Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:
1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.
2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.
3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!
Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!
Comments
Rotten, craven bastards...
I think I am right in believing the British have far more resolve than the Spaniards, however. One quote I read from a London taxi driver went something like 'And they think we are scared of this? Have they heard of the IRA?'
The IRA!? What are they compared to the Nazis! No doubt the British will rise to the occasion with the John Bull stiff upper lip we've seen from them for the last several centuries.
Osama is hoping that New York, Madrid, or London will be the Dien Bien Phu or Tet that will demorilize the allied resolve at home and result in a pullout from the Middle East and subsequent establishment of his jihadist regime in Riyahd. Instead, the misguided efforts of the terrorists have only "steeled" the resolve of our combined armed forces to destroy the vermin while in their nests before the pestilence is allowed to spread outside the Middle East. It is a costly undertaking in both lives and money, but to do less would be akin to grovelling at the feet of these cowardly bullies. Neither Great Britain or her colonials have ever "bent their knees" to tyranny!
I'm going to the UK in a few weeks. I thumb my nose at these craven creeps. I wave my private parts at their aunties. Nyah nyah nyah. I'm looking over my family tree for a Brit ancestor or three I can invoke.
Thanks for the flag, Bill.
Rule Britania!
God bless the Brits and God bless Tony Blair. Our thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their family members affected by this abomination today.
QUOTE:
"It is important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire impose extremism on the world.
Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world."
- Prime Minister Tony Blair
This letter is doing the rounds over here. It sums up what most of us are thinking right now. [Apologies for the language, but some situations justify it]
What the fuck do you think you're doing?
This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.
All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.
And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.
So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.
I think they have made a huge tactical error. I know history and the Brits won't cave over this. If they stood firm during the Battle of Britain they will not capitulate now.
If there is any silver lining in this tragedy it is that the British are probably more united now. AQ's best ally in Britain were left leaning apologists. George Galloway will go down in history worse that Neville Chamberland but my bet is that his influence has been severely diminished today. Even Chirac is standing by Blair and Britain today. They have destroyed their political clout in Britain, if not all of Europe. It is one thing to look like you are defending yourself against an occupying force, it is quite another to commit mass murder on innocent people, some of whom may have, unwisely, been on your side.
Looking forward to reading Bill's thoughts on this.
When Bush said "You are with us or with the terrorists", it was not as much of a challenge or grandstanding, as a declaration of truth. If you are not supporting the terrorists, we will support you. If you are not supporting the terrorists, you will be a target. These are not OUR rules. These are the rules of the terrorists.
Just checking to see what has me blacklisted. At any rate, there's no reason I would be legitimately blacklisted, unless someone has been filching my identity.
OK, look. For some reason my real identity is on a black list with this blog, and I can't even lodge a valid complaint, because I can't even post my web name or the name of my blog. I have included my real email address, so please email me to clear up the blacklist problem. (Someone may have filched my identity.) I'm a regular blogger on the Jawa Report, and also sometimes post on Winds of Change.
Anyway, here's what wanted to say until I was so rudely interrupted by this impossibly stupid comment moderating software:
I too think the people of the UK will find more, rather than less, moral clarity as a result of this attack... but I'm not entirely sanguine, because England isn't what it used to be. It not only has a very large population of non-British people, with no particular ties or allegiances to the kind of resolve that inspired the Battle of Britain, but even many of the Brits have succumbed to a kind of fantasy about the world that insists on seeing it as one big living room that harbors no unpleasant surprises. And many of those people have already jumped to the conclusion that Bush and Blair are as much to blame for this upset in the living room as the Jihadists.
I know people will tend to find new resolve in the short term, but it's the cumulative long term effect that I worry about. There isn't any short cut to wisdom.
Anyway, I don't mean to oversell my scepticism. It's just that I'm not sure how much of this optimism is based on 2005 cultural realities.
Oh yes, and please delete the email reference in the above post once you use it, Bill. The spam harvesters will ruin what's currently a fairly decent spam-free email address.
It's too bad (for the terrorists of the world) that those of our "compassionate," appeasing, hide-and-hope-it-all-goes-away constituency didn't give THEM the same advise that they gave US -- namely, "Don't go after them. You'll only make 'em mad."
Come to think of it, why DIDN'T they give them that same advice?
An excerpt from what I'd posted yesterday; the poem is quoted in whole:
It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late
With long arrears to make good,
When the English began to hate.
They were not easily moved,
They were icy-willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the English began to hate.
Their voices were even and low,
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show,
When the English began to hate.
It was not preached to the crowd,
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud,
When the English began to hate.
It was not suddenly bred,
It will not switftly abate,
Through the chill years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the English began to hate.
- Kipling 1914
The Falklands War is in living memory. Obviously, the jihadis failed to study that chapter. That's gonna cost 'em.
There have been several comments made about Spain. Unlike many other countries that sent no one to Iraq, or a few that actually opposed our intervention there, and tried to use the UN to stop it (France, Germany, Russia), Spain stepped up, and offered troops. No one explained to the people of Spain what the consequences were to them for participating in the coalition.
Whether or not March 11, 2004 attack upon them was a direct result of their partcipation in our intervention in Iraq or something that was on Al Quedas "To Do" list, no one really knows. Afterwards, they chose to withdraw their troops. During their time there, like all the forces sent there, performed their duty.
Perhaps, I am wrong. But I sense some ingratitude. Those peoples who go into these missions with us perhaps need to better understand what they are in for, but whether they do or not, I believe we need to be grateful for every bit of help we get. Especially since there are so many unwilling to help us, and a few influential nations who actively oppose what we're doing.
If, as some believe, the Terrorists were encouraged by Spains withdrawal from Iraq, then we need to be more discerning about who we allow to come in with us on these ventures. Nothing is served by belittling the help from an ally. If we've got any shaky ones in Iraq, get 'em out now before the terrorists make it appear as if they forced any more troops to leave.
Britain has, of course, been our staunchest ally in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld recently testified that the inurgency in Iraq might go on as long as 12 years. The US he said will not be there for all of it, but how long we will be there is anyones guess. The Britsh, however, never pledged an open commitment. I believe they have already withdrawn some of their 22,000 troops, and were scheduled to be down to no more than a token force within 2 years.
Whether or not this latest incident modifies their commitment to what we see as our detriment does not matter. They should be
supported in whatever decision they make, and thanked for their help. However much they are willing to give.
(We may have to keep this in mind for Italy who announced they were reducing their commitment by 300 troops which they call a scheduled drawdown.)
Again, I wish our British allies the best of success in their pursuit of whoever is responsible for these heinous acts.
No ingratitude Taxpayer - merely disgust that when the going got tough they turned tail and chickened out. I find this kind of behavior repulsive and really repugnant. Cowardice is not a very nice trait to foster and to reward or diminish it is even more revolting.
I am so ashamed of our own "cowards" and naysayers whose only reason for doing so is it opposes President Bush. I like that sound - President Bush, it makes me proud to know we have a courageous MAN in the White House. He is working to keep us safe (well as safe as possible - there are no guarantees).
Keep the stiff upper lip my British friends and know that we are there for you when and if you need it. Your history indicates that you will weather this and come out fighting and mad as hell. Go get em!
I'm sure our allies are pleased that what seems like ingratitude is merely disgust at their cowadice. I know this is what will convince the Brits to help us further.
And therein lies your problem, JAT. You see this war as others helping us, not as us helping the world. Are we the only ones who will benefit from the terrorists' defeat ? bolivar is correct - we owe the Spaniards (or the Brits) no gratitude for stepping up to save their own skins, and we should roundly condemn their cowardice when they chicken out and leave it to us to save them.
Although I think this is a horrible tragedy that should've never happened, I believe that this turn of events will, in the long term, become the last straw for many Brits who have opposed Blair up until now.
I'm with Steve no this one, they've made a huge mistake. Perhaps the world will start to view these guys enemies of the world and of freedom rather than just enemies of Bush.
Joe,
However you view it isn't the point. It's how others view you that is. If you think for believe that the way to hold this coalition of the willing together is by accusing our partners of cowardice, and showing ingratitude for the help they've given, they aren't going to be there very long. It not a matter of us seeing ourselves as helping the world, it's a matter of the rest of the world(or as much as we can get of it) coming to see us as helping it.
You seem more determined to show your disgust with Spain than to figure out ways to bring others into the allinance.(Or ways to keep the partners we have.)
And if we have weak partners, shouldn't we get rid of them before they show this weakness you so despise. And what of those who oppose us. There seems to be no mention of them at all.
Alpha, I know you didn't mean what you said the way you said it."No one.(Except the terrorists themselves.) needs a good bombing.")
I would like to weigh in on this Discust/ Gratitude of allies discussion with an analogy, if I may...
As some of you know, Navy SEALs go through some of the toughest military training in the world. Part of this training is Hell Week-- a week of continuous training, day and night, with little or no sleep. During this time, the trainees numbers are literally cut in half as man after man "rings the bell" and voluntarily quits the brutal harassment.
Only the absolute toughest will graduate-- and yet, there is NO resentment against those who ring the bell and go home. Trainees are FORBIDDEN from mocking those who ring out, and there are times when SEAL Instructors actually escort with honor those who must leave.
Why is this? Because the SEALs recognize that it takes incredible fortitude, and nearly super-human courage to even attempt to become a SEAL, let alone to make it into Hell Week. It is simply not for everyone...
It takes incredible courage to send your young people to Iraq, knowing that lives be shattered. We can be disappointed that countries such as Spain decided to head home, but let us NEVER resent or mock them for making that choice.
Personally, my gut reaction to Spain's withdrawal from the "coalition" was one of disappointment -- not anger or betrayal, just disappointment. They'd "knuckled under" to the oldest bullying tactic in the book (although it was a little tough to get TOO "righteous" about it, since we'd been doing the same thing for several decades ourselves), and for the most shortsighted of reasons, it seemed. What made it worse for me though, was that it was the Spanish PEOPLE who caved, not their national leadership. Their pre-2004 leader(s) had shown some pretty unique resolve and courage (for a UN-member nation) when they contributed their thousand-odd troops to the coalition effort, and I applauded them for that. Whether or not there was a great deal of public support (in Spain) for that decision at the time, I don't know, but the terrorists sure knew their opponents when they chose the place, and especially the TIMING of those attacks -- with the elections coming up in a week, and a pacifist candidate on the docket. Like our own 2004 elections, I think that vote was a litmus test of the character of the PEOPLE, not their nation's leadership. You can find "leaders" for any viewpoint or social model that you want, but in a democracy (in any of its varied forms), the character of the PEOPLE is made evident by its political choices. And THAT CHOICE spoke volumes about THOSE PEOPLE... to ME, anyway.
So did ours.
Are they any safer now for all their backpedaling? Do they really think the gold-plated "Don't Attack Here" card that they bought with that vote will be honored whenever the terrorists next go looking for a vulnerable underbelly? Who knows? Personally, I think all the Spanish did -- besides lowering their national esteem among their staunchest allies -- was to confirm the measure their opponents had taken of them, and to make themselves a prime target for the next time the terrorists might need a quick and assured pay-off on their investment.
To their everlasting credit, Britain has made no such bargain. And to that end, they have showed just how profitable any future attacks on their soil will be -- which is to say, not at all.
Again, volumes spoken about their national character.
Will either tactic ultimately prove to be preferential against the terrorist mindset? It's tough to say. From what I've seen, terrorists will attack whatever the hell they feel like at the moment -- regardless of the long-term ramifications -- and usually, just for the short-term satisfaction of poking a bigger guy in the eye (and yes, that means they COULD still launch an attack on American soil). And if that's the case, then the only thing the Spanish people eliminated by voting to back out of Iraq was their credibility as an ally.
When I saw how the British kept that old "Stiff Upper Lip" and held onto their stoic calm refusing panic, I thought, "Man, they [insert expletive filled rant describing terrorists here] bombed the WRONG people. Again." The British have had to put up with Nazis (to my friends on the Left, Nazis are the guys you compare Conservatives to with a straight face), and the IRA. What did the terrorists expect from a people that have had to put up with that for YEARS? Panic? National loss of bladder control? Surrender?
*IwillnotmakeaFrenchjokeIwillnotmakeaFrenchjoke*
To the terrorists, congratulations on simultaneously showing your true colors (deep vibrant yellow) and reminding a civilized people why we stand up to those who threaten civilization itself. The British won't forget this. And they won't forget you. Next time you catch footage of a soccer match in England look at the fans. That's a fraction of the rage that's now aimed at you. Enjoy your corner of Hell.
GHS,
What you said about the character of the people is understandable. That said, they as a nation, still stepped up. We as leaders of the coalition allowed them to join us. It is the quality of a good leader to select those who will join them in their tasks to see them through to their completion. And to politley turn away the help offered by those who are less than up to the task.
If coalition leaders have failed to keep their allies with them to the end of the task, whether through failure of leaders or national character, it was our failure to assess their willingness to stay through to the completion of the task, as much as it was Spains failure to remain with the task. That is a lesson we need to learn if we are to lead other coalitions of the willing to hotspots elsewhere in the world, or even to finish up in Iraq.
That nation still gave of her soldiers, and of her civilians to the fight against terrorism when there were and are so many that are against us. That must be acknowledged.
I wrote the original post July 8, 2005, 11:16 because I noticed so many comments about the British vis a vis the Spanish. There is no way to definitivley determine with the British attack, as there was no way to determine with Spanish attack, whether it was not it was related to their involvement in Iraq, or what part, if any, Spain played in Al Quedas decision.
The terrorists are the kind of people who feel they have succeeded not when they can force events. Instead they feel they have succeeded when they have demonstrated their ability to attack.
And London represented one hell of a target.
Among the most secure cities in the world. Video cameras everywhere. And still they did it. That they can do it is everything to them.
That, from what I have observed, is their
primary motivation. Criticisizing an ally or expressing dissapointment in one offers no re-assurance or consolation to the people who were the victims of these attacks. Instead, let's turn our attention to getting the leaders heads on a platter. (And I mean that in the most literal sense.)And offering what support and consolation to the victims of these attacks, reguardless of what they or their governments decide to do.
Sorry about the length of this post. It is almost two in the morning.
As always, GHS, thank you for taking time to respond to my comments (and everyone elses). Where you find time to do this I don't know.
some of the above comments about spain are way off the mark. the spanish government blamed eta for the madrid bombings. thats why the spanish people voted out thier government as they had tried to cover up the link between the bombs and spanish involvement iraq. withdrawing troops was a small next step condemming not only the previous government's lies but also a policy which many europeans dissagreed: that of the illegal invasion of iraq. at least thats the way they saw it and the bombs were evidence to the spanish people that it would only generate terrorism.
britain was always going to be a target after 911 but spain? - barely - until iraq.
should the spanish people have stood by thier convictions? indeed they did. they never wanted in in the first place.
This was put up by Mr. Whittle so that people could honor those whose lives were sacrificed in the war on terror. In an effort (Perhaps lame. I am perhaps the one to blame for getting this comment stream where it is.) to bring us back that noble effort, I'd like to offer a remembrance of one noble soul who recently passed away. I'd read about this person in the San Francisco Chronicle (Yes! The SAN FRANCISCO Chronicle!)However, the article was written by an Associate director of the Hoover Institution.
The noble soul he wrote about was given "short shrift by editors and writers who were content to render history so weakly."
Writer Jeff Bliss said this person found inspiration in the teachings of Epictitus and Seneca in his darkest hours as a prisoner of the infamous Hanoi Hilton. And as a college president encouraged the virtues of a true liberal education where such thinkers were introduced.
A poor summary of what helped Stockdale through his darkest hours as a prisoner of war:
You may not have control over your circumstances, but you always have control over your spirit. It is from your spirit that you must find drive and inspiration to go forward.
Good things to remember in these confusing times. A good and (If the teachings of such a writer as Epictitus can be called such) entertaining, summary of his teachings can be found in Tom Wolfes book "A Man In Full".
Thank you, GHS, and the other commentators in this stream for putting up with me. Let's hope that Mr. Whittles intention are realized hereon.
The night of the bombing, I heard a british reporter on TV saying the Brits would look to the Americans actions following 9/11 for inspiration on how to get back to normal. As an American, I looked to the Brits example following the Blitz for inspiration on how to carry on. Life's funny like that. God save the Brits.
Hmmm. That's interesting, alpha... and for a couple of reasons. First, because those are details that I didn't know and didn't pursue, but which shed an intriguing light on the situation, and second, because they don't change my opinion one iota.
Even under the scenario that you described, the pre-2004 Spanish leadership WAS still courageous and resolute for committing troops to Iraq, IMO, especially since it was done against the general consensus of their European peers, and "EXTRA-especially" if it was done against the majority consensus of the Spanish people. That might be a politically suicidal tack to take in a "democratic" country, but it still shows a singular resolve that I can appreciate.
And though your scenario better explains the motivations behind the populace choosing to oust that leadership (presuming it's true), it still doesn't improve my opinions of those motivations -- the idea that continuing to turn the other cheek, and choosing to just "live with" the never-ending predations of the mongrels of this world (rather than friggin' DOING SOMETHING about it), that just hiding from the issues and wishing them away will have any positive affect whatsoever -- that, I still think, is a disappointing caricature of the PEOPLE.
Their government might have NEEDED ousting for a multitude of reasons, but the fact remains (even according to your account) that the people still reacted to a terrorist attack on their soil by retreating, by acquiescing to the terrorist's wishes, and by burying their heads in the sand -- as if no such attacks had ever occurred BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, and as if they're now immune to any future attacks because of their appeasement of the terrorists. Granted, that still goes part-and-parcel along with the general European belief that this war is "illegal," but that too is just another symptom of weakness and the generational erosion of national fortitude, in my opinion.
And that still disappoints me.
It's not unique to Spain, by any means, but regardless of who exhibits such a mindset, it is a sweeping -- and, for me, disappointing -- statement of their national character.
And on the opposite side of the courage-and-resolution fence, Britain's response is an equally compelling statement of ITS national character as well. And I've got my oft-repeated opinion about which one of those will prevail.
what is national character, other than a sweeping subjective statement? who are the mongrels of this world? there is a song that goes 'he is the idiot son of an asshole' well 'he' is the president of the united states and so was his father. the song was written by americans, performed in america and everyone in the crowd cheers...so what is the american national character?
another satire i saw included the phrase 'the coalition of the bomb-able'. suggesting that bush has mangaed to keep terrorist activities off american soil, so far, partly due to the softer targets now available.
as regards the british situation, sad to say, much worse must be done in the uk to turn the tide of opinion that still pulls against the iraq war. the national character it seems is more concerned with saving starving african 'childwen' as you call them than killing an average of over 100 iraqi civilians per day. the mongrels, to many british, european and american people, are the besuited fat cats profiting from or are actually at the root of, the terrorism which we now fear. they may be wrong but naysayers who deny the world is round or suffering from pollution, that smoking is bad for you and that raping alaska is rellay ok coz she's been asking for it, do nothing to convince them that they should start believing what these people tell them.
Alpha, the only one denying the world is round is you. When you quote your attendance at some concert by an anti-Bush band cheered on by an anti-Bush crowd as proof of what you think the national character is, it only shows how sheltered you really are. You want to know what the national character is? Look at the electoral map by counties from November 2, if you can stomach it. THAT, my friend, is the national character. You can ensconce yourself as deeply as you can into one of those blue territories (and I happen to live in the heart of one of the bluest), but it doesn't change the reality outside of your bubble.
A very telling statement from you: "as regards the british situation, sad to say, much worse must be done in the uk to turn the tide of opinion that still pulls against the iraq war." SAD to say? I am quite happy to see that it will take more than that to turn the tide and resolve of the people who would stand up to the mongrels (otherwise known as terrorists) who are bombing innocent civilians around the world, even the "100 civilians a day" you mention in Iraq. (and I would like to know where you got those numbers). Yes, alpha, it is not US killing the civilians over there, it is most definitely THEM. Your anger is directed at the wrong folks and if you can't see that then you are just not paying attention.
By the way, Alpha, you see that "shift" key on the side of your keyboard? When you press it down you can actually capitalize the beginnings of sentences and proper nouns! (But from your statements it seems you have a problem with capitalism in general...)
excellent comments re capitalism. i worked out some time ago that i spend too much time on the computer and figured that i would save several days during the remainder of my life if i did not use the shift button. now i can type a little faster. soon i plan to drop punctuation too: smart people can still understand it and one day everyone will write this way :)
i kud rite like this f speed 2 but i realiz i have to go ez on certn ppl.
hudson, i have no quibble with your example of national character other than to count the votes that went the other way and ask what the character or nationality of that number is.
i must point out what i mean when i say 'sad to say': i fear it will take a much bigger disaster in the uk to change the prevailing thought on iraq. 7/7 was nothing like 911 in scale and londoners carried on regardless by all accounts. there has been no knee jerk reaction, no requests for action, no witch hunts in london's moslem communities, no sensationalist paranoia. no gung ho 'lets accelarate the PNAC agenda' - no one there even knows what PNAC is (woops capitals). that is perhaps because they are not american and want to get on with thier british lives. hence i fear it will take more disruption than has so far been inflicted on them for them to get radical.
you are right to question the stats i quoted re iraqi civilian deaths. stats should always be questioned, everywhere, every time. but as these figures include those killed during the shock and awe, the invasion pre' mission accomplished' and post, it would not be accurate to say that i am not paying attention to who has done and continues to do the killing out there.
and here's where i got those numbers:
"The conflict in Iraq, to date, has claimed at least 100,000 Iraqi lives. We'e been in Iraq or 29 months- do the math- 29 months X 30 days=870 days. 100,000 deaths, divided by 870 days= 114 Iraqi deaths per day."
My apologies, Alpha. i didn't realize you were being progressive with your typing as well as your politics. I'll try my hardest to follow along.
Let me be the first to correct you on your numbers, especially coming from the website that they did. The 100,000 Iraqi deaths is the one I've heard bandied about by every liberal I've talked with, originally quoted by the British medical journal, the Lancet, in March 2003. Where did they get it, especially when every conventional news source estimated the deaths somewhere around 10-20,000, most of which were combatants? Well, they ran a statistical analysis comparing monthly deaths in Iraq over a 14 month period before and after we invaded. They determined the number was somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000, so they split the difference at 98,000. A possible range that huge means someone on the study screwed up their numbers big time and the Lancet article is so useless it should never have been taken seriously. it's like saying the number of jellybeans in a jar is somewhere between 150 and 500,000. But anti-war people jumped all over the highest number they could find, held it sacred, and now can't stop quoting the "100,000 innocent Iraqi deaths", to which I say 1)The number is much, much lower, and 2) as I asked above, who exactly is killing those civilians now?
please refer me to where i can get your kind of figures.
are you jumping all over the ones that suit you?
as to who is doing the killing, i have no figures but i imagine that those largely responsible are neauveau terrorists in iraq. a breeding ground for mongrels (highly intelligent anmials).
yeah i dont like the word mongrels the way ghs used it and hudson too. it implies a racial purity as a superior aesthetic which apart from being a lost cause is a phallicy. the best i can credit your use of it with is a dictionary definition:
2. A cross between different breeds, groups, or varieties, especially a mixture that is or appears to be incongruous.
adj.
Of mixed origin or character.
there that word character again.
mixed...
what DO yo mean? its a put down right? but comes from the assumption that white is right? how pure art thou?
racism is a bit of a taboo subject around here but woodwork squeeks..
so ive just read sanctury, slowly this time, deliberately and carefully re-read the bits i diddnt get first time.
part 1 really is like a ranting blog about the lack of quartermasters stores for unlawful combatants in an unlawful war.
part two turns into something more akin to an essay.
it goes like this:
bill doesnt like stupid people.
there are lots in america
(its a national characteristic?)
bill has an agenda
it is to make stupid people look stupid and then to call them liberals and progressives and to bad mouth liberals and progressives and to make them look stupid.
everything/one right is amazing.
everything amazing is thanks to the right.
everything/one left is stupid.
everything bad that is about to happen is because of the left.
we invented everything good but they want to destroy everything we have achieved (7/11) by living and complaining about things they don't like or understand. which is their right as americans. who are the best and most wonderful people on the planet. better than swedes and iraqis. even though a goodly portion of us are unfathomably stupid and a liability. being american makes that simultaneously acceptable and unforgiveable.
we all forget how lucky we are therefore liberals should stop blaming those in power for the things they dont like that people in power do. like being republican. even though americans willingly die defending their right to do so. this is very bad form to have american people die so that you can be so negative and this probably has something to do with being un-american though it is not stated. but it is ok now because of blogging.
and thats about it.
cant wait to read about the brits. might even have go at writing it myself :)
An accurate, triple-checked website that tabulates all deaths in Iraq reported in daily news sources since the beginning of the war, taking care to distinguish civilian from combatant casualties (currently at a maximum of 25,869): http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Granted, even 25,000 civilians dead is a tragic and regrettable number, but it is only 25% of the outrageous number the left totes around as gospel. And if you think about it further, the blame for those deaths again lies at the feet of the terrorists. Our troops have taken every effort to minimize civilian casualties. If we wanted to, we could have bombed every city in Iraq into dust. Instead we inserted our troops in harm's way to keep the civilian count as low as possible. It was the terrorists who hid themselves behind women and children, who based their operations in or near schools, hospitals, and mosques. They are the ones who set off car bombs in crowded public squares. They are the ones who show complete disregard for the lives of their own people on a daily basis. Bill goes into this in much greater detail in SANCTUARY so I recommend you check that out.
And I can't speak for GHS, but I used the description of "mongrel" with nothing racial intended. It is just a general insult toward someone who would behave in the manner described above, regardless of where they came from. Would it be OK if I just called them murdering scumbags?
Alpha:
I sincerely hope that your prediction that someday everyone will write poorly is wrong. At least attempting to craft proper English is still important to many of us as a key to good communication. Deciding that capitalization, punctuation and spelling don't matter anymore casts a fog over anything else you may write. Why put this roadblock to good communication in your way if you know better?
It's been my observation that many who are sloppy with their grammar, capitalization and spelling tend to be sloppy with their logic as well. Even if this is not true for you, you start off on the wrong foot. You may be a very intelligent and educated person, but if you don't speak and write well, you damage your credibility.
Some things are important enough to spend the time to get right. You'll end up spending more time re-explaining and clarifying yourself than what you saved by not using proper capitalization and checking your spelling.
Glad you took the time to read Sanctuary. I'm constantly amazed at how an individual's world view can color virtually all information received. Pity.
There's an old saw regarding horses, water, and the consumption thereof.
btw - would it be correct to assume an individual is arrogant to value saving a few second's of their OWN time by taking shortcuts in spelling/punctuation at the expense of another individuals time in trying read what you are contributing? Or would this just be selfish?
If you read Sanctuary I and came away only with "a rant about a lack of quartermasters for unlawful combatants".
Then you're just obtuse.
I was going to say something like "go ahead - have a go at writing an essay on the Brits," but in retrospect (given your demonstrated reading comprehension skills) I think it would be better if you didn't. Plenty of bad writing out there already.
Also:
For me - in this instance - 'mongrel' refers to "of mixed character", and has its roots in the dichotomy of people who willingly, knowingly and deliberately detonate a car bomb amid a group of Iraqi children in the name of the "religion of peace." (Baghdad, yesterday).
Still not MY word....far too tame ang PG-rated.
London was attacked by British born and educated second generation Pakistanis. Pakistan is one of Briton's allies in the war against terror.
Who is the real enemy ?
Well, since it appears as though those responsible for the London bombings were Islamic terrorists (whoa, big surprise), who do you think the enemy is?
As an aside: here in the 21st century, warfare is not necessarily between nation-states wherein all the combatants wear nice uniforms and joust one another in vehicles festooned with their nation-states insignia. Warfare is between groups of people linked by an ideology rather than a geographic border. This is a fact.
In this particular instance of warfare however (as Mr. Whittle has so eloquently pointed out), one group of people linked by an ideology DOES wear uniforms and joust in vehicles festooned with insignia. This would be the American-led coalition (you know, the good guys?). In general, this is the side which is trying to kill ONLY those doing the bombing and shooting from the other side. The opposition in this instance are those linked by a common ideology which tells them the way to practice 'warfare' is to kill as many innocents as possible in as unpredictible manner as possible. In other words, their aim is to attempt to instill a degree of 'terror' in the civilian population of their enemy (hence, the term 'terrorist').
So, you ask who is the real enemy? Seems to me as though we already know who the enemy is and we are already engaged with this enemy. That's why this is called a 'War on Terror'. And the sad fact is that we can either win this war, or we can lose this war. Simply walking away from this war is not an option.
maybe :) but it wasnt all i came away with. there was a nasty aftertaste too.
anyway
there are enough guardians of the english language out there, im not such a threat to it. the french are very big on defining and protecting thier language. they have an institution to guard it. even so it still succums to popularisms in the end.
actually i think english is more flexible and can handle a bit of progressive typing. the capital at the begginning of a sentence is rendered pointless by the full stop that precedes it. names are self evident and i think the paragraph is a better tool than a capital letter or the full stop.
but it is not a deliberate policy to move anything forward other than ultra fast chat-room posts from bygone days. it still has its uses in email so the habit has stuck. since then i have had time to reflect on it and i like it for all the above reasons. plus i like the way it looks. blue would be nice too. can i try html in here? hmm..
rorr, you said:
I'm constantly amazed at how an individual's world view can color virtually all information received.
yep, that goes for all political opinion everywhere. you see i read bills essay but i dont buy it. the water is poisoned and this horse wont drink it.
and im still not convinced about this mongrel business. yes it is a put down but where does this choice of word originate? in a place where words are carefully chosen and language and its uses are picked over, whats the word mongrel doing describing fundemental purists who seek to destroy diversity?
thanks for the link re our conversation about casulaty stats. iraqbodycount's faq points out that they are not a news organisation and can only count what has been reported and at least double checked so far. very thoro.
then they say
It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.
wow. 25,000 is not most then. ouch. or arghhh...
as to who is responsible, i look to the essay 'sanctury' again. it is odd to read that the insurgents or illegal combatants are supposed to let their country go or lose their war based on thier enemy's idea of what is fair. they are ruthless. not stupid. desperate in fact. fair is sattelite guided missile against a tent? fair is boxing gloves in the ring old bean. queensbury rules. this is a war on terror. where is the rule book? down a toilet in guantanamo bay.
Still gotta disagree with you on the casualties, Alpha. At this point civilian casualties are most definitely being reported in the media (used as a political bludgeon in the media in my opinion). Civilian casualties were likely not reported when Saddam still had his castles, because at that point people were disappearing into the night quite frequently. Since he's been gone and we've been in charge things are a little different. Worldwide media is Johnny-on-the-spot and every attack and it's effects are quickly wired to all outlets. So I would be pretty confident with their numbers reported from anytime after the initial invasion.
Whenever you hear anti-war people mention the innocent Iraqis being killed I'm sure their mental image is collapsed roofs on top of families who were hiding from our imperial rockets and bombs indiscriminately dropped over the cities and they get angry at our "illegal occupation". Is that what you picture, Alpha? Because the truth is right now, coalition troops are the ones protecting all those innocent Iraqis from the monsters who don't care about them, who would kill ANYONE, Iraqi or American, to gain back their ability to rule the majority through brutal force. That's an ability they had before we invaded and it's that backslide we are preventing with our presence there. The protestors seem to be under the assumption that everything will be just fine if we just put all our guns down and go home. I'm asking you, Alpha, what do you think will happen if we do that? Ask yourself what the terrorists objective is, then tell me what you think will happpen to all those innocent Iraqis once we leave. Do you think they will be more safe, or less?
Just to detract from alpha's lame-ass metaphors for a second....
The situation in Britain is a little more dire than I thought. A stiff upper lip and the stoic determination to carry on is all very well when dealing with POLITICAL objectives, like the invasion of Iraq, but when it comes to dealing with CULTURAL objectives, like reasserting a British identity...it would help if the remaining British HAD a strong national identity. Far too many of the really good Brits have expatriated themselves across the globe. I can't say that I blame them, but the removal of their essential voices from the body politic has diluted the cohesion of British society considerably. While this lack of political will has brought about some unintended good consequences(the persistence of Tony Blair being probably one of the most valuable) the people we might want to look to for a useful CULTURAL response are...
...the French.
The French have ruthlessly sectioned off their Muslim population in the cities, held firm to the headscarf ban in the face of vicious threats, taken vastly harsher measures against the terrorists they have caught(they're not the ones to go strip-searching old ladies, either) and basically done everything possible to keep their Islamic population from power in accordance with their numbers. No wonder so many Brits are living there.
It is important to remember that the French leaders are hypocrites. Don't listen to a single patronizing word they say(words are for playing with, not for anything so prosaic as conveying meaning or anything,) instead watch what they do and take note. Believe me, the last thing I want to see is France outliving Britain, but unless we put away the political fights and take heed of its cultural methods, that accursed vision may come to pass.
Britain's full of under-employed non-Islamic males with a penchant for violence. The military's occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Why not take advantage of the yob on the street corner-say, offer certain bounties for the heads of pieces of filth like that guy who said 'there are no civilians in Islam.' Or identify the most radical mosque on the street and burn it down? Or drop a pipe bomb in the mailbox of those who send out death threats?
Hire ex-IRA, for all I care. Those guys have done enough harm to Britain; maybe it's time for them to give something back by fighting against a common enemy.
I thought that my explanation of the use and basis of the word 'mongrel' was fairly concise - more of that 'reading comprehension' matter, I suppose.
A sad state of affairs, the level of academics these public schools are putting out (sigh).
In fact, I couldn't care less about your lack of technical proficiency with the language or your philosophy behind inflicting it on others.
It is your content that I find objectionable.
Or rather, I would if I actually belived you were earnest about what you write - which I don't.
Either your outlook is shallow and media-driven enough (that '100,000 civilians tripe is a dead giveaway) that you actually believe that pap you're regurgitating OR you're just of an argumentative nature and throwing out whatever you think will most effectively bait the other posters.
If the former, then you can't be said to 'believe' what you're writing as what you write will likely change drastically with the next installment of 'Nightline' - if the latter, you'll change your stated 'beliefs' when they cease to get a rise out of anyone.
I'm going crazy here... three days ago, a lightning storm here smoked my DSL, and I haven't been able to get on-line since (I've got a laptop patched into a friend's phone socket right now). As such, I haven't been around to answer alpha's charges or explain myself -- not for lack of wanting to, however. Earthlink swears they sent us a replacement DSL unit 3 days ago, but it hasn't gotten here yet, so...
Just to qualify myself a little, alpha -- when I used the term "mongrel," there wasn't the slightest inclination towards a Webster definition of the term. It was intended as a simple, one-word expression of contempt for the likes of the terrorists that we were discussing at the time. That's all. Similarly, if at a later date I should use the term "shithead," it will not be a descriptive term depicting a person whose cranial region is actually composed of human feces. I just get tired of repeating the same word over and over and over again.
Unfortunately, I am in a desperate rush to get out the door right now, so I must adieu. Sorry about the spam that's managed to dribble in through the filters in my absence, but without access to Bill's Movable Type software (which is on my main computer), I can't do anything about it for the time being. As soon as we get out DSL back up and functioning again, it will be gone.
GHS or Bill will address the debates raised, I can only speak for myself. I believe a human being has the right to freedom, absolute, and unrestricted freedom, but with that comes absolute responsibility. A simple case in point, when living in Alaska, I had absolutely no intervention from governments nor concerns of civility, you knew how to live, or you did not exist long. When one moves from nature to civilization, one loses many rights, but first gives up responsibility, to whomever would support you. Those unable must be taken care of, therefore, not all exist for the same reason, or value. The vast majority of "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" have no real reason, that I can discern. I must say I completely agree that those that try their best, and fail, are still heros in my eyes. I will not hate my enemy, I will get to know him, as well as possible, and he may get to know me. Perhaps we can avoid the inevitable, the fight to survive is part of who we are.
ghs come back! you are needed to keep me in check! mussel daddy doesnt like my opinions! listen dude, the way i type is irrelavent. you dont like the content so you attack the way i look.
and there is the lesson. much of bills writing is about badmouthing those he doesnt like. to me it dilutes the argument but it appeals to the lower iq and you are the proof.
of course im objectionable, i object!
100,000 was a figure i plucked from a website and i planted it here & watched grow. pretty fertile manure i'd say. it started off as a reference to events in britain concerning starving african childwen and how the brits would rather generate provision for them than condone a war they considered ill advised at best, co-erced into, if not damn well lied to and forced into.
and now the average brit travelling through kings cross station cant do much about the war on terror. they are in it. they can do something about the childwen and so do. they believe they can win the war on poverty and have a gameplan to do it complete with schedule.
i have no idea of the true stats, i never went to count them, i just read websites including this one. when it all boils down its a bunch of people who diddnt think invading iraq was a good idea and a bunch of people who did.
which brings me to your question hudson;
'The protestors seem to be under the assumption that everything will be just fine if we just put all our guns down and go home. I'm asking you, Alpha, what do you think will happen if we do that?'
i dont know what will happen, possibly the same as is happening now only worse. the iraqi people will be less safe. and therein lies the genius of the invasion. and if 100 americans were dying per day then maybe everyone WOULD go home and leave them to their own hell and then whatever would happen would be worse too.
but neither will happen. american casualties are at a campaign sustainable level and no-one is going home for about 12 years according to the last estimate i heard from rummy & co. so meanwhile those who never supported the invasion are tending to stick by their opinions and condemn it still.
the brits move to france because its a beautiful place with wonderful people who's catchphrase translates as 'quality of life'; where culture is a ministry and the minister proclaims france's mission "to propose to humanity the means and the method of an intellectual and spiritual action."
i guess that'll just fly right over your head but as someone just said, you can lead a horse...
france continues it's policy of seprating the church and the state and that of cultural assimilation to l'etat. this has been going on for hundreds of years and is the core of french cultural identity. hence the burka ban.
your suggestion that someone plants a pipe bomb in your letter box is a good one.
Hey Bill, please find the time to provide your perspective on the London bombings before it fades into the MSM's collective unconcious and people start saying "50 dead here, 50 dead there...what's the big deal?"
Alpha: "100,000 was a figure i plucked from a website and i planted it here & watched grow. pretty fertile manure i'd say."
At least you are now admitting the fecal nature of the figures that you provided. And I might remind you that the only mind here in which that figure took root and grew was yours.
Alpha: "i have no idea of the true stats, i never went to count them, i just read websites including this one. when it all boils down its a bunch of people who diddnt think invading iraq was a good idea and a bunch of people who did."
More precisely what it boils down to is a bunch of people who make ridiculous assertions about things they don't know much about and another bunch of people can discredit those ridiculous assertions with facts, logic, and historical context. Not an ounce of which goes to stop the first group from ignoring those arguments and making more ridiculous assertions.
You see, alpha, it's about more than just opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions equal in merit. You could be of the opinion that the moon is made of swiss cheese, and I could disagree with you. Fine, we could agree to disagree. But if I could go to the moon, bring back a rock and show it to you, and you STILL believed the moon is made of cheese, well, then we have issues.
And that's exactly what you are doing here. Bill's essays definitely have an opinion, but he goes beyond that by providing facts which back up his arguments. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but when there is nothing backing up your disagreement other than misinformation which has been proven false many times over, you still cling to your original opinion and tell us it is just as important as anyone else's. Yet you still haven't brought any cheese back from the moon.
I will say only one thing to alpha, Bill and GHS debate with provable facts, not emotions. This is not to say we do not get emotional, but to say they prove whatever they believe. Jefferson said, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." A chinese proverb says "Know your enemy as you know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of defeat." I will trust in Jefferson's theory, but acknowledge all others. If you did not glean the context from my previous posts, emotions have no reason to exist in nature, it just is the truth. Must we agree to be correct? Of course not, but we should unite to some common goal. My goal is to win a war, and survive. Short of that, we all die. I have outlived my use, my reason, my hope, yet I continue. No man nor animal can take my life now, it belongs to god, not life. I give my life freely so that another generation can survive, hopefully learn why we exist.
i think i bring back some cheese, hudson, i just think its not to your taste. i have explained about certain dissenting attitudes and how people with different views express themselves. hard facts and emotions collide indeed, left right and centre. it is sometimes referred to as 'hearts and minds'.
i will take on board the gist of what you say however and will try harder in the future to be accurate and concise. cold light of day kind of thing. i will have to research harder for sure. i contend however that facts logic and historical context can prove whatever you want them to with the words you put in between. furthermore a stinking pile of do-do is a fact but i dont have to embrace it.
i also think that my best points are often the ones that dont get taken up by you guys. i do thank you for your time and comments though.
rik you are one heavy dude. know your enemy is what its all about.
and speaking of bringing cheese back from the moon, maybe thats where they hid the wmd! please refer me to the hard edible evidence of their existance. i will start my cold light of day research right there. with a little salad on the side.
Not one comment here about Admiral Stockdale(Post July 11, 1:51 AM). A true American hero who passed with virtually no notice by the mainstream press.(I found out about him the "San Francisco Chronicle".)
I was hoping for more.
I thought my effort to change where the comment stream was going was lame. I was hoping I was wrong.
Can't we do better than make an "issue" of alphas typing, and GHS (I believe that's who it was) use of the word mongrel.
GHS
A small suggestion. Would it be possible to refer to postings by number rather than date. Or would that be too cumbersome to arrange. Would be really nice to simply refer to comment 21, paragraph 5 rather than a date and time or having to type out ones comments. Even if one had to type their own or someone elses comments, they would be alot easier to find.
Seems that alpha tried pretty hard to go out on a 'higher-than-thou' note, especially for a guy who's lead-in was:
"just what this blog needs; a good bombing."
Again - for the reading-comprehension impaired:
My distaste was not for alpha's opinions, but rather for the apparent lack of substance behind them - he was baiting, nothing more. His assertion of
"furthermore a stinking pile of do-do is a fact but i dont have to embrace it."
is simply an admission of intent to live in denial of facts he finds distasteful, regardless of what they are or how well they're presented.
Finally, allow me to once again, and without bothering to come up with new words, say about "alpha's typing":
"In fact, I couldn't care less about your lack of technical proficiency with the language or your philosophy behind inflicting it on others."
JAT - you were right to try to redirect. My brother (former USN Officer) and I raised a glass for the Admiral the other day.
I hope Bill hits soon - we'll all have a topic to stay on.
Muscle Daddy,
Glad to see someone thought of the Admiral.
Perhaps we can go further. Anyone read up on Epictitus, Seneca or the other stoic philosophers. These trying times for people who think the good fight is still worth fighting ought to think about what inpspires a man kept in the Hanoi Hilton for 6 years(Was it more? Correct me if it was.)
Again, for an entertaining summary of Epictitus teachings (Emphasizing the context of Greek mythology/theology.)(Lord, my parenthising or parenthisizing, however the heck you spell it, must be as bothersome as Alphas lowercasing all capitals.), anyone read Tom Wolfes "A Man In Full".
Or for that matter, Tom Wolfes, "Hooking Up".
For the initiated who know what the title means, get past it. It is one of the most articulate, and readable summaries of America at the turn of the century, and her place in the world.
Yes, there were things happening in America before Sept. 11, 2001. Perhaps we need to step
back, much as McNamara did in the late 60's, when everything he'd tried in Vietnam was coming apart, to see how we got here.
Even architecture might come into the discussion. The glass and steel towers that fell and their source in the German Bauhause school of design, the design of the planes, failure to take measures to make them more secure against what happened on 9/11.
Quotations from any one are welcome. From the ancient philosophers to Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, from Cicero to Bush, from Orville and Wilbur to Burt Rutan.
I don't know where this is going exactly, or again if this is another lamo attempt to get something going. The discussion must be, I feel, widened. We must go beyond the media images of 9/11, or the discussions of military actions taken since then.
I believe a man like Stockdale, locked up in the Hanoi Hilton, wondering what how he got there, would've asked the same questions, and he would expect the students under charge to do the same thing.
Let's see where the line of inqury leads us.
In any case, thanks one and all for indulging my curiosity.
alpha,
Relating to all this banter about horses,perhaps you should think of changing your nome d'plum to "omega" to correspond with the distal aspect of that fine animal.
One of his posts ends in a URL name "www.ericblumrich.com".
I used to know Eric Blumrich (primarily by reputation and occasionally at specialized science-fiction/fantasy conventions). He was an extremely talented artist (fantastic with pen-and-ink freehand cross-hatching and textures) and known for a website of art and nasty but well-written editorials (which caused comparisons with Howard Stern, Harlan Ellison, and 2 the Ranting Grypon).
Unfortunately, a few years ago his alcoholism went completely out of control and he effectively crawled into a bottle and disappeared. Since the 2000 Election he has surfaced occasionally on a new website, doing nothing but bitter crank rants and flash animations on the "Bush is Hitler!" theme. A friend and I found his new website just last week on a random search -- filled with high-volume rabid foaming about "Chimpy W Bushitler".
Eric Blumrich is dead. All that is left of him is a ranting bitter alcoholic crank like something out of Shut Up, Little Man!.
Want to really hate a polititian? I believe we need to get rid of social security, eitc, medicare, medicaid, all social programs, and get back to taking care of ourselves. That is political suicide, of course, 42 million americans pay no taxes, the bottom 20 percent pay negative two percent, the bottom 40 percent pay, when totaled, negative one percent, so of course any tax cut is for those paying taxes, how can you cut taxes to people receiving money from the government? Can we guess how democrates get 40 percent of the population? Those figures are old, but no current figures are on the irs website, so blame me if my facts are wrong, but consider this, who needs a government? I need a government for only one reason, to fight another country that is bent on destroying america. Even that reason is tenuous in this war, since we have no government to fight, but if you think we can not win, you have already lost. I get so tired of the same old rhetoric, we did not start this war, but we will win it, or die trying. Perhaps those that do not believe we will, should study the civil war. One gentleman, that survived every other war ever waged against the US (presuming you like the US, and are not on the other side), volunteered to join the army. He was hardly a man, having been torn apart by so many wars, but he volunteered. He was turning 90, but still able to fight. The story is that he lived to 99, an amazing feat for an american hero. One last comment, if you can condense any of Bill's essays into stupid "sound bites", you certainly have no reason to comment on his site. You are however, given that right. Thank those that fight for your rights. We die so you don't have to, which brings up another reason to hate me, Darwin. I believe we are mutating into our worst nightmare, the best do not propagate, the worst are able. Stay safe and happy, you are protected. Until we are all gone, then you can apply your new logic to life, and see how well that works.
Luckily we have people that won't give up, this gives me hope.
What are you talking about? Who are you talking to? What do your comments have to do with anything remotely connected to what happened in Britain? This particular incident happened to the British on their soil.
I'm sure the British are consoled and reassured by your comments.
Enough about Alpha, Eric Blumrich, or whoever he is. Nobody bought his line anymore than Jeanne Garafalos. Why is she so prominently mentioned anyway. Bill Whittle would never bother with someone so minor.
Looks like the USS Iowa, the last of the Missouri class dreadnoughts left, is being moved to the port of Stockton. When offered the honor of docking her permanently as a museum, San Francisco balked because of the armies stance on gays. How silly.
Stockton is offering her a berth, a parking lot, and 90,000 sp ft. warehouse as a visitor center. For 12$ a piece Stockton is expecting 125,000 people a year to tour her.
Anything about Admiral Stockdale?
alpha said, "and speaking of bringing cheese back from the moon, maybe thats where they hid the wmd! please refer me to the hard edible evidence of their existance. i will start my cold light of day research right there. with a little salad on the side."
How about you spend a bit of time reading about the Iraqi Kurds at the Human Rights Watch site? There are thousands of Kurdish dead who lay in mute testimony that WMDs were used on them.
Sorry - been out of town and off-line.
Getting caught up now.
Always liked Seneca, and have read some "short" Tom Wolfe - will go after your suggestions.
Quotes sound great - though I usually lean toward Musashi, Tzu, or Funakoshi - I'll cheat here and use a good movie quote:
"In the end, were all dead men. Sadly, we cannot choose how, or when. But what we can choose is how we decide to meet that end, so we are remembered forever as men."
Last: to all and sundry - alpha no longer exists; treat him accordingly.
The media coverage of President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the O’Connor seat on the Supreme Court of the United States has understandably focused on his legal background and conservative credentials. Because the court on which he now sits—the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—has twelve justices who sit in random panels of three, and because Judge Roberts has been a member of that court for only two years, critics of his nomination such as Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Schumer will have a limited number of cases on the basis of which to attack him.
In an odd quirk, the case upon which they may rely most was decided only last Friday. Two other circuit judges (one of whom wrote the opinion) and Judge Roberts unanimously rendered a decision that strikes a blow for our country in our War on Terror.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan was admittedly Osama bin Laden’s driver in Afghanistan from 1996 to two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in Washington, DC, and New York City.
On November 13, 2001, President Bush, with Congressional approval, promulgated an Order relating to the “Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. That Order, among other provisions, created Military Tribunals.
Hamdan was captured by Afghani troops in Afghanistan in late November 2001, turned over to the American military, and then interned at Guantanamo.
In July 2003, the President determined that there was reason to believe Hamdan was either a member of al Qaeda or otherwise engaged in terrorism against the United States.
In accordance with President Bush’s Order of November 13, 2001, and his July 2003 determination that good cause existed to believe Hamdan was a terrorist, he was marked to be tried before a Military Commission.
In December 2003, Hamdan was appointed counsel.
In April 2004, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—even though at that time there was no federal statute or Supreme Court decision that allowed Hamdan, an “enemy combatant,” to do so.
But Hamdan, and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees didn’t have long to wait.
Just two months later, the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush ruled that “enemy combatants” were entitled not only to file petitions for habeas corpus (anywhere in the United States), but were also entitled to due process of law. Sandra Day O’Connor was the fifth, swing vote that allowed the Court’s four liberals—Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer—to so handcuff our country’s defense against terrorists.
While Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition was pending, he was formally charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, murder, destruction of property and terrorism. In addition to charging that Hamdan was bin Laden’s driver, it was alleged that the defendant served as bin Laden’s bodyguard, delivered weapons to al Qaeda members, and trained at an al Qaeda camp.
As a result of the Hamdi decision, Hamdi went before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which found that he was indeed an enemy combatant “either a member of or affiliated with Al Qaeda.” Consequently, his continued detention was required.
Enter judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Here is his biography:
Judge Robertson was appointed United States District Judge in December 1994 [by William Jefferson Clinton]. He graduated from Princeton University in 1959 and received an LL.B. from George Washington University Law School in 1965 after serving in the U.S. Navy. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering [Lloyd Cutler was, for a while, White House counsel to President Clinton]. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee’s litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc.
On November 8, 2004—perhaps driven by his own politics, but certainly by the license given him by O’Connor’s Hamdi and Rasul decisions—Robertson granted a part of Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition.
Essentially, Robertson ruled that bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist driver might be covered by the 1949 Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, and until a competent tribunal found otherwise Hamdan (and, by implication, anyone like Hamdan) could not be tried by a military commission. To enforce his ruling, Robertson enjoined the Defense Department from conducting any further proceedings against Hamdan.
The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Only two “friend of the court” briefs were filed supporting the government: the “Washington Legal Foundation” and “The American Center for Law and Justice.”
“Friends of the court” supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, “305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians,” “Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui,” “Military Law Practitioners and Academicians,” “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” “Human Rights First,” “General Merrill A. McPeak,” “People for the American Way,” “The World Organization for Human Rights USA,” “Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights”—and, worst of all, the prestigious “Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”
Despite this array of “friends,” the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!
Hamdan had made two other arguments. One was that a particular Army Regulation provided relief for him. It requires that prisoners receive Geneva Convention protection “until some other legal status is determined by competent authority.” (Emphasis added) The Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush was such a competent authority. To the extent that the Army Regulation requires a “competent tribunal” to determine his status, the Court of Appeals ruled that a military commission is one. So if the Army Regulation even applies, Hamdan can tell the commission that he should be considered a prisoner of war.
Last, and since the Geneva Convention issue appears to be settled, most important both for the War on Terror and the War for the Supreme Court, is Hamdan’s argument that President Bush had no power to constitute military commissions because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” only to Congress.
As to this argument, the Court of Appeals ruled, and reminded Judge Robertson, that when President Bush promulgated his order of November 13, 2001, he had relied on various sources of authority: Commander in Chief, the post-9/11 Congressional authorization to use force in the War on Terror, the Articles of War, the World War II cases of Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita. Said the Court of Appeals—said nominee Roberts, by joining the majority opinion—given the foregoing, “It is impossible to see any basis for Hamdan’s claim that Congress has not authorized military commissions”.
Although Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has struck an important blow against the War on Terror (and in the process rebuked an obviously Left-wing federal judge), we have not heard the last of the case or the crucially important issues it has raised. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is only one of thirteen circuit courts, in any of which these same issues can be litigated. One way or another, they will reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
When they do, the cases will be heard by a newly appointed justice who is not merely the conservative that the President promised, but one who understands the Constitution, the appropriate manner of its interpretation, and, of utmost importance today, the seriousness of our War on Terror.
Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 20, 2005
Welcome to the Eject! Eject! Eject! commenter community. Please read and understand the following:
1. This is not a public square. This is a dinner party on personal property. Good conversation is not only tolerated but celebrated here. But the host understands the difference between dissent and disrespect, even if you do not. Louts will be ignored until the bouncers can show them the door.
2. This is a voluntary online community. Your posting of any material, whether in comments or otherwise, grants to William A. Whittle, Aurora Aerospace, Inc. and their affiliates, a perpetual, royalty-free, non-exclusive, worldwide license to use, sublicense, reproduce or incorporate into other material all or any portion of the material posted, for commercial or other use.
3. If a comment does find its way into a main page essay, print, or other media, every effort will be made to credit the individual making the comment. So chose your screen name accordingly, SLNTFRT33@yahoo.com!
Now let's see some distributed intelligence and basic human decency! Don't make me come down there every five minutes!
Comments
Rotten, craven bastards...
I think I am right in believing the British have far more resolve than the Spaniards, however. One quote I read from a London taxi driver went something like 'And they think we are scared of this? Have they heard of the IRA?'
Posted by: Jonathan | July 7, 2005 8:26 AM
The IRA!? What are they compared to the Nazis! No doubt the British will rise to the occasion with the John Bull stiff upper lip we've seen from them for the last several centuries.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 7, 2005 8:43 AM
We are all British today.
Rob
Posted by: Me | July 7, 2005 9:17 AM
I can only hope that this only strenghtens the resolve of the British people. We eon't let the terrorists win
Posted by: madameprez36 | July 7, 2005 10:54 AM
Osama is hoping that New York, Madrid, or London will be the Dien Bien Phu or Tet that will demorilize the allied resolve at home and result in a pullout from the Middle East and subsequent establishment of his jihadist regime in Riyahd. Instead, the misguided efforts of the terrorists have only "steeled" the resolve of our combined armed forces to destroy the vermin while in their nests before the pestilence is allowed to spread outside the Middle East. It is a costly undertaking in both lives and money, but to do less would be akin to grovelling at the feet of these cowardly bullies. Neither Great Britain or her colonials have ever "bent their knees" to tyranny!
Posted by: Richard Peksens | July 7, 2005 11:18 AM
I'm going to the UK in a few weeks. I thumb my nose at these craven creeps. I wave my private parts at their aunties. Nyah nyah nyah. I'm looking over my family tree for a Brit ancestor or three I can invoke.
Thanks for the flag, Bill.
Rule Britania!
Posted by: Aleta | July 7, 2005 1:19 PM
God bless the Brits and God bless Tony Blair. Our thoughts and prayers are with all the victims and their family members affected by this abomination today.
QUOTE:
"It is important, however, that those engaged in terrorism realise that our determination to defend our values and our way of life is greater than their determination to cause death and destruction to innocent people in a desire impose extremism on the world.
Whatever they do it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world."
- Prime Minister Tony Blair
Posted by: Jali | July 7, 2005 1:19 PM
This letter is doing the rounds over here. It sums up what most of us are thinking right now. [Apologies for the language, but some situations justify it]
What the fuck do you think you're doing?
This is London. We've dealt with your sort before. You don't try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you're trying to do, it's not going to work.
All you've done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don't get rewarded for this kind of crap.
And if, as your MO indicates, you're an al-Qaeda group, then you're out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we've got news for you. We don't much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We'll deal with that ourselves. We're London, and we've got our own way of doing things, and it doesn't involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that's because we're better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we're going to go about our lives. We're going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we're going to work. And we're going down the pub.
So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.
Posted by: James@London | July 7, 2005 2:33 PM
I think they have made a huge tactical error. I know history and the Brits won't cave over this. If they stood firm during the Battle of Britain they will not capitulate now.
If there is any silver lining in this tragedy it is that the British are probably more united now. AQ's best ally in Britain were left leaning apologists. George Galloway will go down in history worse that Neville Chamberland but my bet is that his influence has been severely diminished today. Even Chirac is standing by Blair and Britain today. They have destroyed their political clout in Britain, if not all of Europe. It is one thing to look like you are defending yourself against an occupying force, it is quite another to commit mass murder on innocent people, some of whom may have, unwisely, been on your side.
Looking forward to reading Bill's thoughts on this.
Steve Kartchner
Posted by: Steve | July 7, 2005 5:53 PM
Someone screwed the pooch BIGTIME with this one.
When Bush said "You are with us or with the terrorists", it was not as much of a challenge or grandstanding, as a declaration of truth. If you are not supporting the terrorists, we will support you. If you are not supporting the terrorists, you will be a target. These are not OUR rules. These are the rules of the terrorists.
Posted by: Yogimus | July 7, 2005 8:43 PM
Britain is not Spain. And thank God for that!
Posted by: Matt | July 7, 2005 9:50 PM
So, just how an unassuming post about current British culture match the blacklist for this blog? And what the heck does this message mean?
Posted by: Dr. Osgood Z'beard | July 7, 2005 9:53 PM
Just checking to see what has me blacklisted. At any rate, there's no reason I would be legitimately blacklisted, unless someone has been filching my identity.
Posted by: Dr. Osgood Z'beard | July 7, 2005 10:03 PM
OK, look. For some reason my real identity is on a black list with this blog, and I can't even lodge a valid complaint, because I can't even post my web name or the name of my blog. I have included my real email address, so please email me to clear up the blacklist problem. (Someone may have filched my identity.) I'm a regular blogger on the Jawa Report, and also sometimes post on Winds of Change.
Anyway, here's what wanted to say until I was so rudely interrupted by this impossibly stupid comment moderating software:
I too think the people of the UK will find more, rather than less, moral clarity as a result of this attack... but I'm not entirely sanguine, because England isn't what it used to be. It not only has a very large population of non-British people, with no particular ties or allegiances to the kind of resolve that inspired the Battle of Britain, but even many of the Brits have succumbed to a kind of fantasy about the world that insists on seeing it as one big living room that harbors no unpleasant surprises. And many of those people have already jumped to the conclusion that Bush and Blair are as much to blame for this upset in the living room as the Jihadists.
I know people will tend to find new resolve in the short term, but it's the cumulative long term effect that I worry about. There isn't any short cut to wisdom.
Anyway, I don't mean to oversell my scepticism. It's just that I'm not sure how much of this optimism is based on 2005 cultural realities.
Posted by: Dr. Osgood Z'beard | July 7, 2005 10:10 PM
Oh yes, and please delete the email reference in the above post once you use it, Bill. The spam harvesters will ruin what's currently a fairly decent spam-free email address.
Also try this one:
talkings-at-gmail-dot-com
Posted by: Dr. Osgood Z'beard | July 7, 2005 10:17 PM
This is the British response - we make sick jokes and blame the French http://www.di2.nu/blog.htm?20050708a
Posted by: Francis | July 8, 2005 3:06 AM
It's too bad (for the terrorists of the world) that those of our "compassionate," appeasing, hide-and-hope-it-all-goes-away constituency didn't give THEM the same advise that they gave US -- namely, "Don't go after them. You'll only make 'em mad."
Come to think of it, why DIDN'T they give them that same advice?
GHS
Posted by: GreatHairySilverback | July 8, 2005 4:58 AM
You'll find the source of the text that James@London shared here: http://www.lnreview.co.uk/news/005167.php
Here's another good 'un: http://www.chrisnolan.com/archives/trevino/2005/07/the_bloody_seventh.html
Posted by: A Recovering Liberal | July 8, 2005 1:49 PM
An excerpt from what I'd posted yesterday; the poem is quoted in whole:
The Falklands War is in living memory. Obviously, the jihadis failed to study that chapter. That's gonna cost 'em.
Jim
Sloop New Dawn
Galveston, TX
Posted by: Jim | July 8, 2005 3:05 PM
Once again we are witnessing mankind's refusal to let evil prevail. I will never understand terrorism, but I refuse to give up or give in.
Posted by: Zeke | July 8, 2005 4:09 PM
I wonder how long it will be before someone blames the London attack on Karl Rove...
Anyway, to all the Brits out there...our thoughts are prayers are with you.
Posted by: SkyeChild | July 8, 2005 8:21 PM
There have been several comments made about Spain. Unlike many other countries that sent no one to Iraq, or a few that actually opposed our intervention there, and tried to use the UN to stop it (France, Germany, Russia), Spain stepped up, and offered troops. No one explained to the people of Spain what the consequences were to them for participating in the coalition.
Whether or not March 11, 2004 attack upon them was a direct result of their partcipation in our intervention in Iraq or something that was on Al Quedas "To Do" list, no one really knows. Afterwards, they chose to withdraw their troops. During their time there, like all the forces sent there, performed their duty.
Perhaps, I am wrong. But I sense some ingratitude. Those peoples who go into these missions with us perhaps need to better understand what they are in for, but whether they do or not, I believe we need to be grateful for every bit of help we get. Especially since there are so many unwilling to help us, and a few influential nations who actively oppose what we're doing.
If, as some believe, the Terrorists were encouraged by Spains withdrawal from Iraq, then we need to be more discerning about who we allow to come in with us on these ventures. Nothing is served by belittling the help from an ally. If we've got any shaky ones in Iraq, get 'em out now before the terrorists make it appear as if they forced any more troops to leave.
Britain has, of course, been our staunchest ally in Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld recently testified that the inurgency in Iraq might go on as long as 12 years. The US he said will not be there for all of it, but how long we will be there is anyones guess. The Britsh, however, never pledged an open commitment. I believe they have already withdrawn some of their 22,000 troops, and were scheduled to be down to no more than a token force within 2 years.
Whether or not this latest incident modifies their commitment to what we see as our detriment does not matter. They should be
supported in whatever decision they make, and thanked for their help. However much they are willing to give.
(We may have to keep this in mind for Italy who announced they were reducing their commitment by 300 troops which they call a scheduled drawdown.)
Again, I wish our British allies the best of success in their pursuit of whoever is responsible for these heinous acts.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 8, 2005 11:16 PM
No ingratitude Taxpayer - merely disgust that when the going got tough they turned tail and chickened out. I find this kind of behavior repulsive and really repugnant. Cowardice is not a very nice trait to foster and to reward or diminish it is even more revolting.
I am so ashamed of our own "cowards" and naysayers whose only reason for doing so is it opposes President Bush. I like that sound - President Bush, it makes me proud to know we have a courageous MAN in the White House. He is working to keep us safe (well as safe as possible - there are no guarantees).
Keep the stiff upper lip my British friends and know that we are there for you when and if you need it. Your history indicates that you will weather this and come out fighting and mad as hell. Go get em!
Posted by: bolivar | July 9, 2005 5:26 AM
Just curious how is your book doing?
Posted by: John Sandell | July 9, 2005 5:30 AM
I'm sure our allies are pleased that what seems like ingratitude is merely disgust at their cowadice. I know this is what will convince the Brits to help us further.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 9, 2005 6:34 AM
And therein lies your problem, JAT. You see this war as others helping us, not as us helping the world. Are we the only ones who will benefit from the terrorists' defeat ? bolivar is correct - we owe the Spaniards (or the Brits) no gratitude for stepping up to save their own skins, and we should roundly condemn their cowardice when they chicken out and leave it to us to save them.
Posted by: Joe | July 9, 2005 8:43 AM
Although I think this is a horrible tragedy that should've never happened, I believe that this turn of events will, in the long term, become the last straw for many Brits who have opposed Blair up until now.
I'm with Steve no this one, they've made a huge mistake. Perhaps the world will start to view these guys enemies of the world and of freedom rather than just enemies of Bush.
Posted by: Cole | July 9, 2005 9:31 AM
just what this blog needs; a good bombing. and that flag should be at half mast.
Posted by: alpha | July 9, 2005 9:31 AM
Joe,
However you view it isn't the point. It's how others view you that is. If you think for believe that the way to hold this coalition of the willing together is by accusing our partners of cowardice, and showing ingratitude for the help they've given, they aren't going to be there very long. It not a matter of us seeing ourselves as helping the world, it's a matter of the rest of the world(or as much as we can get of it) coming to see us as helping it.
You seem more determined to show your disgust with Spain than to figure out ways to bring others into the allinance.(Or ways to keep the partners we have.)
And if we have weak partners, shouldn't we get rid of them before they show this weakness you so despise. And what of those who oppose us. There seems to be no mention of them at all.
Alpha, I know you didn't mean what you said the way you said it."No one.(Except the terrorists themselves.) needs a good bombing.")
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 10, 2005 8:52 AM
I would like to weigh in on this Discust/ Gratitude of allies discussion with an analogy, if I may...
As some of you know, Navy SEALs go through some of the toughest military training in the world. Part of this training is Hell Week-- a week of continuous training, day and night, with little or no sleep. During this time, the trainees numbers are literally cut in half as man after man "rings the bell" and voluntarily quits the brutal harassment.
Only the absolute toughest will graduate-- and yet, there is NO resentment against those who ring the bell and go home. Trainees are FORBIDDEN from mocking those who ring out, and there are times when SEAL Instructors actually escort with honor those who must leave.
Why is this? Because the SEALs recognize that it takes incredible fortitude, and nearly super-human courage to even attempt to become a SEAL, let alone to make it into Hell Week. It is simply not for everyone...
It takes incredible courage to send your young people to Iraq, knowing that lives be shattered. We can be disappointed that countries such as Spain decided to head home, but let us NEVER resent or mock them for making that choice.
Posted by: Benjamin DeKraker | July 10, 2005 10:21 AM
Personally, my gut reaction to Spain's withdrawal from the "coalition" was one of disappointment -- not anger or betrayal, just disappointment. They'd "knuckled under" to the oldest bullying tactic in the book (although it was a little tough to get TOO "righteous" about it, since we'd been doing the same thing for several decades ourselves), and for the most shortsighted of reasons, it seemed. What made it worse for me though, was that it was the Spanish PEOPLE who caved, not their national leadership. Their pre-2004 leader(s) had shown some pretty unique resolve and courage (for a UN-member nation) when they contributed their thousand-odd troops to the coalition effort, and I applauded them for that. Whether or not there was a great deal of public support (in Spain) for that decision at the time, I don't know, but the terrorists sure knew their opponents when they chose the place, and especially the TIMING of those attacks -- with the elections coming up in a week, and a pacifist candidate on the docket. Like our own 2004 elections, I think that vote was a litmus test of the character of the PEOPLE, not their nation's leadership. You can find "leaders" for any viewpoint or social model that you want, but in a democracy (in any of its varied forms), the character of the PEOPLE is made evident by its political choices. And THAT CHOICE spoke volumes about THOSE PEOPLE... to ME, anyway.
So did ours.
Are they any safer now for all their backpedaling? Do they really think the gold-plated "Don't Attack Here" card that they bought with that vote will be honored whenever the terrorists next go looking for a vulnerable underbelly? Who knows? Personally, I think all the Spanish did -- besides lowering their national esteem among their staunchest allies -- was to confirm the measure their opponents had taken of them, and to make themselves a prime target for the next time the terrorists might need a quick and assured pay-off on their investment.
To their everlasting credit, Britain has made no such bargain. And to that end, they have showed just how profitable any future attacks on their soil will be -- which is to say, not at all.
Again, volumes spoken about their national character.
Will either tactic ultimately prove to be preferential against the terrorist mindset? It's tough to say. From what I've seen, terrorists will attack whatever the hell they feel like at the moment -- regardless of the long-term ramifications -- and usually, just for the short-term satisfaction of poking a bigger guy in the eye (and yes, that means they COULD still launch an attack on American soil). And if that's the case, then the only thing the Spanish people eliminated by voting to back out of Iraq was their credibility as an ally.
But how important is that, really?
GHS
Posted by: GreatHairySilverback | July 10, 2005 12:48 PM
When I saw how the British kept that old "Stiff Upper Lip" and held onto their stoic calm refusing panic, I thought, "Man, they [insert expletive filled rant describing terrorists here] bombed the WRONG people. Again." The British have had to put up with Nazis (to my friends on the Left, Nazis are the guys you compare Conservatives to with a straight face), and the IRA. What did the terrorists expect from a people that have had to put up with that for YEARS? Panic? National loss of bladder control? Surrender?
*IwillnotmakeaFrenchjokeIwillnotmakeaFrenchjoke*
To the terrorists, congratulations on simultaneously showing your true colors (deep vibrant yellow) and reminding a civilized people why we stand up to those who threaten civilization itself. The British won't forget this. And they won't forget you. Next time you catch footage of a soccer match in England look at the fans. That's a fraction of the rage that's now aimed at you. Enjoy your corner of Hell.
Posted by: bannerman | July 10, 2005 8:39 PM
Second that motion Bannerman;
A good offense is the best defense. IslamoFascism BEWARE... the lights are about to dim on the cowards.
Posted by: Raff Sanchez | July 11, 2005 12:26 AM
To BenJamin Dekraker,
Thank you for a most appropriate analogy.
GHS,
What you said about the character of the people is understandable. That said, they as a nation, still stepped up. We as leaders of the coalition allowed them to join us. It is the quality of a good leader to select those who will join them in their tasks to see them through to their completion. And to politley turn away the help offered by those who are less than up to the task.
If coalition leaders have failed to keep their allies with them to the end of the task, whether through failure of leaders or national character, it was our failure to assess their willingness to stay through to the completion of the task, as much as it was Spains failure to remain with the task. That is a lesson we need to learn if we are to lead other coalitions of the willing to hotspots elsewhere in the world, or even to finish up in Iraq.
That nation still gave of her soldiers, and of her civilians to the fight against terrorism when there were and are so many that are against us. That must be acknowledged.
I wrote the original post July 8, 2005, 11:16 because I noticed so many comments about the British vis a vis the Spanish. There is no way to definitivley determine with the British attack, as there was no way to determine with Spanish attack, whether it was not it was related to their involvement in Iraq, or what part, if any, Spain played in Al Quedas decision.
The terrorists are the kind of people who feel they have succeeded not when they can force events. Instead they feel they have succeeded when they have demonstrated their ability to attack.
And London represented one hell of a target.
Among the most secure cities in the world. Video cameras everywhere. And still they did it. That they can do it is everything to them.
That, from what I have observed, is their
primary motivation. Criticisizing an ally or expressing dissapointment in one offers no re-assurance or consolation to the people who were the victims of these attacks. Instead, let's turn our attention to getting the leaders heads on a platter. (And I mean that in the most literal sense.)And offering what support and consolation to the victims of these attacks, reguardless of what they or their governments decide to do.
Sorry about the length of this post. It is almost two in the morning.
As always, GHS, thank you for taking time to respond to my comments (and everyone elses). Where you find time to do this I don't know.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 11, 2005 1:51 AM
some of the above comments about spain are way off the mark. the spanish government blamed eta for the madrid bombings. thats why the spanish people voted out thier government as they had tried to cover up the link between the bombs and spanish involvement iraq. withdrawing troops was a small next step condemming not only the previous government's lies but also a policy which many europeans dissagreed: that of the illegal invasion of iraq. at least thats the way they saw it and the bombs were evidence to the spanish people that it would only generate terrorism.
britain was always going to be a target after 911 but spain? - barely - until iraq.
should the spanish people have stood by thier convictions? indeed they did. they never wanted in in the first place.
Posted by: alpha | July 11, 2005 7:45 AM
This was put up by Mr. Whittle so that people could honor those whose lives were sacrificed in the war on terror. In an effort (Perhaps lame. I am perhaps the one to blame for getting this comment stream where it is.) to bring us back that noble effort, I'd like to offer a remembrance of one noble soul who recently passed away. I'd read about this person in the San Francisco Chronicle (Yes! The SAN FRANCISCO Chronicle!)However, the article was written by an Associate director of the Hoover Institution.
The noble soul he wrote about was given "short shrift by editors and writers who were content to render history so weakly."
Writer Jeff Bliss said this person found inspiration in the teachings of Epictitus and Seneca in his darkest hours as a prisoner of the infamous Hanoi Hilton. And as a college president encouraged the virtues of a true liberal education where such thinkers were introduced.
A poor summary of what helped Stockdale through his darkest hours as a prisoner of war:
You may not have control over your circumstances, but you always have control over your spirit. It is from your spirit that you must find drive and inspiration to go forward.
Good things to remember in these confusing times. A good and (If the teachings of such a writer as Epictitus can be called such) entertaining, summary of his teachings can be found in Tom Wolfes book "A Man In Full".
Thank you, GHS, and the other commentators in this stream for putting up with me. Let's hope that Mr. Whittles intention are realized hereon.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 11, 2005 9:31 AM
The night of the bombing, I heard a british reporter on TV saying the Brits would look to the Americans actions following 9/11 for inspiration on how to get back to normal. As an American, I looked to the Brits example following the Blitz for inspiration on how to carry on. Life's funny like that. God save the Brits.
Posted by: EdSki | July 11, 2005 2:05 PM
Hmmm. That's interesting, alpha... and for a couple of reasons. First, because those are details that I didn't know and didn't pursue, but which shed an intriguing light on the situation, and second, because they don't change my opinion one iota.
Even under the scenario that you described, the pre-2004 Spanish leadership WAS still courageous and resolute for committing troops to Iraq, IMO, especially since it was done against the general consensus of their European peers, and "EXTRA-especially" if it was done against the majority consensus of the Spanish people. That might be a politically suicidal tack to take in a "democratic" country, but it still shows a singular resolve that I can appreciate.
And though your scenario better explains the motivations behind the populace choosing to oust that leadership (presuming it's true), it still doesn't improve my opinions of those motivations -- the idea that continuing to turn the other cheek, and choosing to just "live with" the never-ending predations of the mongrels of this world (rather than friggin' DOING SOMETHING about it), that just hiding from the issues and wishing them away will have any positive affect whatsoever -- that, I still think, is a disappointing caricature of the PEOPLE.
Their government might have NEEDED ousting for a multitude of reasons, but the fact remains (even according to your account) that the people still reacted to a terrorist attack on their soil by retreating, by acquiescing to the terrorist's wishes, and by burying their heads in the sand -- as if no such attacks had ever occurred BEFORE the invasion of Iraq, and as if they're now immune to any future attacks because of their appeasement of the terrorists. Granted, that still goes part-and-parcel along with the general European belief that this war is "illegal," but that too is just another symptom of weakness and the generational erosion of national fortitude, in my opinion.
And that still disappoints me.
It's not unique to Spain, by any means, but regardless of who exhibits such a mindset, it is a sweeping -- and, for me, disappointing -- statement of their national character.
And on the opposite side of the courage-and-resolution fence, Britain's response is an equally compelling statement of ITS national character as well. And I've got my oft-repeated opinion about which one of those will prevail.
Good points though.
GHS
Posted by: GreatHairySilverback | July 12, 2005 5:15 AM
what is national character, other than a sweeping subjective statement? who are the mongrels of this world? there is a song that goes 'he is the idiot son of an asshole' well 'he' is the president of the united states and so was his father. the song was written by americans, performed in america and everyone in the crowd cheers...so what is the american national character?
another satire i saw included the phrase 'the coalition of the bomb-able'. suggesting that bush has mangaed to keep terrorist activities off american soil, so far, partly due to the softer targets now available.
as regards the british situation, sad to say, much worse must be done in the uk to turn the tide of opinion that still pulls against the iraq war. the national character it seems is more concerned with saving starving african 'childwen' as you call them than killing an average of over 100 iraqi civilians per day. the mongrels, to many british, european and american people, are the besuited fat cats profiting from or are actually at the root of, the terrorism which we now fear. they may be wrong but naysayers who deny the world is round or suffering from pollution, that smoking is bad for you and that raping alaska is rellay ok coz she's been asking for it, do nothing to convince them that they should start believing what these people tell them.
Posted by: alpha | July 12, 2005 4:31 PM
Alpha, the only one denying the world is round is you. When you quote your attendance at some concert by an anti-Bush band cheered on by an anti-Bush crowd as proof of what you think the national character is, it only shows how sheltered you really are. You want to know what the national character is? Look at the electoral map by counties from November 2, if you can stomach it. THAT, my friend, is the national character. You can ensconce yourself as deeply as you can into one of those blue territories (and I happen to live in the heart of one of the bluest), but it doesn't change the reality outside of your bubble.
A very telling statement from you: "as regards the british situation, sad to say, much worse must be done in the uk to turn the tide of opinion that still pulls against the iraq war." SAD to say? I am quite happy to see that it will take more than that to turn the tide and resolve of the people who would stand up to the mongrels (otherwise known as terrorists) who are bombing innocent civilians around the world, even the "100 civilians a day" you mention in Iraq. (and I would like to know where you got those numbers). Yes, alpha, it is not US killing the civilians over there, it is most definitely THEM. Your anger is directed at the wrong folks and if you can't see that then you are just not paying attention.
By the way, Alpha, you see that "shift" key on the side of your keyboard? When you press it down you can actually capitalize the beginnings of sentences and proper nouns! (But from your statements it seems you have a problem with capitalism in general...)
Posted by: Hudson21 | July 12, 2005 9:15 PM
excellent comments re capitalism. i worked out some time ago that i spend too much time on the computer and figured that i would save several days during the remainder of my life if i did not use the shift button. now i can type a little faster. soon i plan to drop punctuation too: smart people can still understand it and one day everyone will write this way :)
i kud rite like this f speed 2 but i realiz i have to go ez on certn ppl.
hudson, i have no quibble with your example of national character other than to count the votes that went the other way and ask what the character or nationality of that number is.
i must point out what i mean when i say 'sad to say': i fear it will take a much bigger disaster in the uk to change the prevailing thought on iraq. 7/7 was nothing like 911 in scale and londoners carried on regardless by all accounts. there has been no knee jerk reaction, no requests for action, no witch hunts in london's moslem communities, no sensationalist paranoia. no gung ho 'lets accelarate the PNAC agenda' - no one there even knows what PNAC is (woops capitals). that is perhaps because they are not american and want to get on with thier british lives. hence i fear it will take more disruption than has so far been inflicted on them for them to get radical.
you are right to question the stats i quoted re iraqi civilian deaths. stats should always be questioned, everywhere, every time. but as these figures include those killed during the shock and awe, the invasion pre' mission accomplished' and post, it would not be accurate to say that i am not paying attention to who has done and continues to do the killing out there.
and here's where i got those numbers:
"The conflict in Iraq, to date, has claimed at least 100,000 Iraqi lives. We'e been in Iraq or 29 months- do the math- 29 months X 30 days=870 days. 100,000 deaths, divided by 870 days= 114 Iraqi deaths per day."
http://www.ericblumrich.com/
Posted by: alpha | July 13, 2005 4:00 AM
My apologies, Alpha. i didn't realize you were being progressive with your typing as well as your politics. I'll try my hardest to follow along.
Let me be the first to correct you on your numbers, especially coming from the website that they did. The 100,000 Iraqi deaths is the one I've heard bandied about by every liberal I've talked with, originally quoted by the British medical journal, the Lancet, in March 2003. Where did they get it, especially when every conventional news source estimated the deaths somewhere around 10-20,000, most of which were combatants? Well, they ran a statistical analysis comparing monthly deaths in Iraq over a 14 month period before and after we invaded. They determined the number was somewhere between 8,000 and 194,000, so they split the difference at 98,000. A possible range that huge means someone on the study screwed up their numbers big time and the Lancet article is so useless it should never have been taken seriously. it's like saying the number of jellybeans in a jar is somewhere between 150 and 500,000. But anti-war people jumped all over the highest number they could find, held it sacred, and now can't stop quoting the "100,000 innocent Iraqi deaths", to which I say 1)The number is much, much lower, and 2) as I asked above, who exactly is killing those civilians now?
Posted by: Hudson21 | July 13, 2005 5:07 AM
please refer me to where i can get your kind of figures.
are you jumping all over the ones that suit you?
as to who is doing the killing, i have no figures but i imagine that those largely responsible are neauveau terrorists in iraq. a breeding ground for mongrels (highly intelligent anmials).
yeah i dont like the word mongrels the way ghs used it and hudson too. it implies a racial purity as a superior aesthetic which apart from being a lost cause is a phallicy. the best i can credit your use of it with is a dictionary definition:
2. A cross between different breeds, groups, or varieties, especially a mixture that is or appears to be incongruous.
adj.
Of mixed origin or character.
there that word character again.
mixed...
what DO yo mean? its a put down right? but comes from the assumption that white is right? how pure art thou?
racism is a bit of a taboo subject around here but woodwork squeeks..
Posted by: alpha | July 13, 2005 7:09 AM
so ive just read sanctury, slowly this time, deliberately and carefully re-read the bits i diddnt get first time.
part 1 really is like a ranting blog about the lack of quartermasters stores for unlawful combatants in an unlawful war.
part two turns into something more akin to an essay.
it goes like this:
bill doesnt like stupid people.
there are lots in america
(its a national characteristic?)
bill has an agenda
it is to make stupid people look stupid and then to call them liberals and progressives and to bad mouth liberals and progressives and to make them look stupid.
everything/one right is amazing.
everything amazing is thanks to the right.
everything/one left is stupid.
everything bad that is about to happen is because of the left.
we invented everything good but they want to destroy everything we have achieved (7/11) by living and complaining about things they don't like or understand. which is their right as americans. who are the best and most wonderful people on the planet. better than swedes and iraqis. even though a goodly portion of us are unfathomably stupid and a liability. being american makes that simultaneously acceptable and unforgiveable.
we all forget how lucky we are therefore liberals should stop blaming those in power for the things they dont like that people in power do. like being republican. even though americans willingly die defending their right to do so. this is very bad form to have american people die so that you can be so negative and this probably has something to do with being un-american though it is not stated. but it is ok now because of blogging.
and thats about it.
cant wait to read about the brits. might even have go at writing it myself :)
Posted by: alpha | July 13, 2005 7:51 PM
The fisking of the Lancet's numbers were in this article on Slate.com: http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/
An accurate, triple-checked website that tabulates all deaths in Iraq reported in daily news sources since the beginning of the war, taking care to distinguish civilian from combatant casualties (currently at a maximum of 25,869): http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
Granted, even 25,000 civilians dead is a tragic and regrettable number, but it is only 25% of the outrageous number the left totes around as gospel. And if you think about it further, the blame for those deaths again lies at the feet of the terrorists. Our troops have taken every effort to minimize civilian casualties. If we wanted to, we could have bombed every city in Iraq into dust. Instead we inserted our troops in harm's way to keep the civilian count as low as possible. It was the terrorists who hid themselves behind women and children, who based their operations in or near schools, hospitals, and mosques. They are the ones who set off car bombs in crowded public squares. They are the ones who show complete disregard for the lives of their own people on a daily basis. Bill goes into this in much greater detail in SANCTUARY so I recommend you check that out.
And I can't speak for GHS, but I used the description of "mongrel" with nothing racial intended. It is just a general insult toward someone who would behave in the manner described above, regardless of where they came from. Would it be OK if I just called them murdering scumbags?
Posted by: Hudson21 | July 13, 2005 8:36 PM
thanks, point taken and yes.
Posted by: alpha | July 14, 2005 5:47 AM
Alpha:
I sincerely hope that your prediction that someday everyone will write poorly is wrong. At least attempting to craft proper English is still important to many of us as a key to good communication. Deciding that capitalization, punctuation and spelling don't matter anymore casts a fog over anything else you may write. Why put this roadblock to good communication in your way if you know better?
It's been my observation that many who are sloppy with their grammar, capitalization and spelling tend to be sloppy with their logic as well. Even if this is not true for you, you start off on the wrong foot. You may be a very intelligent and educated person, but if you don't speak and write well, you damage your credibility.
Some things are important enough to spend the time to get right. You'll end up spending more time re-explaining and clarifying yourself than what you saved by not using proper capitalization and checking your spelling.
Posted by: Joe | July 14, 2005 6:46 AM
Alpha -
Glad you took the time to read Sanctuary. I'm constantly amazed at how an individual's world view can color virtually all information received. Pity.
There's an old saw regarding horses, water, and the consumption thereof.
btw - would it be correct to assume an individual is arrogant to value saving a few second's of their OWN time by taking shortcuts in spelling/punctuation at the expense of another individuals time in trying read what you are contributing? Or would this just be selfish?
Posted by: rorr | July 14, 2005 8:15 AM
alpha,
If you read Sanctuary I and came away only with "a rant about a lack of quartermasters for unlawful combatants".
Then you're just obtuse.
I was going to say something like "go ahead - have a go at writing an essay on the Brits," but in retrospect (given your demonstrated reading comprehension skills) I think it would be better if you didn't. Plenty of bad writing out there already.
Also:
For me - in this instance - 'mongrel' refers to "of mixed character", and has its roots in the dichotomy of people who willingly, knowingly and deliberately detonate a car bomb amid a group of Iraqi children in the name of the "religion of peace." (Baghdad, yesterday).
Still not MY word....far too tame ang PG-rated.
- MuscleDaddy
Posted by: MuscleDaddy | July 14, 2005 8:17 AM
London was attacked by British born and educated second generation Pakistanis. Pakistan is one of Briton's allies in the war against terror.
Who is the real enemy ?
Posted by: wxjames | July 14, 2005 10:18 AM
wxjames:
Who is the real enemy?
Well, since it appears as though those responsible for the London bombings were Islamic terrorists (whoa, big surprise), who do you think the enemy is?
As an aside: here in the 21st century, warfare is not necessarily between nation-states wherein all the combatants wear nice uniforms and joust one another in vehicles festooned with their nation-states insignia. Warfare is between groups of people linked by an ideology rather than a geographic border. This is a fact.
In this particular instance of warfare however (as Mr. Whittle has so eloquently pointed out), one group of people linked by an ideology DOES wear uniforms and joust in vehicles festooned with insignia. This would be the American-led coalition (you know, the good guys?). In general, this is the side which is trying to kill ONLY those doing the bombing and shooting from the other side. The opposition in this instance are those linked by a common ideology which tells them the way to practice 'warfare' is to kill as many innocents as possible in as unpredictible manner as possible. In other words, their aim is to attempt to instill a degree of 'terror' in the civilian population of their enemy (hence, the term 'terrorist').
So, you ask who is the real enemy? Seems to me as though we already know who the enemy is and we are already engaged with this enemy. That's why this is called a 'War on Terror'. And the sad fact is that we can either win this war, or we can lose this war. Simply walking away from this war is not an option.
Posted by: rorr | July 14, 2005 11:26 AM
obtuse?
maybe :) but it wasnt all i came away with. there was a nasty aftertaste too.
anyway
there are enough guardians of the english language out there, im not such a threat to it. the french are very big on defining and protecting thier language. they have an institution to guard it. even so it still succums to popularisms in the end.
actually i think english is more flexible and can handle a bit of progressive typing. the capital at the begginning of a sentence is rendered pointless by the full stop that precedes it. names are self evident and i think the paragraph is a better tool than a capital letter or the full stop.
but it is not a deliberate policy to move anything forward other than ultra fast chat-room posts from bygone days. it still has its uses in email so the habit has stuck. since then i have had time to reflect on it and i like it for all the above reasons. plus i like the way it looks. blue would be nice too. can i try html in here? hmm..
rorr, you said:
I'm constantly amazed at how an individual's world view can color virtually all information received.
yep, that goes for all political opinion everywhere. you see i read bills essay but i dont buy it. the water is poisoned and this horse wont drink it.
and im still not convinced about this mongrel business. yes it is a put down but where does this choice of word originate? in a place where words are carefully chosen and language and its uses are picked over, whats the word mongrel doing describing fundemental purists who seek to destroy diversity?
Posted by: alpha | July 14, 2005 7:58 PM
hudson,
thanks for the link re our conversation about casulaty stats. iraqbodycount's faq points out that they are not a news organisation and can only count what has been reported and at least double checked so far. very thoro.
then they say
It is likely that many if not most civilian casualties will go unreported by the media.
wow. 25,000 is not most then. ouch. or arghhh...
as to who is responsible, i look to the essay 'sanctury' again. it is odd to read that the insurgents or illegal combatants are supposed to let their country go or lose their war based on thier enemy's idea of what is fair. they are ruthless. not stupid. desperate in fact. fair is sattelite guided missile against a tent? fair is boxing gloves in the ring old bean. queensbury rules. this is a war on terror. where is the rule book? down a toilet in guantanamo bay.
Posted by: alpha | July 14, 2005 8:21 PM
Still gotta disagree with you on the casualties, Alpha. At this point civilian casualties are most definitely being reported in the media (used as a political bludgeon in the media in my opinion). Civilian casualties were likely not reported when Saddam still had his castles, because at that point people were disappearing into the night quite frequently. Since he's been gone and we've been in charge things are a little different. Worldwide media is Johnny-on-the-spot and every attack and it's effects are quickly wired to all outlets. So I would be pretty confident with their numbers reported from anytime after the initial invasion.
Whenever you hear anti-war people mention the innocent Iraqis being killed I'm sure their mental image is collapsed roofs on top of families who were hiding from our imperial rockets and bombs indiscriminately dropped over the cities and they get angry at our "illegal occupation". Is that what you picture, Alpha? Because the truth is right now, coalition troops are the ones protecting all those innocent Iraqis from the monsters who don't care about them, who would kill ANYONE, Iraqi or American, to gain back their ability to rule the majority through brutal force. That's an ability they had before we invaded and it's that backslide we are preventing with our presence there. The protestors seem to be under the assumption that everything will be just fine if we just put all our guns down and go home. I'm asking you, Alpha, what do you think will happen if we do that? Ask yourself what the terrorists objective is, then tell me what you think will happpen to all those innocent Iraqis once we leave. Do you think they will be more safe, or less?
Posted by: Hudson21 | July 14, 2005 9:07 PM
Just to detract from alpha's lame-ass metaphors for a second....
The situation in Britain is a little more dire than I thought. A stiff upper lip and the stoic determination to carry on is all very well when dealing with POLITICAL objectives, like the invasion of Iraq, but when it comes to dealing with CULTURAL objectives, like reasserting a British identity...it would help if the remaining British HAD a strong national identity. Far too many of the really good Brits have expatriated themselves across the globe. I can't say that I blame them, but the removal of their essential voices from the body politic has diluted the cohesion of British society considerably. While this lack of political will has brought about some unintended good consequences(the persistence of Tony Blair being probably one of the most valuable) the people we might want to look to for a useful CULTURAL response are...
...the French.
The French have ruthlessly sectioned off their Muslim population in the cities, held firm to the headscarf ban in the face of vicious threats, taken vastly harsher measures against the terrorists they have caught(they're not the ones to go strip-searching old ladies, either) and basically done everything possible to keep their Islamic population from power in accordance with their numbers. No wonder so many Brits are living there.
It is important to remember that the French leaders are hypocrites. Don't listen to a single patronizing word they say(words are for playing with, not for anything so prosaic as conveying meaning or anything,) instead watch what they do and take note. Believe me, the last thing I want to see is France outliving Britain, but unless we put away the political fights and take heed of its cultural methods, that accursed vision may come to pass.
Britain's full of under-employed non-Islamic males with a penchant for violence. The military's occupied with Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Why not take advantage of the yob on the street corner-say, offer certain bounties for the heads of pieces of filth like that guy who said 'there are no civilians in Islam.' Or identify the most radical mosque on the street and burn it down? Or drop a pipe bomb in the mailbox of those who send out death threats?
Hire ex-IRA, for all I care. Those guys have done enough harm to Britain; maybe it's time for them to give something back by fighting against a common enemy.
Posted by: Epoetker | July 14, 2005 9:18 PM
alpha,
I thought that my explanation of the use and basis of the word 'mongrel' was fairly concise - more of that 'reading comprehension' matter, I suppose.
A sad state of affairs, the level of academics these public schools are putting out (sigh).
In fact, I couldn't care less about your lack of technical proficiency with the language or your philosophy behind inflicting it on others.
It is your content that I find objectionable.
Or rather, I would if I actually belived you were earnest about what you write - which I don't.
Either your outlook is shallow and media-driven enough (that '100,000 civilians tripe is a dead giveaway) that you actually believe that pap you're regurgitating OR you're just of an argumentative nature and throwing out whatever you think will most effectively bait the other posters.
If the former, then you can't be said to 'believe' what you're writing as what you write will likely change drastically with the next installment of 'Nightline' - if the latter, you'll change your stated 'beliefs' when they cease to get a rise out of anyone.
Begone. You bore me.
- MuscleDaddy
Posted by: MuscleDaddy | July 14, 2005 11:21 PM
I'm going crazy here... three days ago, a lightning storm here smoked my DSL, and I haven't been able to get on-line since (I've got a laptop patched into a friend's phone socket right now). As such, I haven't been around to answer alpha's charges or explain myself -- not for lack of wanting to, however. Earthlink swears they sent us a replacement DSL unit 3 days ago, but it hasn't gotten here yet, so...
Just to qualify myself a little, alpha -- when I used the term "mongrel," there wasn't the slightest inclination towards a Webster definition of the term. It was intended as a simple, one-word expression of contempt for the likes of the terrorists that we were discussing at the time. That's all. Similarly, if at a later date I should use the term "shithead," it will not be a descriptive term depicting a person whose cranial region is actually composed of human feces. I just get tired of repeating the same word over and over and over again.
Unfortunately, I am in a desperate rush to get out the door right now, so I must adieu. Sorry about the spam that's managed to dribble in through the filters in my absence, but without access to Bill's Movable Type software (which is on my main computer), I can't do anything about it for the time being. As soon as we get out DSL back up and functioning again, it will be gone.
Much more to say later on. Gotta' go for now...
GHS
Posted by: GreatHairySilverback | July 15, 2005 7:49 AM
GHS or Bill will address the debates raised, I can only speak for myself. I believe a human being has the right to freedom, absolute, and unrestricted freedom, but with that comes absolute responsibility. A simple case in point, when living in Alaska, I had absolutely no intervention from governments nor concerns of civility, you knew how to live, or you did not exist long. When one moves from nature to civilization, one loses many rights, but first gives up responsibility, to whomever would support you. Those unable must be taken care of, therefore, not all exist for the same reason, or value. The vast majority of "FREEDOM FIGHTERS" have no real reason, that I can discern. I must say I completely agree that those that try their best, and fail, are still heros in my eyes. I will not hate my enemy, I will get to know him, as well as possible, and he may get to know me. Perhaps we can avoid the inevitable, the fight to survive is part of who we are.
Rik
Posted by: Rik | July 15, 2005 4:42 PM
awesome post rik. thats one to ponder a while.
ghs come back! you are needed to keep me in check! mussel daddy doesnt like my opinions! listen dude, the way i type is irrelavent. you dont like the content so you attack the way i look.
and there is the lesson. much of bills writing is about badmouthing those he doesnt like. to me it dilutes the argument but it appeals to the lower iq and you are the proof.
of course im objectionable, i object!
100,000 was a figure i plucked from a website and i planted it here & watched grow. pretty fertile manure i'd say. it started off as a reference to events in britain concerning starving african childwen and how the brits would rather generate provision for them than condone a war they considered ill advised at best, co-erced into, if not damn well lied to and forced into.
and now the average brit travelling through kings cross station cant do much about the war on terror. they are in it. they can do something about the childwen and so do. they believe they can win the war on poverty and have a gameplan to do it complete with schedule.
i have no idea of the true stats, i never went to count them, i just read websites including this one. when it all boils down its a bunch of people who diddnt think invading iraq was a good idea and a bunch of people who did.
which brings me to your question hudson;
'The protestors seem to be under the assumption that everything will be just fine if we just put all our guns down and go home. I'm asking you, Alpha, what do you think will happen if we do that?'
i dont know what will happen, possibly the same as is happening now only worse. the iraqi people will be less safe. and therein lies the genius of the invasion. and if 100 americans were dying per day then maybe everyone WOULD go home and leave them to their own hell and then whatever would happen would be worse too.
but neither will happen. american casualties are at a campaign sustainable level and no-one is going home for about 12 years according to the last estimate i heard from rummy & co. so meanwhile those who never supported the invasion are tending to stick by their opinions and condemn it still.
Posted by: alpha | July 15, 2005 9:09 PM
epoetker mon ami,
the brits move to france because its a beautiful place with wonderful people who's catchphrase translates as 'quality of life'; where culture is a ministry and the minister proclaims france's mission "to propose to humanity the means and the method of an intellectual and spiritual action."
i guess that'll just fly right over your head but as someone just said, you can lead a horse...
france continues it's policy of seprating the church and the state and that of cultural assimilation to l'etat. this has been going on for hundreds of years and is the core of french cultural identity. hence the burka ban.
your suggestion that someone plants a pipe bomb in your letter box is a good one.
Posted by: alpha | July 15, 2005 9:28 PM
Hey Bill, please find the time to provide your perspective on the London bombings before it fades into the MSM's collective unconcious and people start saying "50 dead here, 50 dead there...what's the big deal?"
Posted by: david | July 16, 2005 8:42 AM
Alpha: "100,000 was a figure i plucked from a website and i planted it here & watched grow. pretty fertile manure i'd say."
At least you are now admitting the fecal nature of the figures that you provided. And I might remind you that the only mind here in which that figure took root and grew was yours.
Alpha: "i have no idea of the true stats, i never went to count them, i just read websites including this one. when it all boils down its a bunch of people who diddnt think invading iraq was a good idea and a bunch of people who did."
More precisely what it boils down to is a bunch of people who make ridiculous assertions about things they don't know much about and another bunch of people can discredit those ridiculous assertions with facts, logic, and historical context. Not an ounce of which goes to stop the first group from ignoring those arguments and making more ridiculous assertions.
You see, alpha, it's about more than just opinions. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that doesn't make all opinions equal in merit. You could be of the opinion that the moon is made of swiss cheese, and I could disagree with you. Fine, we could agree to disagree. But if I could go to the moon, bring back a rock and show it to you, and you STILL believed the moon is made of cheese, well, then we have issues.
And that's exactly what you are doing here. Bill's essays definitely have an opinion, but he goes beyond that by providing facts which back up his arguments. If you want to disagree, that's fine, but when there is nothing backing up your disagreement other than misinformation which has been proven false many times over, you still cling to your original opinion and tell us it is just as important as anyone else's. Yet you still haven't brought any cheese back from the moon.
Posted by: Hudson21 | July 16, 2005 4:12 PM
I will say only one thing to alpha, Bill and GHS debate with provable facts, not emotions. This is not to say we do not get emotional, but to say they prove whatever they believe. Jefferson said, "It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." A chinese proverb says "Know your enemy as you know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles with no danger of defeat." I will trust in Jefferson's theory, but acknowledge all others. If you did not glean the context from my previous posts, emotions have no reason to exist in nature, it just is the truth. Must we agree to be correct? Of course not, but we should unite to some common goal. My goal is to win a war, and survive. Short of that, we all die. I have outlived my use, my reason, my hope, yet I continue. No man nor animal can take my life now, it belongs to god, not life. I give my life freely so that another generation can survive, hopefully learn why we exist.
Rik
Posted by: Rik | July 16, 2005 4:25 PM
i think i bring back some cheese, hudson, i just think its not to your taste. i have explained about certain dissenting attitudes and how people with different views express themselves. hard facts and emotions collide indeed, left right and centre. it is sometimes referred to as 'hearts and minds'.
i will take on board the gist of what you say however and will try harder in the future to be accurate and concise. cold light of day kind of thing. i will have to research harder for sure. i contend however that facts logic and historical context can prove whatever you want them to with the words you put in between. furthermore a stinking pile of do-do is a fact but i dont have to embrace it.
i also think that my best points are often the ones that dont get taken up by you guys. i do thank you for your time and comments though.
rik you are one heavy dude. know your enemy is what its all about.
peace and love brothers.
alpha
Posted by: alpha | July 16, 2005 7:09 PM
and speaking of bringing cheese back from the moon, maybe thats where they hid the wmd! please refer me to the hard edible evidence of their existance. i will start my cold light of day research right there. with a little salad on the side.
Posted by: alpha | July 16, 2005 7:23 PM
Not one comment here about Admiral Stockdale(Post July 11, 1:51 AM). A true American hero who passed with virtually no notice by the mainstream press.(I found out about him the "San Francisco Chronicle".)
I was hoping for more.
I thought my effort to change where the comment stream was going was lame. I was hoping I was wrong.
Can't we do better than make an "issue" of alphas typing, and GHS (I believe that's who it was) use of the word mongrel.
GHS
A small suggestion. Would it be possible to refer to postings by number rather than date. Or would that be too cumbersome to arrange. Would be really nice to simply refer to comment 21, paragraph 5 rather than a date and time or having to type out ones comments. Even if one had to type their own or someone elses comments, they would be alot easier to find.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 17, 2005 12:34 AM
Seems that alpha tried pretty hard to go out on a 'higher-than-thou' note, especially for a guy who's lead-in was:
"just what this blog needs; a good bombing."
Again - for the reading-comprehension impaired:
My distaste was not for alpha's opinions, but rather for the apparent lack of substance behind them - he was baiting, nothing more. His assertion of
"furthermore a stinking pile of do-do is a fact but i dont have to embrace it."
is simply an admission of intent to live in denial of facts he finds distasteful, regardless of what they are or how well they're presented.
Finally, allow me to once again, and without bothering to come up with new words, say about "alpha's typing":
"In fact, I couldn't care less about your lack of technical proficiency with the language or your philosophy behind inflicting it on others."
JAT - you were right to try to redirect. My brother (former USN Officer) and I raised a glass for the Admiral the other day.
I hope Bill hits soon - we'll all have a topic to stay on.
- MuscleDaddy
Posted by: MuscleDaddy | July 17, 2005 7:27 AM
Muscle Daddy,
Glad to see someone thought of the Admiral.
Perhaps we can go further. Anyone read up on Epictitus, Seneca or the other stoic philosophers. These trying times for people who think the good fight is still worth fighting ought to think about what inpspires a man kept in the Hanoi Hilton for 6 years(Was it more? Correct me if it was.)
Again, for an entertaining summary of Epictitus teachings (Emphasizing the context of Greek mythology/theology.)(Lord, my parenthising or parenthisizing, however the heck you spell it, must be as bothersome as Alphas lowercasing all capitals.), anyone read Tom Wolfes "A Man In Full".
Or for that matter, Tom Wolfes, "Hooking Up".
For the initiated who know what the title means, get past it. It is one of the most articulate, and readable summaries of America at the turn of the century, and her place in the world.
Yes, there were things happening in America before Sept. 11, 2001. Perhaps we need to step
back, much as McNamara did in the late 60's, when everything he'd tried in Vietnam was coming apart, to see how we got here.
Even architecture might come into the discussion. The glass and steel towers that fell and their source in the German Bauhause school of design, the design of the planes, failure to take measures to make them more secure against what happened on 9/11.
Quotations from any one are welcome. From the ancient philosophers to Ludwig Mies Van Der Rohe, from Cicero to Bush, from Orville and Wilbur to Burt Rutan.
I don't know where this is going exactly, or again if this is another lamo attempt to get something going. The discussion must be, I feel, widened. We must go beyond the media images of 9/11, or the discussions of military actions taken since then.
I believe a man like Stockdale, locked up in the Hanoi Hilton, wondering what how he got there, would've asked the same questions, and he would expect the students under charge to do the same thing.
Let's see where the line of inqury leads us.
In any case, thanks one and all for indulging my curiosity.
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 18, 2005 12:11 AM
alpha,
Relating to all this banter about horses,perhaps you should think of changing your nome d'plum to "omega" to correspond with the distal aspect of that fine animal.
Posted by: Richard Peksens | July 18, 2005 10:03 AM
Re Alpha:
One of his posts ends in a URL name "www.ericblumrich.com".
I used to know Eric Blumrich (primarily by reputation and occasionally at specialized science-fiction/fantasy conventions). He was an extremely talented artist (fantastic with pen-and-ink freehand cross-hatching and textures) and known for a website of art and nasty but well-written editorials (which caused comparisons with Howard Stern, Harlan Ellison, and 2 the Ranting Grypon).
Unfortunately, a few years ago his alcoholism went completely out of control and he effectively crawled into a bottle and disappeared. Since the 2000 Election he has surfaced occasionally on a new website, doing nothing but bitter crank rants and flash animations on the "Bush is Hitler!" theme. A friend and I found his new website just last week on a random search -- filled with high-volume rabid foaming about "Chimpy W Bushitler".
Eric Blumrich is dead. All that is left of him is a ranting bitter alcoholic crank like something out of Shut Up, Little Man!.
Posted by: Ken | July 18, 2005 11:52 AM
Want to really hate a polititian? I believe we need to get rid of social security, eitc, medicare, medicaid, all social programs, and get back to taking care of ourselves. That is political suicide, of course, 42 million americans pay no taxes, the bottom 20 percent pay negative two percent, the bottom 40 percent pay, when totaled, negative one percent, so of course any tax cut is for those paying taxes, how can you cut taxes to people receiving money from the government? Can we guess how democrates get 40 percent of the population? Those figures are old, but no current figures are on the irs website, so blame me if my facts are wrong, but consider this, who needs a government? I need a government for only one reason, to fight another country that is bent on destroying america. Even that reason is tenuous in this war, since we have no government to fight, but if you think we can not win, you have already lost. I get so tired of the same old rhetoric, we did not start this war, but we will win it, or die trying. Perhaps those that do not believe we will, should study the civil war. One gentleman, that survived every other war ever waged against the US (presuming you like the US, and are not on the other side), volunteered to join the army. He was hardly a man, having been torn apart by so many wars, but he volunteered. He was turning 90, but still able to fight. The story is that he lived to 99, an amazing feat for an american hero. One last comment, if you can condense any of Bill's essays into stupid "sound bites", you certainly have no reason to comment on his site. You are however, given that right. Thank those that fight for your rights. We die so you don't have to, which brings up another reason to hate me, Darwin. I believe we are mutating into our worst nightmare, the best do not propagate, the worst are able. Stay safe and happy, you are protected. Until we are all gone, then you can apply your new logic to life, and see how well that works.
Luckily we have people that won't give up, this gives me hope.
Rik
Posted by: Rik | July 18, 2005 2:30 PM
Rik
What are you talking about? Who are you talking to? What do your comments have to do with anything remotely connected to what happened in Britain? This particular incident happened to the British on their soil.
I'm sure the British are consoled and reassured by your comments.
Enough about Alpha, Eric Blumrich, or whoever he is. Nobody bought his line anymore than Jeanne Garafalos. Why is she so prominently mentioned anyway. Bill Whittle would never bother with someone so minor.
Looks like the USS Iowa, the last of the Missouri class dreadnoughts left, is being moved to the port of Stockton. When offered the honor of docking her permanently as a museum, San Francisco balked because of the armies stance on gays. How silly.
Stockton is offering her a berth, a parking lot, and 90,000 sp ft. warehouse as a visitor center. For 12$ a piece Stockton is expecting 125,000 people a year to tour her.
Anything about Admiral Stockdale?
Posted by: Just Another Taxpayer | July 19, 2005 12:11 AM
alpha said, "and speaking of bringing cheese back from the moon, maybe thats where they hid the wmd! please refer me to the hard edible evidence of their existance. i will start my cold light of day research right there. with a little salad on the side."
How about you spend a bit of time reading about the Iraqi Kurds at the Human Rights Watch site? There are thousands of Kurdish dead who lay in mute testimony that WMDs were used on them.
- Captain Midnight
Posted by: Captain Midnight | July 19, 2005 1:26 PM
JAT,
Sorry - been out of town and off-line.
Getting caught up now.
Always liked Seneca, and have read some "short" Tom Wolfe - will go after your suggestions.
Quotes sound great - though I usually lean toward Musashi, Tzu, or Funakoshi - I'll cheat here and use a good movie quote:
"In the end, were all dead men. Sadly, we cannot choose how, or when. But what we can choose is how we decide to meet that end, so we are remembered forever as men."
Last: to all and sundry - alpha no longer exists; treat him accordingly.
- MuscleDaddy
Posted by: MuscleDaddy | July 19, 2005 8:11 PM
John Roberts on terror.
The media coverage of President Bush’s nomination of John G. Roberts, Jr., to the O’Connor seat on the Supreme Court of the United States has understandably focused on his legal background and conservative credentials. Because the court on which he now sits—the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit—has twelve justices who sit in random panels of three, and because Judge Roberts has been a member of that court for only two years, critics of his nomination such as Kennedy, Leahy, Durbin and Schumer will have a limited number of cases on the basis of which to attack him.
In an odd quirk, the case upon which they may rely most was decided only last Friday. Two other circuit judges (one of whom wrote the opinion) and Judge Roberts unanimously rendered a decision that strikes a blow for our country in our War on Terror.
Salim Ahmed Hamdan was admittedly Osama bin Laden’s driver in Afghanistan from 1996 to two months after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in Washington, DC, and New York City.
On November 13, 2001, President Bush, with Congressional approval, promulgated an Order relating to the “Detention, Treatment and Trial of Certain Non-Citizens in the War Against Terrorism. That Order, among other provisions, created Military Tribunals.
Hamdan was captured by Afghani troops in Afghanistan in late November 2001, turned over to the American military, and then interned at Guantanamo.
In July 2003, the President determined that there was reason to believe Hamdan was either a member of al Qaeda or otherwise engaged in terrorism against the United States.
In accordance with President Bush’s Order of November 13, 2001, and his July 2003 determination that good cause existed to believe Hamdan was a terrorist, he was marked to be tried before a Military Commission.
In December 2003, Hamdan was appointed counsel.
In April 2004, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia—even though at that time there was no federal statute or Supreme Court decision that allowed Hamdan, an “enemy combatant,” to do so.
But Hamdan, and the rest of the Guantanamo detainees didn’t have long to wait.
Just two months later, the Supreme Court of the United States in the cases of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush ruled that “enemy combatants” were entitled not only to file petitions for habeas corpus (anywhere in the United States), but were also entitled to due process of law. Sandra Day O’Connor was the fifth, swing vote that allowed the Court’s four liberals—Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer—to so handcuff our country’s defense against terrorists.
While Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition was pending, he was formally charged with conspiracy to attack civilians, murder, destruction of property and terrorism. In addition to charging that Hamdan was bin Laden’s driver, it was alleged that the defendant served as bin Laden’s bodyguard, delivered weapons to al Qaeda members, and trained at an al Qaeda camp.
As a result of the Hamdi decision, Hamdi went before a Combatant Status Review Tribunal, which found that he was indeed an enemy combatant “either a member of or affiliated with Al Qaeda.” Consequently, his continued detention was required.
Enter judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Here is his biography:
Judge Robertson was appointed United States District Judge in December 1994 [by William Jefferson Clinton]. He graduated from Princeton University in 1959 and received an LL.B. from George Washington University Law School in 1965 after serving in the U.S. Navy. From 1965 to 1969, he was in private practice with the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering [Lloyd Cutler was, for a while, White House counsel to President Clinton]. From 1969 to 1972, Judge Robertson served with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, as chief counsel of the Committee’s litigation offices in Jackson, Mississippi, and as director in Washington, D.C. Judge Robertson then returned to private practice with Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, where he practiced until his appointment to the federal bench. While in private practice, he served as president of the District of Columbia Bar, co-chair of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and president of Southern Africa Legal Services and Legal Education Project, Inc.
On November 8, 2004—perhaps driven by his own politics, but certainly by the license given him by O’Connor’s Hamdi and Rasul decisions—Robertson granted a part of Hamdan’s habeas corpus petition.
Essentially, Robertson ruled that bin Laden’s al Qaeda terrorist driver might be covered by the 1949 Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, and until a competent tribunal found otherwise Hamdan (and, by implication, anyone like Hamdan) could not be tried by a military commission. To enforce his ruling, Robertson enjoined the Defense Department from conducting any further proceedings against Hamdan.
The government appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Only two “friend of the court” briefs were filed supporting the government: the “Washington Legal Foundation” and “The American Center for Law and Justice.”
“Friends of the court” supporting the terrorist included dozens of law professors, “305 United Kingdom and European Parliamentarians,” “Military Attorneys Detailed to Represent Ali Hamza Amhad Sulayman Al Bahlui,” “Military Law Practitioners and Academicians,” “National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers,” “Human Rights First,” “General Merrill A. McPeak,” “People for the American Way,” “The World Organization for Human Rights USA,” “Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights”—and, worst of all, the prestigious “Association of the Bar of the City of New York.”
Despite this array of “friends,” the Court of Appeals panel—one of whom was John G. Roberts, Jr., President Bush’s nominee to the Supreme Court—reversed Judge Robertson, rejecting his conclusion that Hamdan was covered by the Geneva Convention, which could be enforced in a United States federal court. Robertson had conveniently ignored the Supreme Court precedent of Johnson v. Eisentrager (which the current liberal Court majority massaged, in order to reach its conclusion in Rasul), which held that the Geneva Convention, a compact between governments, was not judicially enforceable in a private lawsuit. Period!
Hamdan had made two other arguments. One was that a particular Army Regulation provided relief for him. It requires that prisoners receive Geneva Convention protection “until some other legal status is determined by competent authority.” (Emphasis added) The Court of Appeals ruled that President Bush was such a competent authority. To the extent that the Army Regulation requires a “competent tribunal” to determine his status, the Court of Appeals ruled that a military commission is one. So if the Army Regulation even applies, Hamdan can tell the commission that he should be considered a prisoner of war.
Last, and since the Geneva Convention issue appears to be settled, most important both for the War on Terror and the War for the Supreme Court, is Hamdan’s argument that President Bush had no power to constitute military commissions because Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the power to “constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court” only to Congress.
As to this argument, the Court of Appeals ruled, and reminded Judge Robertson, that when President Bush promulgated his order of November 13, 2001, he had relied on various sources of authority: Commander in Chief, the post-9/11 Congressional authorization to use force in the War on Terror, the Articles of War, the World War II cases of Ex parte Quirin and In re Yamashita. Said the Court of Appeals—said nominee Roberts, by joining the majority opinion—given the foregoing, “It is impossible to see any basis for Hamdan’s claim that Congress has not authorized military commissions”.
Although Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has struck an important blow against the War on Terror (and in the process rebuked an obviously Left-wing federal judge), we have not heard the last of the case or the crucially important issues it has raised. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is only one of thirteen circuit courts, in any of which these same issues can be litigated. One way or another, they will reach the Supreme Court of the United States.
When they do, the cases will be heard by a newly appointed justice who is not merely the conservative that the President promised, but one who understands the Constitution, the appropriate manner of its interpretation, and, of utmost importance today, the seriousness of our War on Terror.
Henry Mark Holzer
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 20, 2005
Posted by: R.A.H. | July 20, 2005 12:00 PM