Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
(UPDATED) British terror plot: 10 aircraft targeted
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, August 10, 2006

Terrorists continue to plot and attempt mass murder. Intelligence agencies continue to try to foil them:
A plot to blow up planes in flight from the UK to the US and commit "mass murder on an unimaginable scale" has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.

It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled in hand luggage on to as many as 10 aircraft.

Police are searching premises after 21 people were arrested. Home Secretary John Reid said they believed the "main players" were accounted for.
All the aircraft targeted originated in the UK and were scheduled to land in the US. Obviously, that many aircraft would most likely have seen casualties in the thousands.

The plot involved liquid explosives. They had accumulated the necessary materials and the plot was well advanced according to Michael Chertoff. He also announced that because of the threat, liquids would be banned from carry on, with the exception of medicine and baby formula which must be presented at check in.
BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the plot was thought to have involved a series of "waves" of simultaneous attacks, targeting three planes each time.
Attorney General Gonzales says they are "extremists" and it is believed they have ties to "al Qaeda" although that isn't confirmed. He also says that there is no indication that there were any plotters located in the US.
BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera said the plot was thought to have involved a series of "waves" of simultaneous attacks, targeting three planes each time.
This is actually a rerun of a well known plot from the '90s which were AQ inspired to explode 11 aircraft over the Pacific.

Bottom line: We're still a nation at war. These plots continue to be developed and initiated by extremists who consider this to be a holy deed for which they'll be rewarded. They will continue to attempt to find new and innovative ways to kill us. Vigilance and sharing of intelligence, as appears to have been part and parcel of the success in foiling this plot has to continue and improve.

Last but not least, they are going to continue to try, and, as they get more sophisticated in their operational security, probably succeed. One has to wonder though, given the reaction by some to the recent Canadian and US arrests of terror plotters, if it isn't going to take a terrorist success in some such situation to again convince the doubters that we are at war with Islamic extremists and that war continues on a daily basis.

UPDATE: More here:
So far 21 suspects - believed to be British citizens, many of Pakistani origin - have been arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 in overnight raids in London, the Thames Valley and Birmingham.
As one commenter noted on CNN, most likely officials will find that at least some of the plotters traveled to Pakistan (for training) and the possibility exists that some "suicide tapes" may surface.
The secret investigation into the plot has already lasted several months. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke, the Met's head of anti-terrorism, said that intelligence suggested that concealed explosive devices were to be constructed in the UK and smuggled aboard transatlantic flights through British airports in hand luggage.

"Last night the investigation reached a critical point when the decision was taken to take urgent action to disrupt what we believed was being planned," said Mr Clark.
One of the questions ask of Chertoff, which he declined to answer, was whether the liquids would be mixed on the aircraft or whether they'd be ready to go when the terrorist boarded. It appears, by the above report, that it appears they would have boarded with completed explosives.

The three American carriers targeted were Continental, American and United.

Oil prices have dropped in reaction to the plot (less travel by air, less fuel used).

Meanwhile the denial begins:
Meanwhile police leaders have spoken to community leaders to keep them in touch with the investigation. Mindful of the outrage amongst the Muslim community when Met anti-terror officers raided a house in Forest Gate last month, Mr Stephenson was careful to stress that Muslims were not being targeted by the police.

"This is not about communities: it is about criminals, murderers, people who want to commit mass murder. This is about people who might masquerade in the community, hiding behind certain faiths, but who want to commit acts that no right-minder person would want to applaud," he said.
No it's about a community which uses a faith as a enabler, reason and excuse to further their warped ideology and are supported by other communities either tacitly or overtly (polls indicate that 10% of the Muslim community in Britian support terrorism as an appropriate tactic against the west), and we need to quit tip-toeing around that.

UPDATE II: Three of the British plotters have been identified per Brian Ross of "The Blotter":
Three of the alleged ringleaders of the foiled airplane bomb plot have been identified by Western intelligence agencies involved in unraveling the plot.

Two of them are believed to have recently traveled to Pakistan and were later in receipt of money wired to them from Pakistan, reportedly to purchase tickets for the suicide bombers.

Sources identify the three, who are now in custody, as:

—Rashid Rauf

—Mohammed al-Ghandra

—Ahmed al Khan
And the plan? Liquid explosives hidden in sports drink bottles:
The suspected terror plotters arrested in Britain had planned to conceal their liquid or gel explosives inside a modified sports beverage drink container and trigger the device with the flash from a disposable camera.

ABC News has learned exclusively that the plotters planned to leave the top of the bottle sealed and filled with the original beverage but add a false bottom, filled with a liquid or gel explosive. The terrorists planned to dye the explosive mixture red to match the sports drink sealed in the top half of the container.

This, they thought, would ensure that they would be able to pass through security — even if they were asked to unseal and drink the beverage.

The flash in a disposable camera has enough electrical power, they apparently believed, to set off the homemade explosive.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This is all Bush’s fault....if we weren’t in Iraq, they wouldn’t want to kill us, AND it’s Bush’s fault because him and Lieberman support those damn Jooos in Israel who are disproportinately blowing up innocent Lebanese children, and where’s Osama, it’s a quagmire and it’s all a phony story made up by Bushco anyway to keep us living in fear so we keep electing rethuglicans and enrich Halliburton and Israel.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Shark, bet you will get a guest blogger spot offered to you from Kos or Henley after a tirade like that.

;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
No it’s about a community which uses a faith as a enabler, reason and excuse to further their warped ideology and are supported by other communities either tacitly or overtly (polls indicate that 10% of the Muslim community in Britian support terrorism as an appropriate tactic against the west), and we need to quit tip-toeing around that.
Sorry, but I think you’re wrong on this. Who cares what the excuse of a terrorist is? Would the terrorist be any better if he had a more rational justification for his acts?

If we start from the assumption that the law is just and represents a reasonable standard for citizens of a free country to uphold, then the only test we need to apply is whether the actions of individuals violate the law. Talk of ’communities’ simply confuses the issue and introduces the idea that different groups should be held to different standards. As a British person I’m glad to hear the police moving away from the language of ’communities’ and towards a more traditional (and surely more classical liberal/libertarian!) position of equality before the law.

In my opinion, the fact that the police are stressing that it is not Muslims per se who are being targetted is important because it makes it clear to all that Muslims who live by the law have nothing to fear - a far more useful attitude to hold for the long term.
 
Written By: Rob Knight
URL: http://
D@MN you Shark and Capt. Joe... all I can add is that this is ALL TO CONVENIENT "Rape Gurney" Joe loses to the Great and Compassionate Lamont, threatening BushCo and the BFEE with a justified political extinction as the Righteous Wrath of ALL good people come together and then THIS... this Alledged Plot. I see the Evil Dark Lord of the Sith Rove behind this, myself....

It’s the best I could do for now....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Thanks, shark and Joe, for getting things started off right.

I started to respond on the other thread to the ludicrous assertions that terrorism is (all or mostly) the result of our foreign policy, and I decided "What’s the point?" That case has been laid out many times with far more care than I could give it today. And it’s clear than there are folks who still just don’t want to hear it.

 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
Billy, I’m sure you have a reason for arguing that, but it escapes me. Look at the reasons presented by OBL, or the Fatwa from ’98. Are you seriously arguing that they crashed airplanes into the WTC in order to convert us to Islam?
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Are we talking a short term view, or a long term view Jon?

Our societies are not compatible, as long as we exist in our current societal style we’re a threat (giving their vimmenfolk bad ideas about equality and independence and such, drawing cartoons of their favorite speaker to God), at least as long as we’re making the globe a smaller place with faster/easier travel and cross pollination of dangerous patterns of thinking (via the airwaves, via the net) that are contrary to their view of absolute truth as written by the Prophet.

First prove they are true powers to be reckoned with, one that can confront the great Satan, gather the faithful, and...
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Oh my. Mention someone who doesn’t want to hear it.... You know, the Liberal Narrative just took a pretty big hit. Oh, not per se, but think of selling popcorn to parents at a parade and then a small child is fatally struck by a float. No more popcorn sales. No more parade.
Guess how long it will take for the Narrative to blame Bush for the chaos at the air terminals? The only worse thing (for the Narrative) would be if NSA surveillance was responsible for finding out about these terrorists. And much as the Liberal Narrative pushers hate the fact, that well may be true. If it is, how "newsworthy" will the NYT find that fact? I think we can count on them to maintain total secrecy on that matter at least.
Mr. Greenwald is already ginning up a "blame Bush" support piece for the Narrative that takes into account this unfortunate new development. So, he will warn, all of you "bedwetters" had better limit your concerns about terrorism during this kerfuffle.
And Jon, they don’t want to convert us. They want to kill us. Yes, I know, my bed is wet.
And, ugh, I guess the Narrative will drop the "Death To Americans" march in Baghdad theme, eh? But it was so...resonant, just yesterday, wasn’t it?
Nevermind. The Ned Lamonts will save us.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Are we talking a short term view, or a long term view Jon?
In the proximate case, Looker. That’s the matter under discussion. We’re not talking about the many reasons why they dislike us, but the reason why they actually attacked us. If they simply wanted to attack free infidels, they could have chosen quite a lot of other countries. They didn’t. They chose the country with whose foreign policies they had a problem.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Jon they declared war on us in ’98... Sure IF we retreat from Saudi Arabia (The Rhineland/the Sudetenland/Danzig Corridor) all will be zehr gute, UNTIL the next demand comes along. Our Foreign Policy is an EXCUSE, not an explanation.

IF we put our daughters in potato sacks, stone gays, punish Jews, and are good Wahabists we’re safe, otherwise we’ve got problems.

But Rob, I believe, is right... you either believe this or you don’t. If you don’t then, we can ameliorate their anger, if you do you just say it’s being the last person the tiger eats but it doesn’t prevent the dining.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Agreed. There’s not much point in walloping the Financial services buildings in Dublin since the Irish don’t have much play in supporting, or opposing, the Saudi Royal family, or the existence of Israel (as examples) on the world stage.

I get your point on the foreign policy.

But I’m suggesting that it’s our invasive culture that they’re after too, not just our invasive foreign policy.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
So, Jon, if we take care to shape our foreign policies always to please these people, the problem is solved? Then we can sing Kumbawa and all be free? Have you thought this through? With the various sects and movements it isn’t even possible to please them all. And various people will found new sects for their nefarious purposes. Sooner or later this concept of jihad must be dealt with. Don’t you watch "The Perfect Nanny"? Appeasement never works.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Are you seriously arguing that they crashed airplanes into the WTC in order to convert us to Islam?
Jon, I can’t shake the feeling that you’re baiting me. But I have time for one substantive reply before I leave for the day.

The exchange went like this:
It was not because they "hate our freedom". We were attacked because they hate our foreign policies. We didn’t deserve it, but there’s no doubt that we were attacked because of our actions.
I suppose the fact that the preferred outcome for our enemies is our conversion or submission to Islam is entirely coincidental.
And that is in fact, one of their stated goals. Islam started out being spread by violence. Are you denying that? Are you denying that the Saudis spend billions trying to spread Islam around the globe? Are you denying that the spiritual leader of the group in the Bali bombings said that the ultimate solution was for everyone to convert to Islam?

Now, to be complete, clearly fundamentalist Islam is quite willing to kill those that cannot be converted. Starting, of course, with the Jews. And they use violence to sap the will of their enemies. But their stated aim is a return to the Caliphate, and a resumption of the spread of Islam, by violence if necessary.

So when you assert "It was not because they ’hate our freedom’", that’s a ludicrous assertion. In fundamentalist Islam, religion and state are one, and there is no room for anything resembling our concept of freedom. Are you denying that? If not, are you denying that hatred of our freedom and way of life is at least one of their motivating factors?

Chamberlain didn’t take Hitler’s "master race" stuff seriously either. And we know the outcome of that one. When we have folks who claim they want to take over the world with their religion, I believe them. In their minds, their immortal souls depend on taking that instruction seriously, so why in the world would you and I not take it seriously too?

"We were attacked because they hate our foreign policies. ...there’s no doubt that we were attacked because of our actions...", that’s only true in the sense that our actions obstruct their ultimate goals, and that we were targeted becasue we are by far the biggest obstacle in their path. Your implication is that there is some set of actions we can take that will mollify them and end the conflict between us, and there’s zero evidence for that position (unless you want to convert to Islam...).

You are assuming rational actors, and religious zealots don’t fit that persona. If they did, then the fact that we’ve fought to save Muslims multiple times in the last twenty years would have some impact on them, but it doesn’t. If that were true, then our pullout in Beirut would have mollified them. But we still got the 1993 WTC bombing a few years later.

I’ve got to spend the rest of the day away from a computer, so I’ll let you reply to your heart’s content. And I’m sure Mona will stop by to insert her usual anti-war strawmen, with her usual set of silly assertions. But if you folks don’t believe that a prime motivation of Islamist fundamentalists is to spread Islam, to the whole world if possible, and by violence on any scale they can manage, then you’re indulging in some serious wishful thinking.
 
Written By: Billy Hollis
URL: http://
What Billy Hollis just said.....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Robert, you don’t have to wait long.

There is no other word for someone like this other than frigging idiot.

So, let me get this straight. The UK terror plot is an attempt to take away from from the freshmakers victory. Wow, just plain wow. Now my worse impressions are given credence.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
I’m certainly happy that the Blair govt. decided that the lives of American and British citizens were more valuable than some phantom ginned up privacy issue. Pinch Sulzberger must be beside himself with rage at Blair’s toltarian invasion of the terrorists rights- and also deeply upset that he’s going to miss out on a chance to excoriate Bush for "not connecting the dots". No 8/10 widows to interview, no (non-photoshopped) smoldering wreckage pics to put on page 1, no John Kerry being able to declare that he were President, this never would’ve happened. No chance to editorialize that Bush’s Israel position cost the lives of innocents. Dark days on the cocktail party circuit indeed.

Sorry Pinch. Maybe next time.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Sigh. It’s not that Billy Hollis, and to a lesser extent McQ, is entirely wrong about the motives of genuine Islamic fundamentalists. It’s that to dwell on it is genuinely counterprodutive.

Ideas create fixed certainty from ambiguity. Branding creates polarization. The Islamic fundamentalists have a goal - to mobilize hundreds of millions/billions of Muslims and others who are mostly apathetic or opinionated but passive. In the same way that Billy Hollis loathes islamic fundamentalists but is not actively hunting them down, the average muslim doesn’t like the US much in this decade, but isn’t actively doing anything about it.

By "focusing" on "communities" , you brand them as enemies of the West. You tell them that that is what they are. And you probably take actions that are either deliberately or incidentally punitive to them. Simply creating a social climate of hostility and suspicion is enough to do that.

An ordinary Muslim might consider the Islamic fundamentalist down the street to be a wacko, in the same way we feel about the religious right. But when he starts hearing the same message - you’re all a bunch of wackos - from the US, from the local non-muslims, etc - then he is being branded from both sides, and he will gravitate to the fundamentalists.

The Islamic fundamentalists can’t turn this into a clash of civilizations by themselves. They need Billy Hollis’ help.

Jon Henke is not completely wrong. We need to compete against the Islamic fundamentalists for the friendship of neutral and semi-neutral Muslims, rather than cooperate with Islamic fundamentalists in demonizing the middle.

 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
What’s worse capt joe, is that there’s >300 comments, (from a quick scan) almost all of which agreeing with the guy on that post.

Terrorist plot to blow up planes foiled, yet it’s a grand BushCo plot to distract from Lieberman’s primary race loss. I don’t think I have the words to describe my disbelief.
 
Written By: Bill W.
URL: http://
Billy, I agree with you. There is a constant game of self blame that we attach to our policies. Sort of if we weren’t such b@#tards then they would not bomb us. All of this flies in the face of how they seem to react to us.

As was pointed out here:
* Immediately before the Islamic Revolution in Iran, France sheltered Ayatollah Khomeini and gave him a platform to talk about peace and justice with the Western media. France’s reward was getting their peacekeepers blown up in Beirut and Iranian dissidents assassinated in Paris.
* The West embraced Iranian President Muhammad Khatami’s “Dialogue of civilizations.” Khatami showed his sincerity when, on October 24, 2000, he told an Iranian television audience, "In the Qur’an, God commanded to kill the wicked and those who do not see the rights of the oppressed… If we abide by human laws, we should mobilize the whole Islamic World for a sharp confrontation with the Zionist regime… If we abide by the Qur’an, all of use should mobilize to kill.” The West engaged him.
* Germany decided to engage Iran in the early 1990s. Iran responded several months later by assassinating dissidents at the Mykonos café.
* British engagement of radical Islam has backfired repeatedly. And don’t forget the pseudo-official outreach by former CIA and MI-6 officials to Hezbollah and Hamas.
* Academic and media elites rally around Muslim Brotherhood heir Tariq Ramadan, but remain silent when the State Department bans Issam Abu Issa, the secular liberal man who blew the whistle on Palestinian Authority corruption—at the Palestinian Authority’s request.
* Both the White House and law enforcement legitimize radical self-described “civil rights” groups like CAIR, often at the expense of moderate groups less prone to appear to apologize for terror.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
And quite a lot of you are indulging in strawman arguments. There’s no doubt that some Islamists want to spread the Caliphate by force, if necessary, but that is not why 9/11 happened. They attacked us in response to our policies. Your conflation of "they believe X, so X must be the reason they attacked us" is thoroughly non sequitur.

If it was simply a matter of hating the free infidels, there’s no particular reason why they’d attack the US, as opposed to, say, Norway. They specifically attacked the US because of our foreign policy. Bin Laden specifically claimed the attacks were retribution for US actions in the Middle East. He did the same in his Fatwa.

I’m aware that they have grand visions of an eventual caliphate, but that was not the reason for the 9/11 attacks. I am, frankly, amazed that intelligent people would think otherwise.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
RF: "So, Jon, if we take care to shape our foreign policies always to please these people, the problem is solved? Then we can sing Kumbawa and all be free? Have you thought this through?"

CAPT JOE: "There is a constant game of self blame that we attach to our policies. Sort of if we weren’t such b@#tards then they would not bomb us."
And you two need some remedial reading comprehension. At no point have I suggested that they were right to attack us, or that any specific policy was wrong.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
The Left is not only blaming the administration and the GOP for the alert, they are saying it is all a plot to derail...Ned Lamont:

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/08/lieberman-loses-code-red-code-red-code.html

If it wasn’t so sad, it would be hilarious!
 
Written By: ElcubanitoKC
URL: http://
At least, Jon, you are saying this is a plot against Ned Lamont victory which places you in a better spot than John Aravois. ;)
At no point have I suggested that they were right to attack us, or that any specific policy was wrong.
And I did not say you said that.

I am aware of OBL fatwa. He key issue was US troops in Saudi Arabia. I would suggest that if those troops were not there there would probably be another reason. The US was going to be hit nonetheless. AQ long believed that if they hit the US hard enough, then the US would drop out is a fit of isolationalist pique. Once the US was out of the picture they would have a free hand at changing the ME to be what they want.

My point is that we need to punish the radicals and encourage the moderates. We sure aren’t encouraging moderates. We are trying to coddle the radicals at the cost of the moderates.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
They attacked us in response to our policies.
What policy was that, Jon?

Our policy of protecting Kuwait and Saudia Arabia from Saddam?

Our policy of protectecting Muslims from the Serbs, and doing the heavy lifting for the KLA?

Our policy of feeding Muslims in Somolia?

Our policy of brokering peace between Israel and the PLO?

Note that OBL did hate us for defending SA . . . he wanted his guys to do that.

And certainly Arafat turned down an offer for 90% of what he wanted in the last peace talks . . . (and no doubt he would have been killed if he accepted a peace plan).

While policy issues are intertwined in this, it really isn’t the key reason. Arafat never really intended to sign a peace plan, and to OBL defending SA was secondary to who defended it.

The US is the prime target not due to US forign policy, but due to our preeminence in the Western world. This is why we get so much focus, as opposed to Russia or France, both of which are intertwined in the ME, supporting dictators, etc., and in the case of Russia committing real attrocities against Muslims on a large scale.

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
The Islamic fundamentalists can’t turn this into a clash of civilizations by themselves. They need Billy Hollis’ help
Ok Billy....you better inform the FBI about your movements on 9/11. Looks like Glasnost has the goods on you.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Jon you’re being an idiot on this.... You can’t accept that their ideology puts them on a collison course with us. IF we had "better" policies they’d STILL want the Caliphate and we’d still be under attack. UNLESS we are Wahabists we’re WRONG and sooner or later they’d have to correct our Infidel or Heretic behavior. You act as if their ideology DOESN’T play a role in their decisions...Believe what you will, I can’t chagne it and wouldn’t even try.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
"At no point have I suggested that ... any specific policy was wrong. "
I don’t know what you were thinking, but what you wrote above...well, I sometimes write something that doesn’t stand up under scrutiny. The above assertion wouldn’t make it out of yesterday’s posts.

No problem. I understand that, for a purveyor of the Liberal Narrative, today is the equivalent of 9/11. Take a look at the Huffington Post today. Any issues of interest to discuss?
"Rice Discusses Lebanon Humanitarian Crisis With Israeli PM: "We’ve Had This Experience, With Katrina"...
Arianna Huffington: Joe Lieberman: Spoiler-ed Rotten
David Sirota: For Dems, Lamont Helps, and Lieberman Becomes a Clear &
Present Danger
Raymond J. Learsy: Bravo BP! Those Record Earnings Really Help. Alaska
and the Nation Thank You!
Eugene Jarecki: Truman Haunts Us"
"Ah, yes. We’ll get around to that terroroist thing. Couldn’t quite squeeze it in today - you understand, with the Truman thing and all...."

Reality slaps the Liberal Narrative upside the head. Other than the idiocy cited by Capt Joe above, [I graciously leave out our resident Narrator’s brave efforts] and the idiocy to come from Mona, until they can caucus and amend The Narrative appropriately, they have nothing to say. They are like the chorus at practice when no music has been handed out. "Quick, quick, we’re on. What do I say?"
No problem. Until the NYT gets it together from the usual sources the Narrative will stutter. Soon enough all will be on board. Wonder what distortion of reality we will be subjected to?
Will Huffington support it? [hahahahahaha] Sorry.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
You can’t accept that their ideology puts them on a collison course with us.
I’ve said no such thing.
IF we had "better" policies they’d STILL want the Caliphate and we’d still be under attack.
No, if we’d stayed out of the Middle East entirely, they would have had no more reason to attack us than Japan or Brazil. They may eventually, in some far-off realm of their imagination, have the goal of converting us by force, but their motivation for the 9/11 attack was our foreign policies.

You guys keep saying that they’d eventually want to convert us, but that really has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
The Narrative before the British announcement: "This is your mind."

The Narrative immediately after the announcement: "This is your mind on drugs."

The Narrative after the NYT speaks: "This is your mind."
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
I’m aware that they have grand visions of an eventual caliphate, but that was not the reason for the 9/11 attacks. I am, frankly, amazed that intelligent people would think otherwise.
What I see as motivation is irrational hate, based upon a number of factors, but they boil down to envy, and self doubt in a culture that claims to be superior. Western cultural and military dominance is galling. America is the greatest example of Western success, hence the target of their hate.

US forign policy is an issue primarly because it reminds them of Western superiority and their own failings. Note that Jordan or Syria can mass murder Muslims, and it isn’t the issue it is when Israel or the US kill in an act of restrained warfare; Jordanian and Syrian actions don’t rub in the salt of Western superiority.

Even when we act to the benifit of Muslims, we are hated, because any action we take reminds them of Western success and Muslim failure.
No, if we’d stayed out of the Middle East entirely, they would have had no more reason to attack us than Japan or Brazil. They may eventually, in some far-off realm of their imagination, have the goal of converting us by force, but their motivation for the 9/11 attack was our foreign policies.
Obviously, they want to kill us, not convert us.

When you say "if we’d stayed out of the Middle East entirely,", do you mean sever all economic ties, or just government actions?

They would still hate us, for our economic and cultural imports, and we would still represent the dominance of Western culture. Hence, they would still attack us. As long as we represent the peak of Western success, we are the target. It will take quite a few terror attacks before it is time for them to set their sights on Brazil.
You guys keep saying that they’d eventually want to convert us, but that really has nothing to do with the matter under discussion.
They want us to
submit
. They would probably accept conversion as a form of submission to Islam. Then again, Arabs are killing black Muslims in the Sudan, so perhaps not . . .



 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
In my last post, it was supposed to be submit, not
submit
Sorry.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Jon did the Nazi’s declare war on us because of the Neutrality Patrols or Lend Lease or because they were a Totalitarian Dictatorship bent on world domination... DOES IT MATTER?

Jon the Islamist would HAVE to attack the US, sooner, not later, even IF we adopted a L/libertarian policy. HELLOOOOOOO Libertarians believe in Free Trade, Globalization... We’d be impinging on their life and morality ANY WAY, thru our trade and cultural influence.

You L/libertarians amaze me... it’s our Foreign Policy they hate, well of course and if Michael Badnarik were President they’d still be d@amned unhappy with Playboy and Pepsi-Cola and yur efforts to flog it around the world for added share-holder value.

This is it, as friends of my friend sometimes say, "Be blind if you want to." I can’t argue it with yuo because it’s Definitonal....One either accepts certain axioms or one does not. You don’t... I think you’re being blind, but then you think otherwise and think that I’m the one with the blinders.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
In my last post, it was supposed to be submit, not
submit
Sorry.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
It seems to me that, if we want to live in peace, we have to submit to Muslims. Either through conversion or some other process. Given developments in the Sudan and elsewhere, that’s not a guarantee, but it would buy us peace for awhile.

Alternatively, we could take an economic hit and let someone else be the Big Dog for awhile (France no doubt would like to be the Big Dog, but that’s a streach). If we impliment a sufficiently leftist policy we can hurt our economy, and thereby reduce our significance. Problem is, it would take a big hit to put us in second place. To attain this goal, I recommend Al Gore for president and a full backing of his environmental priorities.

But even the strategy of economic failure is short term; at some point, if undefeated, Islam will come a knocking . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Heck, it could be 10 years before we need to worry about any serious threat from the Caliphate, right?

Israel continues to be our strong shield in the Middle East and as long as they’re willing to hold and die we’re probably mostly okay, except for a few attempts to punish us now and again, like the attempts Britain de-railed today.

Why worry about the future!

Who’s favored on Idol?

Snark
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
OK. Enough fun. What I really think is that the timing of the announcement was such [Rove?] that the lefties would have no time for damage control. Reality would have a brief place in the sun before the Narrative could squelch it. The 300 commenters, referred to above, seized upon what was offered. By tradition in lefty blogs, it makes no difference if the story changes dramatically tomorrow. Leftists follow the Narrative, in fact are lost without it. Therefore, they are very forgiving. One never sees in a lefty blog “Yes, but yesterday you said…” That would be dissention, a cardinal sin. The Emperor [the Narrative] may have on a pink hat or puce hat, but it is always the Emperor. Those causing dissention are soon tossed out. So, whatever idiocy is agreed upon today will soon merge seamlessly into The Narrative, whatever it turns out to be. Only a few of the brighter liberals will not be able to stomach the comedy and will begin to rethink the delegation of their mind to The Narrative.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
It seems to me that, if we want to live in peace, we have to submit to Muslims. Either through conversion or some other process. Given developments in the Sudan and elsewhere, that’s not a guarantee, but it would buy us peace for awhile.

Alternatively, we could take an economic hit and let someone else be the Big Dog for awhile (France no doubt would like to be the Big Dog, but that’s a streach). If we impliment a sufficiently leftist policy we can hurt our economy, and thereby reduce our significance. Problem is, it would take a big hit to put us in second place. To attain this goal, I recommend Al Gore for president and a full backing of his environmental priorities.

But even the strategy of economic failure is short term; at some point, if undefeated, Islam will come a knocking . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Aren’t these the same guys who shot the Brazillian electrican?
 
Written By: cindyb
URL: http://
Yes, CindyB AND who got bombed on their busses and Tube lines... your point is what? It’s all a Dark Plot or a case of Racial Stereotyping designed to inflame public opinon and foster a climate of Fear, so that the Sheeple continue to live in the Fascist Police State they’ve allowed to be created, in spite of the valiant efforts of M. Moore, Dean, and Kos?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Ok, several things.

First, Jon is correct as to the reasons AQ attacked us; it is our foreign policy. I retract my snarky, Ward Churchill comments to Dale from yesterday on that score.

Second, I strongly agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a very serious threat to the West, but not an existential one, and I do not see dealing with them as anything like a conventional "war." Police action by Scotland Yard is responsible for foiling this latest plot. These jihadists are British citzens, as is Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" now mercifully rotting in the Colorado Super Max prison. These people are not acting on behalf of nation-states; they are terrorists bubbling up in Western democracies.

Third, no matter the denials, the Western media cowered in craven fear and overhwelmingly would not publish the notorious Danish Cartoons. THAT is among the ways jihadists are (successfully) seeking to control us, via terror. We don’t know where they all might be amongst us — either citizens or legal immigrants/persons on Visas — and so we fearfully seek not to incite them.

But these cretins do not pose an existential threat to the West or to the United States. War on them makes sense when a Taliban is brazenly hosting them and their training camps and they are integral to the government. Otherwise, they are largely diffuse, and police action is the key to stopping them.

War in Iraq does not solve this problem. It may well have exacerbated it.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Let me know how that police action stuff works out when a fundamentalist Iran finally goes nuclear and closes the Straits of Hormuz (no threat to the West, eh, yeah, gotcha, right)

And who the heck let IRAQ into this conversation?

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
No Mona, I agree just like those Little Yellow Fellows in Japan really represent no threat to us either....and of course, Mona the fact that so many outlets wouldn’t publish or talk about the Danish cartoons is no sign of the CURRENT reach of the Islamo-Fascists, no, no need to be concerned. The West caved to guys who represent no existential threaat to the US or the West, just imagine how the West will react if they acquire nuclear weapons...

Mona you’re right, they don’t represent an existential threat now... but in the future they will, kind of like that Hitler fellow in 1933. So it is your advice to wait UNTIL they represent an existential threat before we react, even though they say, NOW they want us all dead?

Excuse me if I think that’s a poor policy decision....
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
War in Iraq does not solve this problem. It may well have exacerbated it.
Ever notice how closely liberal Dems like Mona (yes yes, I know you claim to be libertarian) echo the terrorist’s talking points?

Honestly, 3,000 dead, 2 skyscrapers collapsed BEFORE Iraq......but we’ve made the problem worse.

Sheesh.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Otherwise, they are largely diffuse, and police action is the key to stopping them.
Weren’t you one of the hordes yelling about the wrongness of various Bush NSA programs? You cannot have it both ways Mona.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
I’m aware that they have grand visions of an eventual caliphate, but that was not the reason for the 9/11 attacks. I am, frankly, amazed that intelligent people would think otherwise.
Well I for one am not amazed that people who consider themselves intelligent presume they are capable of knowing what motivates millitant zealot followers of a foreign religion with which they are wholly unfamiliar and whose tribal society possesses mores and values completely outside of their experience. Intelligent people often presume all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with reality.

Have you considered, Jon, that you may projecting your own sense western rationality onto these people? If Bin Laden told you to your face exactly why he attacked us on 9/11, you being who you are, and he being who he is, what makes you think it would make any sense to you?

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Sure IF we retreat from Saudi Arabia (The Rhineland/the Sudetenland/Danzig Corridor) all will be zehr gute, UNTIL the next demand comes along.
Well, we did leave Saudi Arabia. We also removed a secular dictator that stood in the way of a new Caliphate. And we have greatly increased hatred of Western governments amongst Muslims in the Middle East.

Does anyone have a check list of bin Laden’s goals?
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
First, Jon is correct as to the reasons AQ attacked us; it is our foreign policy. . . These jihadists are British citzens, as is Richard Reid, the "shoe bomber" now mercifully rotting in the Colorado Super Max prison. These people are not acting on behalf of nation-states; they are terrorists bubbling up in Western democracies. Mona
Why are British citizens attacking us for our forign policy? Particularly if they are not acting on behalf of nation states? Did they find out that grandpa was really an "over paid, over sexed & over here Yank"?

And why do they choose to attack civilians, if forign policy is the goal? Particularly since Iraq is currently unpopular in the US, and one supposes that British citizens who are interested in politics read about Bush’s poll ratings daily in the Guardian.

Further, why are the using methods that will ensure more US forign policy of the likes of Iraq?
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Well I for one am not amazed that people who consider themselves intelligent presume they are capable of knowing what motivates millitant zealot followers of a foreign religion with which they are wholly unfamiliar and whose tribal society possesses mores and values completely outside of their experience. Intelligent people often presume all sorts of things that have little or nothing to do with reality.
Which is exactly why every single backer of the War in Iraq should simply STFU. They have absolutley no clue how Iraqi society works, and yet they claim to know that the United States can simply waltz in and turn it into a democracy.

It’s just fascinating to watch the war backers talk out of both sides of their mouth. On the one hand, they claim that we cannot know the minds of those from the Middle East who would seek to do us harm and what motivates them. And then they turn right around and claim that BushCo (of all people) possesses the know how and smarts to completely re-work Iraqi society into a Jeffersonian democracy.

Yes Peter, the Middle East is complicated - very complicated. That is what we who have opposed the Iraq War have been saying all along. Three years and 2600 dead Americans later, the right is finally figuring that out.

Bush, February 2003: "There are Sunnis and Shia in Iraq? I thought that Iraqis were Muslim."
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
we have greatly increased hatred of Western governments amongst Muslims in the Middle East.
And your proof of this?

hmmm, so what were we doing before to make things worse when al Queda used this particular type of plot...

http://counterterrorismblog.org/2006/08/alqaidas_use_of_liquid_bombs_t.php
Though for some, news of a reported Al-Qaida plot to down multiple commercial airliners with liquid explosives may sound exotic and unusual, in fact, U.S. authorities have been aware of such a threat from Al-Qaida affiliates for over a decade.

In 1995, when U.S. and Philippine security services uncovered a plot by 1993 World Trade Center bomber Ramzi Yousef and his uncle 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to bomb over a dozen U.S. airliners simultaneously over the Pacific Ocean [Operation Bojinka], they quickly moved in and arrested their co-conspirators. One of the detained men, trained commercial pilot Abdel Hakim Murad, described Ramzi Yousef’s plans in detail — including his intention to travel to "France, Egypt, and Algeria after the activities here in the Philippines. The purpose was to train those Muslim brothers thereat, on using a Casio watch as a timing device, chemical mixtures to compound bombs, and to share his expertise in eluding detection on an airport’s x-ray machine, and eventually smuggling [onboard] this liquid chemical bombs. Furthermore, France has a lot of Algerians staying and that these Egyptians and Algerians ha[ve] no experience on making these bombs and [do] not know the basics of smuggling liquid bombs through the airport."
 
Written By: Keith, Indy
URL: http://
But these cretins do not pose an existential threat to the West or to the United States. Mona
Not to the US. Denmark, France, and Britian are a different matter . . .

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Shark writes:
Weren’t you one of the hordes yelling about the wrongness of various Bush NSA programs? You cannot have it both ways Mona.
At no time— not ever — have I argued it is "wrong" for the NSA to eavesdrop on conversations with terror suspects. That should be going on, but legally. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was drafted and amended specifically to apply to terrorism scenarios. It allows for warrantless surveillance for 72 hours, to meet emergencies, and if Bush made the case for it FISA would be amended to allow it for weeks — but at some point a judge would still have to pass on the propriety.

Bush didn’t ask for any such amendments, however; he is simply violating the law on an ongoing basis.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Bush, February 2003: "There are Sunnis and Shia in Iraq? I thought that Iraqis were Muslim."
Hey MK. Welcome to 2006. Have anything useful to add here?

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
As the other Joe, points out, history has a funny way of turning out.

In the 1870s, Japan was still living in the 1500’s with samurai pledging allegiances to daimyo and a four caste social structure. 40 years later they completely humiliated a great power (Russia) both at land and sea.

In the 20s, Germany was a broken nation and some strange little man with a Chaplin mustache was goose stepping around with little more than a bunch of street thugs. 15 years latter, he is threatening to conquer the entire continent and destroy an entire people.

No one at that time ever thought things would play out the way they did. We certainly don’t know who will become the next evil empire but there are trending indicators and the Muslim world has a lot of them.

You know Mona, I disagree with you a lot of the time but I agree with some of your points in the last post. Notably, by succumbing to threats, we give terror its worth
Third, no matter the denials, the Western media cowered in craven fear and overhwelmingly would not publish the notorious Danish Cartoons. THAT is among the ways jihadists are (successfully) seeking to control us, via terror. We don’t know where they all might be amongst us — either citizens or legal immigrants/persons on Visas — and so we fearfully seek not to incite them.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Bush, February 2003: "There are Sunnis and Shia in Iraq? I thought that Iraqis were Muslim."

Written By: mkultra



Here is a 2002 Bush speech:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

It contains this statement:
If the Iraqi regime wishes peace, it will cease persecution of its civilian population, including Shi’a, Sunnis, Kurds, Turkomans, and others, again as required by Security Council resolutions.
Mkultra is just repeating a lie made by Peter Galbraith, son of the idiot who felt the USSR’s economic system was superior to that of the US.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And your proof of this?
What metric would you like to use? Public sentiment? Number of terrorist attacks? Common sense? Something else?

Whatever you choose, I’m sure my assertion will stand.
hmmm, so what were we doing before to make things worse when al Queda used this particular type of plot...
Apparently we are waging a war on a concept. Like every other war on a concept — War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. — it is succesfully increasing the size and power of governments and infringing on the rights of citizens. And like those other wars on concepts, there is no way to declare a victory.
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
Bush, February 2003: "There are Sunnis and Shia in Iraq? I thought that Iraqis were Muslim."
Sorry to tell you this but that statement has been debunked.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Apparently we are waging a war on a concept. Like every other war on a concept — War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. — it is succesfully increasing the size and power of governments and infringing on the rights of citizens. And like those other wars on concepts, there is no way to declare a victory
You are SO right dude, wars on concepts never have an end; like the war on Fascism and Nazism or the War on Communism...oh wait.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Hey MK. Welcome to 2006. Have anything useful to add here?
He doesn’t want to talk about Muslim fundamental terrorists and
their problem with the West, which can be proven to exist when Dem’s were setting American foreign policy and before Bush’s White House arrival.

He wants to talk about Iraq, so we can talk about Iraqi policy blunders, which brings us to the Bush administration.

Which is what he wants to talk about.

This whole thing is completely Bush’s fault, we shouldn’t vote for him for President EVER again!

And we should STFU because of some chickenhawk like meme he’s established that the Iraqi’s aren’t ready for democracy in any way, and we should have left Hussein in power,
or
established some other form of totalitarian, one man rule or theocratic government once Hussein was removed from power.

Iraq never had anything to do with terrorists or supporting them (aside from the Martyrs fund for the Palestinians and some training camps with airplane mockups and direct threats made to the American ambassador prior to the Gulf War in 1991 specifically mentioning attacks by individual groups of Arabs rather than an entire Arab state because of the inability of any Arab state to directly confront the US on a military basis.)
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
You are SO right dude, wars on concepts never have an end; like the war on Fascism and Nazism or the War on Communism...oh wait.
Yes, we no longer have fascist governments, communist governments, and nazis (neo or otherwise). Great point.
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
Mkultra is just repeating a lie made by Peter Galbraith, son of the idiot who felt the USSR’s economic system was superior to that of the US.
And your proof Bush knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite is a speech someone else wrote for him?

Ha ha ha ha ..... You just made my day. Thanks
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Apparently we are waging a war on a concept. Like every other war on a concept — War on Poverty, War on Drugs, etc. — it is succesfully increasing the size and power of governments and infringing on the rights of citizens. And like those other wars on concepts, there is no way to declare a victory.
Unlike the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs, no one running the War on Terror really thinks it is a war on terror. Rather, it is a war on radical Islamics, who have a histroy of using terror.

The use of the phrase War on Terror is dictated by politics and politically correct concearns.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
And we should STFU because of some chickenhawk like meme he’s established that the Iraqi’s aren’t ready for democracy in any way, and we should have left Hussein in power, or established some other form of totalitarian, one man rule or theocratic government once Hussein was removed from power.
We have established a theocratic government. Heard what’s going on in Basra? Or Baghdad for that matter? Women can’t walk the streets without their heads covered. Men must wear beards.

Did you see the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Baghdad the other day - in a government sponsored march - shouting Death to America?

Meanwhile, if you believe the news reports, the latest if that the guys arrested today had ties to Pakistan. You know, that little country that is supposedly our ally in the GWOT. You know, that nation that is the birth mother to the Taliban. You know, that nation that allowed AQ Khan to spread nuke technology around the world. You know, that nation that is likely harboring OBL as we speak.

Gosh, good thing we invaded Iraq. We really showed those Pakistanis whose boss.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
And your proof Bush knew the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite is a speech someone else wrote for him?
And your proof he didn’t is what?


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Yes, we no longer have fascist governments, communist governments, and nazis (neo or otherwise). Great point.
Well do we, or rather do they represent a threat to the stability of the world and isn’t their ideology laughed at and derided? I mean the only Maoists left are in NEPAL, and I don’t see Marxist-Leninism driving the PRC. Or have I missed some resurgence of Fascism, except in DC and London? Exactly how many folks are preaching International Proleterian Solidarity, except those with tenure at US universities?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Yes, we no longer have fascist governments, communist governments, and nazis (neo or otherwise). Great point.


Oh, I see, we’re not successful unless we’ve gotten all of them, then, and forever. Great point!

Communists,
1 down,
1 starving,
1 staggering around the Caribbean
Several acting a lot like pretty good capitalists

Remaining Facist countries? (the NAZI’s were a?....hint hint)



 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Meanwhile, if you believe the news reports, the latest if that the guys arrested today had ties to Pakistan. You know, that little country that is supposedly our ally in the GWOT. You know, that nation that is the birth mother to the Taliban. You know, that nation that allowed AQ Khan to spread nuke technology around the world. You know, that nation that is likely harboring OBL as we speak.
Our "supposed alley" helped crack the case:

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/10/D8JDOCA00.html

The terrorists seem to be British citizens of Pakistani decent:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/08/the_anatomy_of_.html

 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Oh, I see, we’re not successful unless we’ve gotten all of them, then, and forever. Great point!
No, we are successful when our ideology wins out over their ideology. You can’t destroy an idea. You can discredit the idea with better ideas and minimalize its impact.
Communists,
1 down,
Because our ideas won. Free markets, free people.
1 starving,
The people are, but the government has nukes.
1 staggering around the Caribbean
We should have lifted the embargo decades ago. Our ideas (free markets) would have won out. If we do start trading with Cuba again, I have no doubt that our ideas will win.
Several acting a lot like pretty good capitalists
I think you are wanting to point to China, but I would suggest that you take a good look at their economy. It’s only capitalist in the ways that benefits the authoritarian government.
Remaining Facist countries? (the NAZI’s were a?....hint hint)
Throw a dart at Africa or Central Asia.

My larger point here is...what are the victory conditions for the war on radical Islamics? Our government has assumed extraordinary powers because we are at war. It has used this war footing to justify numerous things that are, at the very least, constitutionally dubious. Reasonable people can disagree on the necessity of those powers, but if we are at war, then we need to know what the end goal is and at what point the government will cede its increased authority.

We successfully defeated the Soviet Union without giving the president the power to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial. Now that this president has assumed that power, when will the executive give it up, e.g. when does this war end?
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
And your proof he didn’t is what?
Galbraith is hardly the only journalist who has reported that Bush was ignorant of the difference between Sunnis and Shia. George Packer reported it too - over three years ago in the NYT Magazine:
Bush is a man who has never shown much curiosity about the world. When he met with Makiya and two other Iraqis in January, I was told by someone not present, the exiles spent a good portion of the time explaining to the president that there are two kinds of Arabs in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites
But they all must be lying! Lying!!!! Anyone who says anything bad about Bush must be lying.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
We successfully defeated the Soviet Union without giving the president the power to indefinitely detain US citizens without trial.
Say dude ever hear of the Smith Act...it made BEING a Communist illegal...
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
The terrorists seem to be British citizens of Pakistani decent:
From Ross’s article:
Two of them are believed to have recently traveled to Pakistan and were later in receipt of money wired to them from Pakistan, reportedly to purchase tickets for the suicide bombers
Not merely Pakistani descent. If you go there and get money from there, you have ties to Pakistan.

 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Say dude ever hear of the Smith Act...it made BEING a Communist illegal...
Is this the type of law you advocate?
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
It has used this war footing to justify numerous things that are
Oh, please - this isn’t a war footing!
This is another one of our police actions and the national frame of mind shows it.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
No NRM but you got "fearful" of arrest WITHOUT TRIAL...OH MY... and yet talked about the Cold War Era and managed to miss the Smith Act, and yet here we are still a democracy... so let’s put our "concerns" in a historical framework shall we? And finally how the libertarian/Progressive railed about the National Security State of the Cold War, how soon they want to forget. "Oh yeah we beat the Commies and so why worry about the Islamists?"-except of course those folks didn’t like the efforts it took to beat the Communists.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Galbraith is hardly the only journalist who has reported that Bush was ignorant of the difference between Sunnis and Shia. George Packer reported it too - over three years ago in the NYT Magazine:
That’s okay, MK. Just upthread you posted this:
We have established a theocratic government. Heard what’s going on in Basra? Or Baghdad for that matter? Women can’t walk the streets without their heads covered. Men must wear beards.

Did you see the hundreds of thousands in the streets of Baghdad the other day - in a government sponsored march - shouting Death to America?
Apparently you don’t know the difference between Al Sadr’s "Madhi Army" followers and the other 95% of Shia in Iraq. So, you know, glass houses, etc.

yours/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
Joe, did the Smith Act help beat the Commies? Did it actually have any measurable effect on the Cold War?

If I had been alive while the Smith Act was being used I would have railed about it. The same way I rail this government about imprisoning citizens without due process. OH MY.

Yet my question still stands. When does this war end?
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
Not merely Pakistani descent. If you go there and get money from there, you have ties to Pakistan.
Hmmmmm
I wonder if the money wired from Pakistan originated in Pakistan.
I wonder if they wired it using SWIFT (heh heh)
Bush is a man who has never shown much curiosity about the world. When he met with Makiya and two other Iraqis in January, I was told by someone not present, the exiles spent a good portion of the time explaining to the president that there are two kinds of Arabs in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites
....Or they spent a great deal of time talking about something that mattered to them when they had a chance to speak to the President. We don’t really know how much he knew himself, we just know what they were talked about.

Nah, we should assume just because they talked about it that it indicates Bush didn’t have any clue at all.....
Think how exciting that would have looked in the news ’Bush presumes to know more about Sunnis and Shiites than Iraqis!’

MK, I was told by someone not present that you always know more about a country than people you meet from that country, and you let them know it right up front.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Why are 2nd and 3rd Gen Muslims willing to kill fellow citizens, and say defending Islamics is higher priority than being peaceful Brits?

Well, blame the religion, but also blame many more culpable parties than ISlam.

We live in a world where the intelligensia and Ruling Elites tell us the future of Mankind is instantaneous communications, and no nations or borders stopping "Freedom" - of free flow of capital, jobs, resources, labor - to where the owners of such can optimally exploit their use.

We are told patriotism is archaic, that nations are artificial and a "respectable member of the Elite" holds several citizenships. That multinational corporations workers and execs have no loyalty to
the nation(s) they are citizens of, and may work directly against those nations because the higher loyalty is to the firm. "Cosmopolitans" like the people that left the Soviet Union and other certain ethnics with wide expat communities - maintain they owe no allegiance but to the country that currently offers the maximum safety, money-making opportunities..as long as they are free to go as soon as a better "deal" happens....

All well and good, as long we recognize that if nations go, we will have to have a replacement Central Organizing Principle.

1. Transnationals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch envision International Law and global jurists replacing or supplanting national Constitutions.

2. British Pakistanis, and many many Islamics in other countries have the answer - Islam. Islam and Islamic Law can be supreme over all - thus Believers owe no loyalty to any nation, only to their fellow Believers. Islam perfectly addresses "outmoded nationhood" because Islam never believed in nations - only the Ummah headed by a politico-religious Caliphate.

3. Europe has the idea that voters of nations are imperfect vessels and the best government comes from Ministry Elites from the finest schools making the most important decisions.

4. The old transnationalist dream was "Only the UN has total moral authority" - since all nations have a vote. That all real matters belong under a UN committee of designated nations to decide on.....or why a Nebraska export crop price is best set by a panel of Indonesia, Argentina, Moldava, Syria, and Jamaica, under the Chairmanship of a senior Gaboonian diplomat.

5. As a counterbalance to Islam, Lev Bronstein (Trotsky) and the Bolsheviks offered the religion of borderless, transnational communism....lately in ill-repute...which is why the Left now flocks to the NGO-favored international lawyers ruling, elite intelligensia ruling, or the UN.

In many Western nations, until quite recently as "multi-culti", wealthy citizen of the world, and "tolerance" arose as concepts - we thought the issue was settled that nations were the best vehicle to represent a people. Not perfect, but recognizing that Japan has it’s own way and Tanzania’s UN delegates or Jewish-financed Leftist NGOs, or Arab clerics Fatwas have no business as part of a "global community" ordering about the Japanese or passing laws they must obey.

Where nationhood is weak - where patriotism and loyalty are laughed at as bad jokes - is where banuiels burn, where wealthy owner elites burn their countries national security secrets for fun and profit, where lobbies undermine their own nations policies to favor a foreign nation or people they favor more, where UK Pakis say it is cool to kill fellow British citizens just as long as they are infidels they have no fellowship with.

If we wish to stop this, we must bolster national loyalty and show or push to the exit door - anyone who says they have a "higher loyalty" to their religion, ethnicity, employer, or what Global Leader Kofi Amman wants.

Otherwise, pick your new "Central Organizing Principle" that replaces nationhood as the primary governing unit.

*Islam?
*Kofi & Friends?
*Lefty Expert International Bureaucrats and Lawyers?
*Communism?
*Transnational Corporate Cronyism?

If we pick nations as the still-best central principle and reject the Communists, Islamists, Ruling Elites, transnationals, and intelligensia’s claims they no longer have legitimacy -and strengthen them - we will have to insist that everyone obeys the rules and has no foreign loyalty, or higher loyalty to overseas religions. Or they will have to be cleansed out of our midst...Barred from jobs, immigration, refugee rights, visitor’s visas...except for rare cases of scholarship or business necessity. As we did with the Commies during the Cold War, and Nazis pre-WWII. And we will have to have laws that deter those that seek to destroy "nationhood" through cultural assaults like the ACLU loves to do with lawsuits, PC punishment mechanisms on campuses and at multinationals.

 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
How many people have been tried for being communists under the Smith act?
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
Pretty f*cking sad that in a thread about a major terror bust, MK can only come on here posting negative things about.....Pres. Bush.

Then again, given his track record, not suprising.

No man likes to bash his friends....
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Apparently you don’t know the difference between Al Sadr’s "Madhi Army" followers and the other 95% of Shia in Iraq. So, you know, glass houses, etc.
Most estimates of the Mahdi Army put its membership at around 10,000. The recent protests had hundreds of thousands of marchers.

Sadr’s support is widespread and growing.

Nice try though, Peter.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
Pretty f*cking sad that in a thread about a major terror bust, MK can only come on here posting negative things about.....Pres. Bush.

Then again, given his track record, not suprising.
The British made the bust. Bush is on vacation. There’s brush to clear at the ranch. Because, after all, it’s not like there is a lot going on in the world right now.
 
Written By: mkultra
URL: http://
How many people have been tried for being communists under the Smith act?

Written By: timactual
The more appropriate question is: How many Communists were barred from jobs, welfare, teaching jobs, military positions, union work - on account of being Communists loyal to the Soviet Union and disloyal to America? And, how many were denied visas, or from mass immigration to the USA? Or blacklisted and cleansed from organizations like the ACLU (briefly - they were back by the 70s). Or deported.

Answer is that like Nazi Party members, there was no need to try Commies in mass numbers. Just roll up the welcome mat and make it clear they are not wanted.

It may have to be done to the Islamofascists. No trial, just a ticket back to Camel Land.


 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
There’s brush to clear at the ranch. Because, after all, it’s not like there is a lot going on in the world right now.
What, now you’re going to deny the man a vacation too?
And heaven knows there’s no communication to Crawford from the outside world, I mean only the White House has a phone system. Crawford is in Texas after all, and what could those hicks know about phones or radios or paved roads or such like things.

The fact that the MSM never had any problem getting Cindy Sheehan photo-ops out of Texas for the world to view shouldn’t affect your view on how much information can be delivered to the ranch in Crawford....
I’m sure the millions of people who work away from the office every day will be disappointed to hear they have to be AT the office in order to be productive.

Listen to yourself once and a while will ya, and consider how cheap some of your feelings are.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Relax folks. The comments of the liberals here today are no worse than any other time. It’s just that you have had a shot of reality (to which the followers of the Liberal Narrative are immune) and the assinity of their comments stands out in bas relief. They are no more ridiculous than they always have been. NRM is firmly grounded in the Narrative: to wit, the most important topic to discuss on this day is Bush detaining a suspected terrorist without a trial. "THAT"S the important thing. All of this bother about terrorist plots, which aren’t even existential (to quote anther idiot). All of this terrorist stuff is just a Rovian distraction from the important business of getting Democrats elected. It’s spoiling all the gloating that could be done over the vectory of the far left in CT. People; where are your priorities?"
Idiots.
 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
Listen to yourself once and a while will ya, and consider how cheap some of your feelings are.


Written By: looker
URL: http://
alas the left is quite incapable of introspection.
 
Written By: kyle N
URL: http://impudent.blognation.us/blog
Most estimates of the Mahdi Army put its membership at around 10,000. The recent protests had hundreds of thousands of marchers.
Dang MK, facts just bounce off of you like bullets off of Superman’s nipples, huh? 10k are the estimated numbers of the Mahdi Army militia. Al Sadr’s political support is considerably larger than that, made up mainly of Shia lumpenproletariat, but still only a tiny fraction of Iraq’s Shia population of 16-17 million.

Puff your chest out at this.

geez/
peter.
 
Written By: Peter Jackson
URL: http://www.liberalcapitalist.com
George Packer reported it too - over three years ago in the NYT Magazine:
"Bush is a man who has never shown much curiosity about the world. When he met with Makiya and two other Iraqis in January, I was told by someone not present, the exiles spent a good portion of the time explaining to the president that there are two kinds of Arabs in Iraq, Sunnis and Shiites"
Which proves what? Most of the things that I’ve had explained to me I knew already. Just ’cause that’s what the Iraqis wanted to talk about that doesn’t mean Bush was ignorant of the issue.

And who was this person who told George Packer this, and given that the person wasn’t present, how did he know?

We know that prior to 2003 Bush gave several speaches that indicates he was aware of the make up of Arabs in Iraq. It might be reasonalbe to claim he lacks intellectual curiosity, but it’s clear he’s a smart guy. F-102s tend to cull out the dumb ones.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
to wit, the most important topic to discuss on this day is Bush detaining a suspected terrorist without a trial
You are right. Instead we should cheer the TSA for banning liquids on air planes and praise the governors that mobilized and dispatched the National Guard to airports based on a terrorist plot in the UK. Bottles of gatorade are no match against an M16.

Civil liberties are a quaint notion whose time has passed. The world is a dangerous place and we can show no quarter to those pesky constitution-huggers. This is going to be a long war. Some have said it will last 100 years, others have said generations. But it will require the heroic effort of people like you to use the word liberal (as a pejorative, natch) to label anyone that disagrees with the policies of an increasingly powerful federal government.

Keep fighting the good fight, Robert.
 
Written By: nrm
URL: http://ninjarobotmonkey.blogspot.com/
The Smith Act criminalized advocating the violent overthrow of the United States Government, or to be a member of any organization that advocates that, and was not applied merely to Communist Party members. The Supreme Court reversed so many convictions under the Smith Act that no one has been charged under that statute in many decades.

Many anti-Communist liberals opposed the Smith Act, including, to some extent, the militantly anti-Stalinist philosopher Sidney Hook. (In the U.S., historically, and with some significant exceptions, the left has been better on civil liberties issues than has been the right.)It was a severe threat to free speech and freedom of association, in the manner in which it was applied.

Communists were real. Many committed heinous acts of traitorous espionage. But fortunately, the sometimes hysterical reaction to their threat was not countenanced by our Highest Court. Our republic, and liberty, are better for that. Something to keep in mind as we now deal with Islamic terrorists.
 
Written By: Mona
URL: http://
Well nrm, just this once, ’cause you’re new, I’ll point out that I did not label you a liberal. I denigrated you for following the Liberal Narrative instead of using your mind and good sense. Yes, it logically may follow that accusing you of saving time by following the LN instead of doing your own thinking would tend to make you a liberal. However, even so estimable a libertarian (by her own estimate)as Mona follows it chapter and verse. I don’t have nearly the problem with liberals who do their homework that I do with those who still read and believe the NYT. Yes, I know that one can have ever so many lattes and read "Gourmet" instead of getting a balanced view of matters political. OK, if that is what one wishes to do. To do so and come on to serious blogs and pretend that one is well-informed....while parroting the LN...
I KNOW you understand what you are talking about. For God’s sake, the LN is designed like a McGuffy Reader. It is consistent, lucid, easy to follow...and wrong! If you ever seriously questioned it, you would know that. Smart liberals like neo-neocon wise up. Why don’t you?






 
Written By: Robert Fulton
URL: http://
One of my friends a long time ago was an Islamic Studies/Comparative Religion major. He said Pakistan was the weirdest and worst place he had ever been.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider