptation.

Peter UK said...

Buddy,
The patrol boat stationed at the Falklands was withdrawn for some penny pinching reason or other.From this the Argentines concluded that there was no real British interst in the Islands,the rest is history.

Buddy Larsen said...

...which in your example includes an extremely lethal war.

Carter's long agony over the Tehran hostages basically put OPEC's assets up for grabs.

Peter UK said...

Buddy,
Perceptions are all about interpreting signal,where on a personal or a national level.Bin Laden got the signal that America was the weak horse,Magadishu confirmed this view the result was 9/11.
If Itran believes that all that will happen is a referal to the "Security Council (UN a division of the Arab League)then nuclear bombs it will have.
A weakness in the left,is the belief that diplomacy is about talking,whereas it is, in fact, horse trading,for that you have to have a horse..a donkey will not do.

terrye said...

Sunni and Shia may not like each other, but that does not change the fact that jihad is an element of Islam that exists outside of any schizm within the religion of Islam.

In other words, they hate the nonbelievers more and the root of this hatred is the Koran and their literal belief in its teachings.

Multiculturalists like to assume that there is no truth, only perception, one set of beliefs is no better than another..but we are dealing here with something that does not have its foundation in the post modern world.

The mullahs and Zarqawi both believe that man made laws are of the devil and that the only answers that count come from their religion.

They will deal with each other after the rest of us have been subjegated, converted or killed. That is how they see it. To question it is to question Allah.

Peter UK said...

Terrye,
What people forget is Sunni and Shia made quite a few hit records before they split.

Buddy Larsen said...

For sure--the "Moors I Seize You" just killed among the pre-teens.

Peter UK said...

Then there was the Dyslexic Al Jolson,
"Imam".

Buddy Larsen said...

and the be'Atles "I Wanna Chop Off Your Hand"

terrye said...

buddy:

Please, stop it.

Buddy Larsen said...

Oh, okay.
\;-(

Peter UK said...

OK Terrye,
Shame,never got in "My Sharia Amour",never mind.

Buddy Larsen said...

Yeh, now we'll never know what it was.

terrye said...

Damn, the Colts just lost.

I wish we could get the jihadis to play football. Kick their ass easy.

No way would they hug that pig skin.

Buddy Larsen said...

They're tuff at Goat-Bladderball, tho.

Seneca the Younger said...

Damn, the Colts just lost.

You say that like is was a bad thing.

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
flenser said...

mark, you still have not responded to this question.

Is terrorism a make believe threat being used by the cynical and dishonest Bushies in order to scare people into supporting them? Or is it a real and serious threat?

You have claimed both on this thread.

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
markg8 said...

Yeah it figures the resident little brownshirt would find deleting posts funny. The big resident brownshirt just can't handle the truth I guess.

Peter UK said...

Just answer the question Markg8 !

markg8 said...

I've answered all the questions I'm going to on this thread. But go ahead and try to distort my positions and delete my posts. It's not gonna change anything.

Peter UK said...

What answers Markg8? All that is to be seen are the fevered rantings of a deranged leftist.
BTW Do try and remember the Nazis were socialists,just like the rest of the murdering bastards of the 20th century.

Buddy Larsen said...

Right on--the difference between Nazi and Commie is which side of the river.

The other riverbank being the next object of theft.

If you have a world-ideology, you simply can't steal from your soulmate.

So, somebody has to be re-labeled.

Lenin, I've read, established nazi as being 'on the right' so that he could be 'on the left'.

Lenin won, so all power-mad totalitarian Statists are ipso-facto leftists--and the OLD leftists--the Abraham Lincoln Brigades--well, they're just gone.

Al Gore ate the last of 'em. That's why he's so greasy-looking.

Peter UK said...

"Lenin, I've read, established nazi as being 'on the right' so that he could be 'on the left'."

Until Operation Barbarossa,leftists throughout the Western world supported the Nazis as a result of the signing of the Molotov Ribbentrop Pact,after the invasion it was necessary to keep up the illusion,but Hitler himself said "I am a Socialist".
All those millions of dead simply to determine which version of the Socialist Utopia reigned throughout the world.
Nothing seems to have changed,was excuse does the left have this time?

Buddy Larsen said...

well, if 'race' busted up the Hitler/Stalin love-match, the Left learned its lesson well--now it uses 'racism' as the first line of attack against capitalism.