If I were any sort of artist, I would draw him myself, and include a mamaluke sword dripping in the blood of christians and jews whom he ordered killed for not worshipping the way he wanted them to worship. But I can't draw and must sponge off the work of others to join in the solidarity of a free press.
. . . support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .
. . . support the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic . . .
The twisted religion of Islam has attacked another innocent in its perverted quest to dominate the world.
Lars Vilks was attacked by an organized mob in Sweden while giving a speech on freedom of speech.
The list is growing. Salman Rushdie has been stalked for decades, Theodor Van Geough was murdered, newspapers and the South Park cartoonists are threatened.
The United States government has done little to address the ever bolder homocidal goals of Islam, preferring instead to say we have a war on terrorism that is distinct from Islam only in the minds of the politicians in Western Civilization.
Americans are afraid to publish criticism of our enemies. And when you put it that way it seems incredible, but I have yet to hear any US politician denounce the frequent rioting and threats against the press and against individuals.
Freedom of speech and freedom of the press mean very little if the people are too afraid to exercise their freedoms.
When I swore as a military officer to support the Constitution against all enemies, I expected that when such enemies appeared that we would do something like actually try to stop them. Instead we're engaging in nation building in regions that have nothing to build from. In the entire history of mankind, no thriving economy has ever existed in Afghanistan. I don't expect that to change any time soon. It is a hopeless task. Meanwhile, our enemies watch us deplete our wealth while they simply toss a few bombs around and cause chaos.
We may have "won" in Iraq, but we have yet to defeat Al Qaeda. In fact, we have yet to even acknowlege what Al Qaeda's motives are or target them and their ideology for destruction.
If we can't keep people safe when they exercise their free speech, then we're not really winning. More importantly, if our own people are such moral cowards that they succumb to these threats, then we are well on our way to losing the moral strength that made our nation so powerful and righteous.
Having a government that recognizes our freedoms requires that we defend those freedoms. Defending our freedom means destroying the ability of our enemies to cow us into forsaking the exercise of freedom. The president, both the current and the previous one, swore to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution." It's high time someone in that office starts acting like it's something worth defending as an idea, and not just something you launch missiles at from an unmanned aircraft. The idea of freedom is protected by attacking the ideology that threatens freedom, not by paving roads in a sewer of a country in central Asia.
No Government Can Stand Against its People for Long
No Government Can Stand Against its People for Long
There's a myth that is perpetuated by many people. They claim that the US caused the overthrow of one country or another, or that our support of this or that faction caused some strongman to take control of some nation. Often they point to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan as proof. These people seem to think that we have some omnipotent, or at least virtually irresistable power over others.
But history has shown over and over that this isn't true. Viet Nam couldn't be controlled, nor could Korea. Yeah, but they were supported by the Soviets and the Chinese is the response. What about Iraq? We had to invade and occupy the place with a huge army to topple Saddam Hussein, even though we destroyed his army ten years earlier.
And what about Cuba? We've tried everything to discredit Castro. We even supported a proxy invasion at one point. The communist regime and cult of personality is still very powerful there.
Now look at this video from Iran. Government motorcycle thugs are being beaten by angry mobs. If the people of a country do not wish to be ruled by a certain faction, then there is no way for the faction to remain in power very long. They only stay because the people lack the courage to unite and take control of their own fates. This video is an example of what happens when they have that courage. I wish them well. And let this serve as a warning to all governments, even ours, if they ever lose the restraints of power.
The animals that make up much of modern Islam (excluding some very civilized places) will never stop until they succeed in murdering Salmon Rushdie and Kurt Westergaard. Rushdie wrote a satire of religion and Westergaard made a famous cartoon of mohammed with a bomb in his turban.
I wonder when the civilized nations of this world will finally understand that the threat to civilization will not go away and will not subside. In fact it is only likely to grow until we get serious about countering it.
We are in a new era. Most of the country is still living in a posture that we could indulge in only after the Second World War where most countries adhered to some form of desire to be civilized. That era is gone, though many politicians in this country and others are blind to it.
I hope we can figure out what we're up against before it's too late.
Two hundred years ago, the Irish statesman, John Curran, said, "God hath vouchsafed man liberty only on condition of eternal vigilance; which condition if he break it, servitude is the consequence of his crime and the punishment of his guilt." That was only two hundred years ago.
Our own old New England and Virginia and Carolina fathers knew that three hundred years ago, which was why they came here and founded this country. And I decline to believe that we, their descendants, have really forgotten it. I prefer to believe rather that it is because the enemy of our freedom now has changed his shirt, his coat, his face.
He no longer threatens us from across an international boundary, let alone across an ocean. He faces us now from beneath the eagle-perched domes of our capitals and from behind the alphabetical splatters on the doors of welfare and other bureaus of economic or industrial regimentation, dressed not in martial brass but in the habiliments of what the enemy himself has taught us to call peace and progress, a civilization and plenty where we never before had it as good, let alone better. His artillery is a debased and respectless currency which has emasculated the initiative for independence by robbing initiative of the only mutual scale it knew to measure independence by.
William Faulkner, "The Duty to be Free" January 26, 1953
Today I will be driving to Houston to my Marine infantry battalion to participate in my monthly drill. We're training to deploy to Afghanistan in about a year. It gives me great satisfaction to be doing that today. I will never forget the animals that murdered so many of our people eight years ago nor the animals that still vow to destroy more of us. I hope to help stop them.
"Winning" and "losing" are very loaded terms at this point, but I suppose the point is that the Taliban are being more effective in murdering people.
If that's true, then why are Marine battalions being told that their deployment to Afghanistan are being delayed?
This is a screwy war.
I understand about the need to protect the population, and that this is a proven strategy for overcoming a counter-insurgency. This was appropriate for the people of Iraq, who generally had no beef with us.
The same can't be said of the Afghans. They allowed the Taliban to control them. They allowed the attack on us in 2001. They deserve no pity, no help. The Taliban should be hunted down and killed wherever they are until they beg us to stop and are prevented from ever becoming so bold again. Otherwise, why should anyone be afraid to attack us?
I'm starting to think that Christopher Hitchens is about the smartest man in America. Not all knowing, but better at analyzing things than others.
His latest column on the CIA and its use of torture, defended by so many good christians of the right wing, is another example of his ability to bring clarity to a topic fouled by moral equivocation.
Here's the money quote:
On 9/11, according to Bob Woodward, George Tenet audibly hoped that the suicide-murderers of al-Qaida were not connected to the shady-looking pupils at those flight schools in the Midwest. The schools, that is to say, about which the CIA knew! In other words, and not for the first time, the CIA (which disbelieved the evidence of Saddam's plan to attack Kuwait in 1990 and continually excused him as a "secularist") had left us defenseless and ignorant. Unprofessional and hysterical methods of interrogation, therefore, were unleashed in part to overcompensate for—and to cover up—a general lack of professionalism at every level of the agency from the top down.
After six years of open warfare, Muslim scholars
from around the world are
suing for peace.
It's too
bad they weren't talking this way on 12 September, 2001. I wonder what made
them change their minds and finally start a discussion? Could it be that
they're realizing that the war is being
lost?
They still don't seem very
repentant for supporting jihad and the attacks against the US, England, Spain,
Bali, and others. But it's a start.
This is a good sign. The United
States and its coalition partners are finally making progress, no thanks to the
Pope, who keeps begging us to quit the
war.
Now that we see we're having a
good effect, we must redouble our efforts. Maybe someday they will see the
light and apologize for not condemning the attacks on us. Maybe they will
denounce oppression and forced
worship.
I suspect this will be used by
the moral equivocators, led by the Hitler youth pope, to beg us even more to end
the war. But to me it appears that we're finally getting the enemy to make
concessions and sue for peace. The best way to negotiate peace is with your
foot on your enemy's throat.
This is
a sign that we're winning, but the war is far from over.
“AQI
is both feared and hated,” Capt Broekhuizen said, referring to Al Qaeda in
Iraq. “They’ve been running a brutal terror campaign. No
city leaders are left here who will take a leadership role.” Marines from
Golf Company said they recently fished two bodies out of the local river: a man
had been decapitated, and his 4-year old tied to his leg before both were thrown
into the river and the little boy drowned. The killings were a product of
Al Qaeda terror.
Yeah, but Aircraft
Commander Pelosi and her cohorts think we should just give up and leave these
Iraqis to their fate. Those goof ball Al Qaeda guys are so fun
loving.
This is pretty much everything I've been saying
about the Iraq War for a long time. But it sounds so much better coming from a
general
officer.
I'm not often
fond of just posting links to other people's writing, but this essay can't be
improved on and is very important for everyone to
understand.
And it's all Bush's totally unecessary fault. In
no particular order . . .
1. We
invaded Iraq without a plan for what we would do when we finished the invasion.
Rumsfeldian and Cheneyesque philosophies of using minimal force are the opposite
of traditional Republican ideas on how to fight a war. We have waged a massive
war and tried to do it on the cheap.
2
We squandered the United State's people's good will by not being decisive.
Americans will support any military action, so long as we're perceived as
winning.
3. We mistook democracy for
freedom. Decades of claiming that our nation is a democracy has led us to
forsake our traditional understanding of the bedrock of freedom and we allowed
the Iraqis and the Afghans to vote against freedom of religion. In a war with
Islam, we helped create two more Islamic nations. We invaded them, overthrew
their governments, and then allowed their people to coerce their own populations
to be subject to relgious ideology.
4. We supported a charade of Iraqi elections,
pretending that the Iraqi government has power when they don't. Wishing doesn't
grant power. We continue to play this charade and hamstring our own power by
pretending to give them some.
5. We
allowed massive corruption in the elected Iraqi government to restrict our
tactical warfighting, and channel money to our enemy. We looked the other way
when ministries paid cronies for Iraqi National Guard forces that didn't exist
or were the enemy. The ING finally collapsed because US field commands could
not live with the charade any longer. One of the longest hold outs was in my
battalion's area of Hit, and they frequently used their position to counter us
or hurt us.
6. We still have failed to
identify the nature of our enemy. Our enemy is radical Islam. We can never win
until we take that first step of identifying
them.
7. We allow the enemy to operate
with impunity in mosques and through religious
leaders.
8. We fail to recognize the
enemy's greatest strength, it's public disinformation and propaganda campaign,
as a legitimate war target. From Al Jazeera, the BBC, and CNN, we have failed
to recognize that these enemies are where the real war is being
fought.
9. Bush has failed to sell the
war to the American people. Like his father, he thinks that the people should
support him without him working for it. Keeping a free people focused on a long
term war takes a lot of work. American support can never be taken for
granted.
10. We have failed to
understand that Iraq is not the objective in the war. The fate of the Iraqi
people is of little consequence and until they square their own civilization
away, they can only be a drain on our efforts. Iraq has merit only as an
example of we will do if a nation opposes us in ways we think are vital to our
national interests, and as a staging ground we can use against other potential
enemies in the region. The Iraqi people do not need to be happy for these
purposes to succeed. Making them happy and safe is a nice thing to do, but not
our primary job. We've gotten the equation
backwards.
11. We have failed to use
Iraq as a base of operations against our other enemies in the area. Instead of
threatening them, they threaten us by keeping us tied down. They have no fear
of us anymore when they should be quaking in their boots with us seen as an
imminent threat to their lives.
12. We
failed to understand that we are at war, and this is a time to increase the size
of the military. We have increased the size of the military, but only above the
post-cold war lows. The US Marine Corps is still 10% understrength compared to
the mid 1980's. We weren't in a shooting war back then, and the Marines were
the least useful in the Fulda Gap war plans. Now the USMC is one of the primary
players in this war and we're still substantially smaller when people are
dying.
13. We failed to increase the
size of the military deployed in Iraq to decisively squash lawlessness. When I
was overseas my regiment covered an area the size of South Carolina. You cannot
be decisive while that spread out, it's impossible. US commanders decided that
being decisive was not necessary and chose to fight a long protracted
insurgency, which democratic governments are very prone to give up on.
Commanders at all levels knew this, knew we had insufficient people to win and
only enough to hang on, yet all ignored reality and fed Rumsfeld what he wanted
to hear. We learned nothing from Viet
Nam.
14. Bush has been making
statements that he was going to try a new tactic in the war, and then promptly
apologized to the powerless president of Iraq that he's sorry for not
coordinating with him on our latest raid, knowing that the President of Iraq
has a vested interest in insuring that the targets of our raids are warned of
our coming. His new direction is not stronger action, it is more appeasement to
the insurgents.
15. We've allowed
militias to operate with impunity, partly because we haven't got enough soldiers
and Marines to fight them all, but mostly because we don't want to upset anyone.
You cannot win a war by being afraid to anger your
enemy.
I can keep going all day, but I
will stop here. I'm disgusted enough. And I've not even gone into what the
enemy is doing. We've done enough to lose this on our own without considering
their strategy.
I
heard on the news today that the Shiite Mehdi "militia" has taken over the city
of Ammara today in Iraq. The British army is responsible for security in the
area, "but was not involved in the fighting." Well, why the hell weren't
they?
I'm not picking on the Brits.
The US military has had similar attitudes. A year after my battalion fought to
occupy and pacify the city of Hit, the battalion that took over that area
started making statements to the press that if the US just left that city, no
one there would mortar us there anymore. But even that is not an attitude that
sprang out of nowhere. It comes from our fear of
Islam.
From the beginning of this war, we have paid a
fearful deference to religious people. There is no cause for this deference, it
is a religious war, the strength of the enemy comes solely from their religion.
They ignore the bounds of the "laws" of war by fighting from Mosques, using them
to store weapons, broadcast propaganda, and use minarets as signaling towers.
The mosques are legitimate military targets, but we're not allowed to touch them
without approval from the highest levels. That approval comes sometimes, but
very rarely. In the meantime, the enemy uses them all for their
puposes.
The Shiites have been
especially free to wage war. From the earliest days, the Iranian backed Mehdi
"militia" has operated with impunity. Like a bunch of morons, we have refused
to deal harshly with them, and on the rare occasion where we have been forced to
fight them, we have been pulled back just before their entire destruction. That
seems to be the trend in wars fought by the Bushes. They know how to start
wars, but not how to win them.
We will
get nowhere if we do not start learning the importance of winning. We are too
caught up in ivory tower theory on how to make people love us, and are ignoring
that just like with our personal lives, you can't make people love you, and
begging for love only breeds
contempt.
But
most of all, how can we expect the Iraqi people to live by the rule of law if
there is no incentive to do so? When we allow "militias" and tribes to have
power, why would they submit to law?
Coalition forces need to go in and
destroy these shiite thugs. Until that happens, the sunni thugs will continue
to recruit into their militias. And the killings in Baghdad will continue.
The enemy have finally learned how to win this war. Killing Americans in Al
Anbar was ineffective because the American press wasn't there. The American
press is all in their safe little zones in Baghdad and the American press isn't
that sympathetic to military deaths. By killing civilians, and doing it close
to the American press, they have found a winning combination.
We need to stop being afraid of Islam.
That is our enemy, and our refusal to recognize them only gives them strength
and allows them to survive any military actions that they suffer.
The Washington Times published a column
yesterday (10 October, 2006) that compared the army and Marine Corps'
recently published Manual 3-24 (somehow, this seems like an incorrect
publication number) to the brilliant and influential works of Mahan, Douhet, von
Seeckt and DuPuy.
I'm not much
familiar with von Seeckt or DuPuy, but I can say this: He's right, this
publication is very much like Mahan and Douhet. Because despite their
influence, they're all equally wrong. I'm not sure why the columnist left out
Jomini, because he was equally
wrong.
Of course, all of these men had
elements of truth and, excepting Douhet, brilliance. But they were all flawed,
and generally for similar reasons.
Let's start with Jomini. It's been a while, but
I remember him as a devotee of Napoleon. He was influential in the conduct of
the US War Between the States. He had a lot of good points but today is mostly
remembered for misinterpreting how Napolen was so successful. Of course, the
premise is flawed and Napoleon ultimately failed. Jomini believed that wars
were won by finally culminating in one big war-winning battle. Perhaps even
Napoleon himself bought into this theory, which may be why he decided to fight
at Waterloo. The belief was that this battle was so big that it would decide
the outcome of the war and it should be fought for the reason that nothing else
will so decisively determine a victor. In a sense, this is correct. Napoleon
lost at Waterloo and was unable to continue as a political power much
longer.
This mentality about seeking
the big battle influenced militaries through to at least the first world war.
Dominated by the heirs of Napoleon as the Strategic thinkers, the allies
stubbornly tried to fight bigger and bigger equally futile battles, hoping to
finally get to that one battle that was big enough and successful enough to
finally convince the enemy to quit. Millions of men died. The war instead
became a tactically brainless slaughter field, and German lost from attrition,
not because of any one battle. If the allied generals understood the importance
of attrition better, they could have changed their tactics and strategy and
saved untold lives. But they stubbornly stuck to the Jominian ideology of
seeking the grand decisive battle.
As
much as I admire Mahan, he had a similar idea applied at sea. His understanding
of how sea power is critical to national power is nothing short of brilliant.
But he too believed that one big battle would bring the enemy fleet to
submission and thus end the enemy's ability to wage and win war. As late as the
first world war the navy fleets sought out the big battle, resulting in the
battle of Jutland. In that battle, both fleets risked their ships in one big
battle, hoping to thus win the war. Instead, half-way through the battle, both
sides realized they had a lot to lose and withdrew to their own corners, the
German fleet intact but unable to leave the vicinity of their harbors, the
English fleet unwilling to bother them anymore. Neither side seemed interested
in using naval power to chip away at the others' naval power, it was all or
nothing.
Douhet came after these two,
but had even more ridiculous ideas. He, with his acolyte Billy Mitchell,
believed that air power was so powerful and unnerving that just the appearance
of bombers over their adversary's airspace would cause such fear to make them
immediately surrender. War was virtually impossible because of the
invincibility of air power. He made this postulation when air power meant
biplanes without even rudimentary bomb sights. It should go without say that
Douhet couldn't have been more wrong, but still today he is idolized by the US
Air Force and even the Secretary of Defense, who seemingly believes that a few
special forces can call in air power and win a war. Douhet was proven wrong in
the second world war, Korea, Viet Nam, with the USSR in Afghanistan, and Iraq
today.
So what is this new publicaton
and how is it like these famous military theorists? In a nutshell it explains
how to fight a counter-insurgency war. As far as it goes, it's an excellent
work. If you want to fight against guerillas, it has great advice, but this is
hardly how to win a struggle with insurgents. It gives advice such as, be sure
to get the population on your side by not over-reacting to guerrilla attacks,
sometimes doing nothing is the best course of
action.
I won't fault that advice for
the limited use that it lends, but the main way to win the insurgency in Iraq is
not through these methods. Winning hearts and minds didn't work in Viet Nam,
and it isn't working in Iraq. What will work is depriving the enemy of its
support.
What is the enemy's support?
It has several sources and types of support. Financial support is probably
coming from Iran, maybe Russia, maybe China or other places. You can't fight an
insurgency without money. We need to destroy the ability of these other nation
states to assist them. They are our enemy and it does us no good to ignore them
as such.
The other main area of support
is moral support. The insurgency gets it moral support from Islam. Our refusal
to admit this is severely limiting our ability to win. If we continue to ignore
the Imams' and clerics' power, their power will only get stronger. They are our
enemies, and to win we must destroy their power.
Personally, I found it flabbergasting
that we were forbidden to enter or bother any cleric or religious site such as
cemetaries or mosques, yet everytime we went into a city the mosques blared
incitements and instructions on how to fight us. The minarets not only
broadcast military instructions, they also served as signal towers, armories,
militia assembly points and headquarters. According to what the Washington
Times calls a brilliant new way of fighting the war, we were not allowed to curb
the power or strength of our enemy's strongpoints. They call this a new,
insightful way of fighting war.
But
they're wrong. There is nothing new about insurgencies. They've been around
for millenia. They only succeed when the people are less afraid of the good
guys than they are of the insurgents.
The equation for winning against
insurgents is to be more brutal than the insurgents. It's not fair, it's not
nice, but it works everytime and almost nothing else does. When terrorists come
into a town and chop off peoples' heads unless the people help them, then we
will not win unless we promise to kill anyone sympathetic to them. Abetting
murderers is a crime and should be punished as such. Failure to fight murderers
and terrorists guarantees that the terrorists will win.
Our current strategy is to bribe the
people with money, good will, and happy thoughts. We put very few conditions on
the gifts we give them, it becomes easy for them to get good things from us all
the while they cooperate with terrorists so that their wives and children don't
get tortured and killed.
This
publicaton is not the answer to our overall problem. It's good for what it is,
but it doesn't describe how to win the war, it only describes how to perpetuate
the war without losing immediately.
The
better military thinker that I think we should look to is Theodore Roosevelt,
when he said, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." Fixing power stations and
schools is speaking softly, but we also need the big stick, not just carrying
safely in a scabbard, but wielding it on the heads of our enemy and his
supporters and enablers.
Too bad John Howard isn't an American. I'd vote
for him in a heart beat for our president. I'm a one issue voter nowadays.
Whoever convinces me that he will do the most to win this war gets my
vote.
Here's what Mr. Howard's
spokesman said yesterday in Australia,
"We live in
a world of terrorism where evil acts are being regularly perpetrated in the name
of your faith.
"And because
it is your faith that is being invoked as justification for these evil acts, it
is your problem.
"You can't
wish it away, or ignore it, just because it has been caused by
others.
"Instead,
speak up and condemn terrorism, defend your role in the way of life that we all
share here in Australia."
If only someone in the role of American leadership
could be so common sensically plain.
Media Bias: Did you know of Pakistan's surrender to Al Qaeda?
Media Bias: Did you know of Pakistan's surrender to Al Qaeda?
Bill
Roggio reports that Pakistan has surrendered to Al Qaeda in its
province of North Waziristan. The terms of the surrender
include:
- The
Pakistani Army is abandoning its garrisons in North and South
Waziristan. - The Pakistani
Military will not operate in North Waziristan, nor will it monitor actions the
region. - Pakistan will turn
over weapons and other equipment seized during Pakistani Army
operations. - The Taliban and
al-Qaeda have set up a Mujahideen Shura (or council) to administer the
agency. - The truce refers to
the region as “The Islamic Emirate of
Waziristan.” - An
unknown quantity of money was transferred from Pakistani government coffers to
the Taliban. The Pakistani government has essentially paid a tribute or ransom
to end the fighting. -
“Foreigners” (a euphemism for al-Qaeda and other foreign jihadis)
are allowed to remain in the
region. - Over 130 mid-level
al-Qaeda commanders and foot soldiers were released from Pakistani
custody. - The Taliban is
required to refrain from violence in Pakistan only; the agreement does not
stipulate refraining from violence in
Afghanistan.
They also
have agreed to allow Osama bin Laden to remain
free.
How come the main
stream media aren't reporting this?
There is nothing about the main stream media that
we can trust anymore. Here is a significant loss by one of our erstwhile
allies, yet it is treated as obscure, unimportant news. Katie Couric is talking
about Tom Cruise's baby.
This is
horrifying. How did the world learn anything before the internet?
Read Bill's entire article. It's
worse than you think.
More Evidence that we must Eradicate Fascist Islam
More Evidence that we must Eradicate Fascist Islam
I just heard on the news that Al Sistani, the
Shia religious leader in Iraq, has decreed that Israel must cease fire in
Lebanon immediately and all nations that obstruct that cease fire will regret
it. Fox News ridiculously described Sistani as being "one of our biggest
supporters." What a laugh.
Sistani has
never been our supporter, he has never condemned the killing of Americans and he
will never support Israel under any situation, ever. Sistani is a "religious"
leader in no way that western civilization would consider religious. He
supports jihad. He supports oppressing others to worship according to his
beliefs. He supports the idea of destroying
Israel.
He is a merciless coward who
encourages others to wage war but won't fight it himself. He protects miserable
little half-wits like Muqtada Al Sadr and abets his waging war with his
"militia."
He only comes out against
murder when muslims are murdered.
This, folks, is the man that Fox News
and many others even in our government, consider a supporter.
What he really is, is the root of the
evil we are fighting against.
So what can we
do?
First, we must stop pretending that
Islam is a religion of peace. We must identify our enemy as Islam, all of
Islam. We needn't destroy all our enemy to win the war, but we do have to
destroy the organization of Islam, their abilty to wage war and their ability to
recruit supporters.
Second, we must
stop pretending that leniency will get us anywhere in the Arabic or Islamic
world. There is only one way to subdue them, and that involves a boot on their
necks. They must be vanquished.
Let
me point out that there are some good Muslims. I am only aware of the
Azerbaijanis as supporters, they have sent a miltary unit to Iraq to help us in
the war.
I'll say again, any Muslim,
no matter his excuse, that does not renounce violence and jihad as a part of
using their religion to oppress people and overthrow free nations, that does not
condemn the attacks of 9/11 and other terrorist acts, is guilty. All of these
muslims must be convinced of the error of their ways and their religion, such as
it is, must be wiped off the
Earth.
Freedom of religion is a natural
right, but it does not apply to ideologies that deem it proper to kill us and
oppress people.
If you were a raghead hoping to convert the world
forcibly to Islam and become a world dictator, what would you
see?
You'd see a United States
dominating militarily everywhere it goes. But you also would see a United
States that is increasingly tired of the morass in Iraq. You can't possibly win
militarily in Iraq, unless . . .
To
the ragheads, the war has mainly been in the press. And there they've been
succeeding in wearing the US down, inciting a backlash against the war, driving
many Americans to question our actions. The problem is that it hasn't been
enough. So their other tactic is to terrorize Iraqi citizens, killing hundreds
every week in Baghdad. That is also having a big
effect.
But it's still not enough. So,
if you were a raghead, what would you
do?
Well, if I were a raghead I would
surrender and then put a bullet to my head, but I'll pretend that I'm an insane
raghead and want to win this war.
The manpower needed in an insurgency is pretty
small compared to the manpower needed to suppress it. With comparatively modest
effort they can begin actions in Somalia, Lebanon, and even Malaysia. They can
act in Israel, Jordan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and anywhere they have a presence.
They can stir things up in North
Korea.
If they can push an insurgency
in more and more places, there is no way the US can respond without permanently
mobilizing all its forces. Our only response would have to be much less
concerned with the pleasant ideas of avoiding civilian deaths.
The ragheads are praying for us to
respond ineffectively and at the same time clumsily. They want to enflame the
raghead world against us. This is a potential winning
strategy.
The best way to prevent this
from succeeding.is to strike at the heart of the problem: Iran. We should
abandon Iraq to the Iraqis as soon as it is remotely possible and drive into
Iran and destroy our enemies there, control their money, overthrow their
oppressive government, and end this war
permanently.
The Persians will not like
this, we would be alienating our supporters there. This is tragic, but those
supporters aren't doing anything for us now except enabling our enemies. People
are responsible for those that they allow to rule them. We have little to lose
and much to gain if we attack Iran.
We have Iran surrounded, one side by us in
Afghanistan, another by us in Iraq, and to the north by our Azerbaijani friends,
to the south by our sometimes Pakistani
friends.
Our main enemy, besides the
USSR, for the past 25 years has been Iran. The invasion of Iraq was for many
purposes, but I believe that the primary and unstated purpose was to surround
Iran, make them afraid and eventually destroy their ability to export terrorism.
Notice the increase of Irani saber rattling. They are very afraid. They are
getting increasingly desperate in their support of the insurgency in Iraq.
Iran's days are numbered.
But the other
side of the equation has been Syria. I have often told my friends that we
should allow the Israelis to take care of Syria, protect our rear while we
handle Iran.
I'm happy to see this
happening. Peace in the middle east is getting closer and closer. I only mourn
that Lebanon is suffering again for the sins of
Syria.
A female Iraqi journalist was beheaded
on 22 February. I just learned of it today.
They stripped her to the waist, sliced
her neck. threw her on the ground, stomped her body eight times to make blood
spurt out her wounds, then picked her up, chopped off her head and then placed
her head on her chest as she lay on the ground. They positioned her head to be
looking into the camera as it perched on her bare
chest.
She asked the crowd to protect
her, but no one did. The cries of "god is great" were heard while she screamed
in pain. Her body was found with numerous power drill wounds, a common form of
torture in Baghdad lately.
Where are
the feminists? Where is the US press? Why aren't we hearing this reported
loudly everywhere?
I know
why.
It's because journalists are on the other side in
this war. This may be a woman, she may be a journalist, but none of that
matters. All that matters is that her fate could only help stir up support for
the good guys in this war, and the American media doesn't want
that.
A video is circulating somewhere.
I haven't seen it. I don't want to see it. But I should see it. I want to be
reminded, everyday. I want to never forget,
ever.
America needs to be reminded
everyday. Americans need to never forget.
Ever.
We are at war with animals. We
are at war with a culture that wishes to destroy life. We are at war with a
religion that values death over
life.
The jury decided yesterday that Zacharias
Moussaoui didn't deserve the death penalty for his part in the 9/11
attacks.
I
agree.
We cannot pervert our legal
system for one man. We killed Timothy McVeigh, we gave McNicols life in prison
for conspiracy. The verdict of life imprisonment without parole is consistent
with our current legal standards. This war we're fighting is about preserving
our culture from external threat, and changing our standards willy nilly for
everyone that pisses us off would be unjust and would pervert that which we are
fighting for.
I only have one problem
with the verdict. They had the wrong charges.
Putting Mousaoui on a civil trial was incorrect.
We are at war with Islam. He is an enemy in that war. He was in our country,
under false pretenses, not identified as an enemy agent. The venue should have
been in a military court and the charges should have been espionage.
We can still deliver him to a military
court and charge him with espionage. And then put him against a wall and drill
his brain with ten 7.62mm bullets.
