So there's what's right... and there's what's smart.
Someone tried to start a war in Dallas tonight... and I GUARANTEE you, that police around the country are going to react.
Reports are that 11 cops and one bystander were shot... by at least two people with rifles and two more with pistols... and at least 5 are dead right now, with 3 more in critical condition.
At best, police are going to be hyper-vigilant for trouble... Hopefully NOT seeing it where there isn't any and overreacting...
... but it would amaze me if there wasn't at least some overreaction. At least some anger and fear and grief and frustration that spills over into violence...
... and if you don't think there are people who want to exploit that overreaction, you' really don't understand what's going on in this country right now.
Think about it... if you were an enemy of this country... internal or external... If you were a white supremacist, or a black separatist, or an anti-american islamist... Wouldn't it be great if you could get us to start a civil war against ourselves? Set cops against the public, black against white?
... and how much worse will it get if... when... there are more incidents?
Understand... this wasn't a random or spontaneous act of anger or frustration. This was a deliberately planned and executed attack, with pre-planned siting, and a planned evade and exfil, that they executed properly.
That doesn't mean they were professionals, or had any training... but it does mean this was a deliberate act of political violence.
This was a terrorist provocation attack.
The purpose of terrorism is not just to cause direct damage... it is to provoke overreaction from the controlling authority, against the populace, in order to increase internal strife and chaos, and to increase resentment and reaction against the controlling authority.
... and I can't think of any better way to draw such an overreaction right now, than to start killing cops at a black lives matter protest.
Can you?
Smart people... people who really should know better... Are already reaction in anger and fear, and saying things like "this is black lives matters fault', or "the cops deserved this"...
... That's exactly what they want...
... Because that's what terrorism does...
That is the goal, and purpose, of terrorist attacks. It is to create terror, chaos, strife... To draw overreaction and create resentment, that the terrorists can take advantage of.
... and it's working.
So... here's my advice... For everyone, but especially if you are a young black male.
Stay home... ESPECIALLY at night... until next Monday.
It's a heat wave weekend... violence always goes up with heat waves anyway... now this? STAY HOME.
Don't go anywhere there are big crowds. Don't go to protests or vigils or anything else. STAY HOME.
If you DO get pulled over, and you get hassled... don't get visibly angry, don't fight, don't yell, don't scream... DO record the encounter if you can...
...and wait...
Wait until you aren't under the control of an angry scared man with a gun pointed at you... Wait and get a lawyer. Wait, and file a complaint with the Justice Department and the state AG.
Is it wrong... Hell yeah...
But you can't fix it if you're dead.
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Terrorism. Show all posts
Thursday, July 07, 2016
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
September 11, 2001, 8:46am Eastern Daylight Time:
4017 days, 9,500 dead
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
Sunday, September 11, 2011
3652 days
September 11, 2001, 8:46am Eastern Daylight Time:
3652 days, 9040 dead,
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Not to put too fine a point on it...
STOCKHOLM (Dec. 12) -- No one died except for the suspected bomber, but two explosions in Sweden's capital tore at the fabric of this tolerant and open nation - a society that hadn't seen a terrorist attack in more than three decades.... But, once a "bomber" has actually blown themselves up, they are no longer a "suspected bomber" or "alleged bomber"... They have actually committed the act, and the evidence thereof is scatted in millions of pieces in the public street.
Two people were wounded in central Stockholm on Saturday in what appeared to be the first suicide bombing in the history of Sweden, which has been spared the major terrorist strikes seen in several other European countries.
A car exploded in the middle of the seasonal shopping frenzy, shooting flames and causing several smaller blasts as people ran screaming from the scene. The blast that killed the alleged bomber came moments later a few blocks away from the car explosion on a busy pedestrian street.
One might say they are an "alleged" or "suspected" terrorist, or an "alleged" or "suspected" attempted mass murderer... Those are mere suppositions on our part... But the facts that the bombing occurred, and that the bomber died in the blast, are not in dispute.
I'm just sayin...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Welcome, but insufficient to the needs of the day...
David Cameron today apologized for the British Armies conduct on Bloody Sunday.
Great... now do something of substance. Either treat the north as a real part of the rest of the damn country, or get the hell out.
The UK is firmly wedded to a lot of government involvement in industry, in finance, in development... fine. Ok. If that's what the people of the UK want, then so be it. But it stifles entrepreneurship. The barriers to entry get so high, that it becomes nearly impossible to do anything without government support.
This is coming from someone who has founded and run businesses in the republic, in the north, and in England. I am an American, but also a dual citizen with Ireland. My father is an Irish immigrant. His father was a member of the IRA from the age of 15; when the IRA was still a legitimate organization. Most of my family still lives in Ireland; and I lived in Ireland, and in the UK, for years.
This is not just an American pontificating from afar, I have lived and worked there... and my position on the troubles is that none of it is justified, ever. Terrorism is terrorism, and is never to be tolerated. Government repression is similarly, not to be tolerated.
This isn't about the troubles anymore. This is about the future of the North... or the lack of future represented in todays situation; because mark me, the north has no future, if the present state of affairs is allowed to continue.
Without government support, it's near impossible to get anything done in the north. It's somewhat easier in England itself, in that there is no less interference, but that the government cares more about business development; so it makes things smoother, and gives approvals, and planning etc... more attention.
What this means is, effectively, there is no economic development in the north without government intervention... but they don't particularly want to intervene, and spend the taxpayers money on PRODUCTIVE projects in the north, when so much is already being funneled into nonproductive drains.
So long as there is no real industrial or technical development support by the government, except in a token way; the north will always be an economic disaster. It is that economic disaster, and the sense of neglect, of second class citizenship, of disrespect, disregard, and disdain... which allows the thugs their safety, and their income.
Either REALLY support economic development, or get the hell out of the way and allow some real entrepreneurship. Get people working, productively. Get the tax base up. Get people motivated to seek higher education, by having something useful for them to do when they get it.
So long as the north is dependent on the government teat, the real government on the street will be the organized crime gangs that masquerade as unionists, or republicans. So long as the thugs are safe, the police are not, and will respond with repression. It's automatic. A + B will always equal C.
Oh and I should be clear, I don't blame this situation on the great mass of the population of the United Kingdom.
I blame it on an incoherent, and uncommitted government position on Northern Ireland since 1921.
There is no real policy, nor any real rationale behind what is promulgated as policy. The only conclusion one can come to is that the government of the UNited Kingdom does not want to govern northern Ireland, but also does not feel they can stop doing so...
So instead, they neglect, and waffle, and make bad and inconsistent decisions. They fight, they withdraw. They take a hardline, then they fold...
It's insane.
Oh and yes I know, they're a giant welfare suck... But if the people (and the politicians) of England would treat the people of northern Ireland like actual human beings, not just as a national joke, or a drain on social spending, or a potential terrorist, or an electoral distraction... That might help a bit too.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Speaking Truth to Power
I'm not one for explicitly mixing military command, and religiosity (which is different from personal religion or faith); as Boykin is known for doing. I'm also loathe to use CBN as a source, given some of the things they've broadcast in the past...
But this man is speaking the unvarnished truth.
If there's a man on this planet who knows a terrorist when he sees one, and how to deal with him; it's Jerry Boykin.
There's a lot more to Boykins background than what they briefly mention in this segment.
Look at the mans record (what parts of it are publicly available anyway. There's enough there that a bright boy should be able to figure it out).
For almost 40 years, this mans life has utterly revolved around two things: God, and counter-terrorism. The fact that he sees these two things as explicitly linked may disturb some sensibilities, but it does not invalidate his knowledge and experience.
If for some reason you want to discount what this man is saying because of his religious views, or how he chooses to express them... You're a damn fool.
But this man is speaking the unvarnished truth.
If there's a man on this planet who knows a terrorist when he sees one, and how to deal with him; it's Jerry Boykin.
There's a lot more to Boykins background than what they briefly mention in this segment.
Look at the mans record (what parts of it are publicly available anyway. There's enough there that a bright boy should be able to figure it out).
For almost 40 years, this mans life has utterly revolved around two things: God, and counter-terrorism. The fact that he sees these two things as explicitly linked may disturb some sensibilities, but it does not invalidate his knowledge and experience.
If for some reason you want to discount what this man is saying because of his religious views, or how he chooses to express them... You're a damn fool.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Failure to Train
Lebanon - 1983 - 241 (307)
Riyadh - 1996 - 19
Aden - 2000 - 17
Arlington - 2001 - 55 (254)
Killeen - 2009 - 12 (13)
We, the American people, and in particular our military leadership, have experienced a failure to train.
In 26 years, we have had five mass casualty events, perpetrated by Muslim terrorists, on service members in supposedly safe and secure facilities, outside of declared combat zones.
Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines have been killed in their quarters, and their recreation spaces.
In most cases, this occurred while we were unarmed... or rather, disarmed by the policies of our leadership.
I speak of being disarmed both literally, and figuratively. We know who perpetrates terrorist attacks. We know how to deal with them... largely we know how to prevent the most common vectors.
We are not allowed to do so, for reasons of politics.
In 26 years, we have not had a mass casualty event that was NOT perpetrated by muslims (most of whom have been arabs). This does not, in any way, mean that all muslims, or all arabs, are terrorists, or that all terrorists are muslims (or arabs).
I'm Irish by ethnicity. My father is Irish born and raised. I know better.
But we are not allowed to say such things, because of politics.
There are many commentaries around the net today, and for the past few days, on the terrorist mass murder at Ft. Hood. They are full of those things that people say after such an event. They recognize the heroism. They mourn the dead. They ask "why?".
I'm not going to do that. Oh I honor our dead, and our heroes, and I mourn... but I don't need to join the chorus.
Other people can do that. They're good at it. I've got something just as important to do... something that maybe not everyone has the stomach for.
I choose instead to castigate, because we know the answer to that last question.
We know why. We know why he did it (why they did it in fact). We know why it was successful. We know why it was a mass casualty event, rather than a quick "suicide by soldier".
We even know how to prevent it... at least much of the time; and certainly we know how to end such things quickly.
I was serving in the Air Force (stateside) during the Khobar attacks. I remember. Though I did not know any of those who died personally, THEY KILLED MY BROTHERS.
I remember what our leadership did about it (and more importantly, what they did not).
I remember what we were not, under any circumstances, ALLOWED to do about it.
It has happened three times since. By the same perpetrators. With the same indicators. Allowed, because of the same policies.
We have failed to train.
Today, most American service members, in most American military facilities around the world, go about their days; not UN-armed, but DIS-armed.
Disarmed, both physically, and mentally.
Disarmed by politics, and political correctness.
Today, our service members cannot, in most places, carry weapons to defend themselves; though I am free to do so as a retired service member in most places... one notable exception being military installations.
Today, we are not able to use the most effective techniques to stop terrorism: including psychological and sociological profiling, taking consideration of ethnic, religious, and national background.
It can be, in fact, a crime to do so, in both cases.
The Israelis think we are mad.
Hell, the Saudis think we are mad...
The whole world does.
Yes, political correctness is all well and good for the papers and the public; but when it comes to soldiers defending themselves... Hypocrisy has it's uses after all. The world of realpolitik knows that... we pretend otherwise.
Already, the drumbeats have not only begun, but are in full force: "This is not about islam", "Armed soldiers couldn't have prevented this", "We can't use profiling", "It's racist to even think about that", "there could have been even more casualties with stray shots" etc... etc...
As it happens, I agree with that IN PART; in that this appears to not be a case of organized Islamicist terrorism.
But to say Islam has nothing to do with this, is simply blinding ones self, for the purposes of political correctness... or to make one feel less "racist", or whatever you want to call it (islam is not a race).
Simply put, were this terrorist a christian caucasian, he would have been stopped long before it ever went this far. We've become good at weeding out the bad ones... unless they are "minorities" in which case we are forced by political correctness to ignore the fact that they ARE bad ones, irrespective of their minority status.
Even if he hadn't been stopped before he started; if soldiers were allowed to go armed for self defense, his spree would have been stopped in the first minute.
We have failed to train.
There is verse in the bible (Romans 6:23) which says in part "The wages of sin is death".
The military has a variant on that... I call it the Sergeants maxim "The wages of stupidity is to be fucked up beyond all recognition".
In the Air Force, when you fail to train, you're done. You can't play, if you don't learn from your mistakes, if you don't learn to do the job, if you don't keep giving everything you've got.
You can't play if you quit; and if you fail to train, you have simply quit, passive aggressively.
If we intend to keep playing this game, we can no longer fail to train.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
The Original "War on Terror"
The first recorded mention of the term "War on Terror" in the New York Times did not occur after 9/11 as many would assume... In fact it was in 1934, and wasn't even about the U.S.
You might be shocked as to exactly which nation it was about... or perhaps not...
You might be shocked as to exactly which nation it was about... or perhaps not...
Now I'm not one of those pseudo-intellectual mental midgets who would compare the U.S. efforts directly to Stalins reign of terror (however they couched it as a "war on terror"); but one should at the least be able to recognize the historical irony.
War On Terror
(New York Times) December 4, 1934
Soviet Arrests 71 In War On ‘Terror’
Spurred by the assassination of Sergei M. Kiroff, the Soviet Government has struck its heaviest blow in years at those whom it regards as plotters of terroristic acts against Soviet officials.
With dramatic suddenness it was announced early this morning that seventy-one persons had been arrested and haled to trial before the military collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR. Thirty-two of these were seized in the Moscow region and thirty-nene in the Leningrad region. They are stigmatized as “White Guards” and accused of plotting terroristic activities.
* * * * *
By the terms of a decree adopted by the central government immediately after the Kremlin received the news of M. Kiroff’s death, terrorists and plotters are to be tried swiftly and to be executed immediately without opportunity for appeal.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Some Enlightenment, Courtesy of Mark Steyn
This one is one of five, the rest are linked in the video sidebar:
This one is also one of five, the rest are linked in the video sidebar:
Friday, December 05, 2008
The Single Best Statement I've Ever Heard on Terrorism...
... and it's from "The Daily Show"
Seriously, it is exactly and entirely correct in every way. No spin, no apologia, just raw unvarnished... welll... watch the video, you'll see.
I should note however, that there IS a rationale behind such acts; however flawed and vile it is.
A few years back I wrote a piece talking about what terrorism really was, how it worked, and what its goals were; in which I explained this rationale:
Of course, it usually doesn't work; and in the mean time, a hell of a lot of innocent people die for no reason.
Seriously, it is exactly and entirely correct in every way. No spin, no apologia, just raw unvarnished... welll... watch the video, you'll see.
I should note however, that there IS a rationale behind such acts; however flawed and vile it is.
A few years back I wrote a piece talking about what terrorism really was, how it worked, and what its goals were; in which I explained this rationale:
"[Terrorism is both] a tactic, and a strategy. In particular it's the tactic of forces that do not have the resources to mount a successful guerilla campaign; and the strategy of forces whose objectives are militarily impossible, but politically possible.
The objective of terrorism is to demoralize the civilan population that supports the controlling authority, and to provoke disproportionate and misdirected response from the controlling authority; which will tend to engender support for the terrorists from the disaffected population, and from outside groups opposed to the controlling authority.
Terrorism isn't about military targets, it's about violent politics and propaganda, and it works in this limited arena only. Terrorists arent trying to win wars, they are trying to gain enough support that they no longer need to be terrorists; or failing that, create enough chaos that the controlling authority collapses or loses control.
Once chaos has trumped control, the terrorists then have a better chance for conducting successful operations given their limited resources, which will allow them to take control."
Of course, it usually doesn't work; and in the mean time, a hell of a lot of innocent people die for no reason.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
7 Years
September 11, 2001, 8:46am Eastern Daylight Time:
2556 days, 7660 dead,
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Hero With a Thousand Virgins
From the UK Telegraph:
The primary motivation these idiots have is to be known as an epic hero. Luke skywalker is a modern iconic representation of the Campbellian "hero with a thousand faces".
You have to remember that Islam, especially Arabic Islam, is a storyteller culture; where the iconic hero is the central figure. All of Arabic, and Islamic cultural history revolves around these central figures; be they conquerors or martyrs.
On the one side of things, their lives are utter garbage. Poverty, crime, corruption, no societal mobility, no opportunity for advancement or personal fulfillment, no opportunity to express themselves personally or sexually (never underestimate that power and frustration, especially in young men) and an overall excess of young males, and shortage of young females.
On the other side, is this opportunity to be revered as a hero. To end your pain and suffering, and be rewarded for it beyond compare in paradise, by the direct will of god.
It's no wonder that so many prefer blowing themselves up, to living their real lives.
Mulsim terrorists want to be known as Saladin, or Charlegmagne, or Henry V, or Achilles; rather than as Achmed, the man who died of dysentery in a "refugee camp".
The reason why westerners don't "get it", is because to us, legends and myths are just that. To a Muslim, the legend is as real as if he was standing there in the room with you.
To us, the Greeks and Romans are off in antiquity; to the Muslims, Mohammad and Saladin are yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
They really believe their own bull.
This is why liberals are always so sympathetic to the muslims, who so clearly state that they want to kill all the homosexuals, and adulterers and blasphemers. The liberals don't understand that THE MUSLIMS ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, AND THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT.
It honestly does not compute in the liberals brain that these statements could be serious. They dismiss them as nothing but posturing and rhetoric, because after all, no-one could actually MEAN those things, or REALLY believe in that enough to die for right?
Of course the same mis-understanding applies between liberals and conservatives; especially those of us who served.
We couldn't possibly actually believe that stuff about honor, duty, and country right? I mean why on earth would anyone risk their life for an idea? You must be doing it because you don't have any other choice, or because you're stupid, or you've been deluded by the propaganda machine or something... because no-body really does that, nobody believes that... right? It's just rhetoric, and you're all just hypocrites.
Except that most of us aren't.
That simply does not compute. Their belief system does not allow for the fact that someone could hold such strongly and deeply held beliefs contrary to their own, that once the offending parties were "convinced of the truth", they wouldn't come around; unless those people already knew that they were wrong, and were just pretending to disagree to gain advantage.
No, I'm serious, this is actually what they believe... and that folks, is just as dangerous in the long run as what the Muslims really believe.
Richard Danzig, who served as Navy Secretary under President Clinton and is tipped to become National Security Adviser in an Obama White House, told a major foreign policy conference in Washington ...Actually, though the presentation of the idea is ridiculous, he is in fact entirely correct.
.. how American troops, spies and anti-terrorist officials could learn key lessons by understanding the desire of terrorists to emulate superheroes like Luke Skywalker, and the lust for violence of violent football fans.
The primary motivation these idiots have is to be known as an epic hero. Luke skywalker is a modern iconic representation of the Campbellian "hero with a thousand faces".
You have to remember that Islam, especially Arabic Islam, is a storyteller culture; where the iconic hero is the central figure. All of Arabic, and Islamic cultural history revolves around these central figures; be they conquerors or martyrs.
On the one side of things, their lives are utter garbage. Poverty, crime, corruption, no societal mobility, no opportunity for advancement or personal fulfillment, no opportunity to express themselves personally or sexually (never underestimate that power and frustration, especially in young men) and an overall excess of young males, and shortage of young females.
On the other side, is this opportunity to be revered as a hero. To end your pain and suffering, and be rewarded for it beyond compare in paradise, by the direct will of god.
It's no wonder that so many prefer blowing themselves up, to living their real lives.
Mulsim terrorists want to be known as Saladin, or Charlegmagne, or Henry V, or Achilles; rather than as Achmed, the man who died of dysentery in a "refugee camp".
The reason why westerners don't "get it", is because to us, legends and myths are just that. To a Muslim, the legend is as real as if he was standing there in the room with you.
To us, the Greeks and Romans are off in antiquity; to the Muslims, Mohammad and Saladin are yesterday, today, and tomorrow.
They really believe their own bull.
This is why liberals are always so sympathetic to the muslims, who so clearly state that they want to kill all the homosexuals, and adulterers and blasphemers. The liberals don't understand that THE MUSLIMS ACTUALLY MEAN WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, AND THEY ACTUALLY BELIEVE IT.
It honestly does not compute in the liberals brain that these statements could be serious. They dismiss them as nothing but posturing and rhetoric, because after all, no-one could actually MEAN those things, or REALLY believe in that enough to die for right?
Of course the same mis-understanding applies between liberals and conservatives; especially those of us who served.
We couldn't possibly actually believe that stuff about honor, duty, and country right? I mean why on earth would anyone risk their life for an idea? You must be doing it because you don't have any other choice, or because you're stupid, or you've been deluded by the propaganda machine or something... because no-body really does that, nobody believes that... right? It's just rhetoric, and you're all just hypocrites.
Except that most of us aren't.
That simply does not compute. Their belief system does not allow for the fact that someone could hold such strongly and deeply held beliefs contrary to their own, that once the offending parties were "convinced of the truth", they wouldn't come around; unless those people already knew that they were wrong, and were just pretending to disagree to gain advantage.
No, I'm serious, this is actually what they believe... and that folks, is just as dangerous in the long run as what the Muslims really believe.
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Endgame
The endgame is the portion of a game of chess, in which the previously played part of the game has determined a strictly limited set of possibilities, which will inevitably result in the end of the game.
We have reached endgame stage with Islamism. That which has come before, has limited our options; and laid our available moves and possible end states, out before us.
Fran Poretto has a post up today talking about how the so called mid-east peace "process" is a sham, and that there can only be three ends:
There really seem to only be a few possibilities here:
All but the last of these are morally repugnant; requiring near genocide, a a police state, and a fundamental denial of the human right of freedom of conscience. The last requires sacrifice and war with an indeterminate end.
Each of these possibilities requires every Muslim to either change their beliefs or die. In this there is no option.
Islam must accept western morality and culture as a part of the world, which they have no right to change by force. They may become a proselytizing culture, but they cannot be allowed to use force, violence, or coercion to impose their beliefs or culture on others. If they cannot reform to this state internally, they must be destroyed utterly.
Any who would suggest the proposition "Let's just give them what they want and leave them alone, and we'll live in peace"; you have proven yourself a fool, unworthy to speak by dint of your ignorance, stupidity, willful blindness, or delusion.
I would no more accept your idea than I would the idea that the sun revolves around the earth; because on it's face it is clearly false, and in fact stupidly dangerous.
What they want, is the utter destruction of western culture, followed by the death, conversion, or enslavement of all who followed it; and they will not rest until this is accomplished.
If the Islamists stopped making war on the west, there would be peace. If the west stopped defending itself from Islamists, there would be death and slavery.
Islam, as it exists today is evil and must be utterly destroyed; either from within through reformation, or from without through extermination.
Islam explicitly commands Islamism, which is fundamentally incompatible with all other cultures and societies. Yes, there are many muslims who do not follow the path of Islamism; however it is a fundamental part of their religion which they chose to ignore (and thus are apostate - whom the Islamists also wish to destroy).
Simply, Islam cannot be allowed to exist as it stands today; or there will be unending war, of their making, not ours.
I don't like any of these options; but I don't particularly see any other that don't involve Islamists trying to kill or enslave all westerners - in fact all those who do not follow their particular brand of Islam - 'til the end of time.
There are sometimes brilliant moment in the endgame, where a genius, or an idiot, can change their options; can leap to something not seen by others, or find conclusions and possibilities that no-one anticipated.
Perhaps such a solution can present itself to this conflict. I pray for such things now; but we must prepare ourselves for those conclusions which I have laid out above.
If you do see such an option, tell me; I'll gladly take any other realistic possibility, because I don't like the prospects for those I see thus far.
We have reached endgame stage with Islamism. That which has come before, has limited our options; and laid our available moves and possible end states, out before us.
Fran Poretto has a post up today talking about how the so called mid-east peace "process" is a sham, and that there can only be three ends:
- The current state of low intensity conflict continues forever, or until such time as one of the other two conclusions occurs
- Israel is defeated and the Islamists direct all of their energies on the west.
- Israel defeats the Islamists utterly (hopefully with aid from the rest of the world, especially the US).
There really seem to only be a few possibilities here:
- Accept Islamic domination, and convert or become slaves.
- Kill or convert them all.
- Contain them all until such time as we can convert them, or Islam goes through a radical reformation away from it's toxic values. Any that leave the containment zone without being converted are then killed on sight.
- Institute the Bellum Romanorum - Kill 100 of them for every one of us who dies in an attack. Kill 1000 of their children for every one of our children who dies in an attack. Destroy 1 of their cities for every bomb that a Muslim explodes in the west. Destroy ALL of their cities if a single nuclear, biological, or chemical attack is ever conducted. Hold all responsible for the actions of the terrorist groups until such time as they are all rooted out and killed, and an internal reformation occurs.
- Give them such a crushing and humiliating military, and cultural, defeat that anytime anyone even suggests militancy they are stoned to death by their own people. Repeat the process until it stops being necessary; due to internal reformation.
All but the last of these are morally repugnant; requiring near genocide, a a police state, and a fundamental denial of the human right of freedom of conscience. The last requires sacrifice and war with an indeterminate end.
Each of these possibilities requires every Muslim to either change their beliefs or die. In this there is no option.
Islam must accept western morality and culture as a part of the world, which they have no right to change by force. They may become a proselytizing culture, but they cannot be allowed to use force, violence, or coercion to impose their beliefs or culture on others. If they cannot reform to this state internally, they must be destroyed utterly.
Any who would suggest the proposition "Let's just give them what they want and leave them alone, and we'll live in peace"; you have proven yourself a fool, unworthy to speak by dint of your ignorance, stupidity, willful blindness, or delusion.
I would no more accept your idea than I would the idea that the sun revolves around the earth; because on it's face it is clearly false, and in fact stupidly dangerous.
What they want, is the utter destruction of western culture, followed by the death, conversion, or enslavement of all who followed it; and they will not rest until this is accomplished.
If the Islamists stopped making war on the west, there would be peace. If the west stopped defending itself from Islamists, there would be death and slavery.
Islam, as it exists today is evil and must be utterly destroyed; either from within through reformation, or from without through extermination.
Islam explicitly commands Islamism, which is fundamentally incompatible with all other cultures and societies. Yes, there are many muslims who do not follow the path of Islamism; however it is a fundamental part of their religion which they chose to ignore (and thus are apostate - whom the Islamists also wish to destroy).
Simply, Islam cannot be allowed to exist as it stands today; or there will be unending war, of their making, not ours.
I don't like any of these options; but I don't particularly see any other that don't involve Islamists trying to kill or enslave all westerners - in fact all those who do not follow their particular brand of Islam - 'til the end of time.
There are sometimes brilliant moment in the endgame, where a genius, or an idiot, can change their options; can leap to something not seen by others, or find conclusions and possibilities that no-one anticipated.
Perhaps such a solution can present itself to this conflict. I pray for such things now; but we must prepare ourselves for those conclusions which I have laid out above.
If you do see such an option, tell me; I'll gladly take any other realistic possibility, because I don't like the prospects for those I see thus far.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
2191 Days
September 11, 2001, 8:46am Eastern Daylight Time:
2191 days, 6748 dead,
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
and we will continue
until the mission is complete
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge—and more. -- John F. Kennedy
We Will Never forgive
We Will Never Forget
We Will Never Stop
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Isreal, Palestine,Terrorism, and Politics
Recntly there have been some stories in the press accusing Israel of "state sponsored terrorism", related to this incident, and others (as described below):
Every successful revolution (including our own BTW, on both sides), and most civil wars (including our own, on both sides) have used terrorist tactics at one point or another. It's part of warfare; certainly a despicable part, but theres no such thing as a clean war, and anyone who thinks there is needs to get their heads out of their asses.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is "above" terrorism, you're kidding yourselves. We have done, and will do whatever it takes to serve our interests. In these media conscious days, if that means getting third parties to do it for us under the pay of the CIA in Laos, Cambodia, Nicaraugua, Afghanistan etc... how are we any less responsible for the terrorism that happens because of it?
It's a tactic, and a strategy. In particular it's the tactic of forces that do not have the resources to mount a successful guerilla campaign; and the strategy of forces whos objectives are militarily impossible, but politically possible.
The objective of terrorism is to demoralize the civilan population that supports the controlling authority, and to provoke disproportionate and misdirected response from the controlling authority; which will tend to engender support for the terrorists from the disaffected population, and from outside groups opposed to the controlling authority.
Terrorism isn't about military targets, it's about violent politics and propaganda, and it works in this limited arena only. Terrorists arent trying to win wars, they are trying to gain enough support that they no longer need to be terrorists; or failing that create enough chaos that the controlling authority collapses or loses control. Once chaos has trumped control, the terrorists then have a better chance for conducting successful operations given their limited resources which will allow them to take control.
Do I approve of it morally? Sure I do.
Repeat after me: WAR IS NOT A MORAL EXCERCISE
The causes of war, and the results of war may be moral, but the conduct of war has nothing to do with morality. War is about forcing your enemy to give in, and any strategy or tactic that causes that to happen is acceptable if it will end the war sooner.
You have to decide what a valid target or tactic is based on your asessment of your enemy, and their reactions to your targeting. In World War II, we decided that unrestricted bombing of civilian targets in Germany and Japan was a valid tactic (not strategy), because it would end the war quicker. Was this action moral? Individually no, but as part of a strategy to end the war quciker?
THE ONLY MORALITY IN WAR, IS ENDING IT QUICKLY
You have to preform a thought experiment here to understand what I'm talking about. Let's say the united states has been successfully invaded by a hostile foreign power. They have successfully pacified both coasts, but there are still large numbers of patriotic Americans with small arms, some military training, and some good leadership; in the mountain states, the woods and mountains of the south, and in pockets of the prairie.
No-one is happy under the occupation, but the people on the coasts are sufficiently afraid of the control the invaders have that they will not rise up against them. The invaders have brought in large numbers of their civlian population to adminsiter our occupation, and to reap the profits. The invaders also have artillery, air, and armor, but their infrastructure isn't fully established. They tend to have large, dense concentrations of forces, that are spread far apart, with little capability to respond in between, but significant civilian populations and political centers in those locations.
How are you, as a patriotic American, going to restore our republic? Now do you understand why I say terrorism is just another tactic (or strategy, depending on how it's used)?
Note: Read Robert Heinleins 1949 classic "The Sixth Column" if you want to know where that little thought experiment came from BTW. Of course I'd bet most of my readers already have, and recognized it about halfway in. A lot of Heinlein fans think this is one of his worst, but most of those people are liberals who "find it simplistic, and jingoistic, and find its racism, sexism, militarism, and anti-communism uncomfortable to read" (and yes, that's a direct quote).
I only object to terrorism (in the abstract) on tactical and strategic grounds; in that terrorism generally does not work.
Of course, in failing as a tactic and a strategy; terrorism creates more casualties or worse living conditions and oppression among innocents; than would be prevented if it did work (the only moral justification for war). This is clearly immoral.
In fact, terrorism often has the opposite effect intended, in that it strengthens the resolve of those it is directed against. This is accounted for in terrorist doctrine, in that you are trying to provoke a response; however if your opponent has no qualms about mis-targeted attacks, or collateral damage (As the Israelis clearly do not, nor should they), all that will happen is that you and your supporters will be exterminated.
In a population firmly committed to the controlling authority, or to the principles that authority represents, terrorism cannot achieve it's political goals, and can only be successful if it results in significant military gain (generally in the form of support from outside groups).
Unless the population or groups from which you intend to draw support are prepared (and are large enough and/or rich enough) to give you enough support to accomplish more significant military missions, or your target is politically unstable or vulnerable to chaos; terrorism will ultimately be unsuccessful, and merely wasteful of life.
Whatever your moral conception of the Palestinian issue (and mine is they lost 56 years ago, get over it), the Palestinian terrorist campaign is tactically sound (barely), but strategically unsound; which is the definition of how to win battles and lose wars.
It's important to understand, this is intentional.
The Palestinian terrorist campaign is NOT designed to win.
The terrorist campaign and it's associated groups are not capable of significant military victory, because the Arab nations which supposedly support them, are in fact using them as a pawn in their own political machinations. These states explicitly and intentionally deny the terrorist groups the resources necessary to conduct successful operations, becuase it would not suit their purposes to have the conflict end.
Without sufficient state support, the populations from which the terrorists draw direct support are neither large enough, or commited enough to provide enough manpower; nor do they have the resources to provide the equipment and materiel which would be sufficient to ensure military victory.
The only option left if they intend to win, is to cause a collapse of the Israeili system. This is clearly impossible. Israelis know that the cost of political defeat and collapse would be their death.
The terrorists do not intend to win here; excepting the fanatics who believe that if they are devoted enough Allah will sweep Israel into the sea.
The true purpose of the palestinian terror movement is organized crime. Power, romance, money, sex, drugs... whatever. Being an arab peasant is boring and unpleasant. Being a "freedom fighter" however is romantic, and "honorable", and it gives you an excuse to violate Allahs laws as much as you want, and still get the 72 virgins at the end.
They know they can't win, but their lives suck enough that they'd rather die fighting (and drinking, and fucking), then live being fucked over by their governments.
Early in the morning of April 9, 1948, commandos of the Irgun (headed by Menachem Begin) and the Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin, a village with about 750 Palestinian residents. The village lay outside of the area to be assigned by the United Nations to the Jewish State; it had a peaceful reputation. But it was located on high ground in the corridor between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Deir Yassin was slated for occupation under Plan Dalet and the mainstream Jewish defense force, the Haganah, authorized the irregular terrorist forces of the Irgun and the Stern Gang to perform the takeover.As much as this story has an obvious pro palestinian slant here, the facts of the story are true (never mind the editorial), and there are more of them. The Irgun, and even the Haganah were vicious; and don't even get me started on the Sayeret.
In all over 100 men, women, and children were systematically murdered. Fifty-three orphaned children were literally dumped along the wall of the Old City, where they were found by Miss Hind Husseini and brought behind the American Colony Hotel to her home, which was to become the Dar El-Tifl El-Arabi orphanage.
Every successful revolution (including our own BTW, on both sides), and most civil wars (including our own, on both sides) have used terrorist tactics at one point or another. It's part of warfare; certainly a despicable part, but theres no such thing as a clean war, and anyone who thinks there is needs to get their heads out of their asses.
Anyone who thinks the U.S. is "above" terrorism, you're kidding yourselves. We have done, and will do whatever it takes to serve our interests. In these media conscious days, if that means getting third parties to do it for us under the pay of the CIA in Laos, Cambodia, Nicaraugua, Afghanistan etc... how are we any less responsible for the terrorism that happens because of it?
It's a tactic, and a strategy. In particular it's the tactic of forces that do not have the resources to mount a successful guerilla campaign; and the strategy of forces whos objectives are militarily impossible, but politically possible.
The objective of terrorism is to demoralize the civilan population that supports the controlling authority, and to provoke disproportionate and misdirected response from the controlling authority; which will tend to engender support for the terrorists from the disaffected population, and from outside groups opposed to the controlling authority.
Terrorism isn't about military targets, it's about violent politics and propaganda, and it works in this limited arena only. Terrorists arent trying to win wars, they are trying to gain enough support that they no longer need to be terrorists; or failing that create enough chaos that the controlling authority collapses or loses control. Once chaos has trumped control, the terrorists then have a better chance for conducting successful operations given their limited resources which will allow them to take control.
Do I approve of it morally? Sure I do.
Repeat after me: WAR IS NOT A MORAL EXCERCISE
The causes of war, and the results of war may be moral, but the conduct of war has nothing to do with morality. War is about forcing your enemy to give in, and any strategy or tactic that causes that to happen is acceptable if it will end the war sooner.
You have to decide what a valid target or tactic is based on your asessment of your enemy, and their reactions to your targeting. In World War II, we decided that unrestricted bombing of civilian targets in Germany and Japan was a valid tactic (not strategy), because it would end the war quicker. Was this action moral? Individually no, but as part of a strategy to end the war quciker?
THE ONLY MORALITY IN WAR, IS ENDING IT QUICKLY
You have to preform a thought experiment here to understand what I'm talking about. Let's say the united states has been successfully invaded by a hostile foreign power. They have successfully pacified both coasts, but there are still large numbers of patriotic Americans with small arms, some military training, and some good leadership; in the mountain states, the woods and mountains of the south, and in pockets of the prairie.
No-one is happy under the occupation, but the people on the coasts are sufficiently afraid of the control the invaders have that they will not rise up against them. The invaders have brought in large numbers of their civlian population to adminsiter our occupation, and to reap the profits. The invaders also have artillery, air, and armor, but their infrastructure isn't fully established. They tend to have large, dense concentrations of forces, that are spread far apart, with little capability to respond in between, but significant civilian populations and political centers in those locations.
How are you, as a patriotic American, going to restore our republic? Now do you understand why I say terrorism is just another tactic (or strategy, depending on how it's used)?
Note: Read Robert Heinleins 1949 classic "The Sixth Column" if you want to know where that little thought experiment came from BTW. Of course I'd bet most of my readers already have, and recognized it about halfway in. A lot of Heinlein fans think this is one of his worst, but most of those people are liberals who "find it simplistic, and jingoistic, and find its racism, sexism, militarism, and anti-communism uncomfortable to read" (and yes, that's a direct quote).
I only object to terrorism (in the abstract) on tactical and strategic grounds; in that terrorism generally does not work.
Of course, in failing as a tactic and a strategy; terrorism creates more casualties or worse living conditions and oppression among innocents; than would be prevented if it did work (the only moral justification for war). This is clearly immoral.
In fact, terrorism often has the opposite effect intended, in that it strengthens the resolve of those it is directed against. This is accounted for in terrorist doctrine, in that you are trying to provoke a response; however if your opponent has no qualms about mis-targeted attacks, or collateral damage (As the Israelis clearly do not, nor should they), all that will happen is that you and your supporters will be exterminated.
In a population firmly committed to the controlling authority, or to the principles that authority represents, terrorism cannot achieve it's political goals, and can only be successful if it results in significant military gain (generally in the form of support from outside groups).
Unless the population or groups from which you intend to draw support are prepared (and are large enough and/or rich enough) to give you enough support to accomplish more significant military missions, or your target is politically unstable or vulnerable to chaos; terrorism will ultimately be unsuccessful, and merely wasteful of life.
Whatever your moral conception of the Palestinian issue (and mine is they lost 56 years ago, get over it), the Palestinian terrorist campaign is tactically sound (barely), but strategically unsound; which is the definition of how to win battles and lose wars.
It's important to understand, this is intentional.
The Palestinian terrorist campaign is NOT designed to win.
The terrorist campaign and it's associated groups are not capable of significant military victory, because the Arab nations which supposedly support them, are in fact using them as a pawn in their own political machinations. These states explicitly and intentionally deny the terrorist groups the resources necessary to conduct successful operations, becuase it would not suit their purposes to have the conflict end.
Without sufficient state support, the populations from which the terrorists draw direct support are neither large enough, or commited enough to provide enough manpower; nor do they have the resources to provide the equipment and materiel which would be sufficient to ensure military victory.
The only option left if they intend to win, is to cause a collapse of the Israeili system. This is clearly impossible. Israelis know that the cost of political defeat and collapse would be their death.
The terrorists do not intend to win here; excepting the fanatics who believe that if they are devoted enough Allah will sweep Israel into the sea.
The true purpose of the palestinian terror movement is organized crime. Power, romance, money, sex, drugs... whatever. Being an arab peasant is boring and unpleasant. Being a "freedom fighter" however is romantic, and "honorable", and it gives you an excuse to violate Allahs laws as much as you want, and still get the 72 virgins at the end.
They know they can't win, but their lives suck enough that they'd rather die fighting (and drinking, and fucking), then live being fucked over by their governments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)