Wounded Warrior

Courtesy of BlackFive.

Peggy Noonan's article on immigration

Direct Link

But we are not communicating love of country. We are not giving them the great legend of our country. We are losing that great legend.

In enthalpy and entropy systems (sketchy rememberings here), there is always fluxes and balances. I like to compare human behavior to scientific principles, because a lot of human behavior is based upon evolution. And evolution was nothing but scientific trial and error.

One of the reasons, and Neo spoke about this in our email correspondence, is the worry over willpower and the nature of willpower. Neo doubted that we had as much willpower as we did in WWII, when black people signed up for the Tuskegee Air Squadron even though the military was still segregated and they were treated worse than Nazi prisoners. On a recent Oliver North War stories program, I saw first hand testimonies of these WWII veterans. They said that regardless of the cost, they would do it over again. Because to them, "you fight for your rights and debate, but when your country is attacked you go to the call". In an ironic sense, that Call of Duty, was what made desegregation possible. When Americans saw how brave and valorous these blacks were, they saw them not as second class citizens but as Americans. Americans, in both civilian and military, but primarily military, were shamed into treating blacks better. Just as they were shamed into treating women better. Why? Because blacks and women had EARNED their rights, for they responded to the call of duty when America was in her darkest days of despair and lifted us up beyond the height of liberation and success. It is the primary reason why the military, more in tune with black sacrifices, desegregated a full 15 years before the civilian sector.

I tend to think, that willpower is not inherent in a generation. Willpower comes from facing insurmountable odds, and either defeating them or going down in a blaze of glory. The Japanese have much to teach in this sphere, and their culture is both vibrant and educational. Because America is so successful, we perhaps do not have to invoke the sheer determination required to survive, as the human race had to do back in the past. This happened to the Roman Empire, this happened to Britain, Canada, Australia, France, and Germany. All successful nations have an expiration date. How long they may stay effective is based upon many factors, but the primary factor is whether you still have patriots willing to kill and to die for your country. You can survive without such things as the Roman Empire did, but you still have to maintain military supremacy. But that would mean that the nation would be nothing but a parasite upon the strength of others.

(I once asked a great historian if he had thoughts on this, and he nodded. He said he had come to believe it was "providential.")

It was indeed the grace of God. I'm not a religious man, since I'm a follower of Deism, not Revealed Religion. As you look at history and look at how many times we may have stumbled, you had to conclude that all these "coincidences" were more than the sum of people's actions. You had to conclude, as I did, that there had to be something more working in America's favor.

What kind of nation does this?

As I termed it in Neocon's comment section. We are the pre-eminent civilization in the history of mankind, with the pre-eminent military of all time to go with our civilization.

The good news is that the Vietnam generation is fading out. The "good old days" of the 60s greatly impacted our ability to transcend the bounds of human limitations. The challenge of the War on Terror is a great opportunity to prove that this country is yet worthy to wield the power of a pre-eminent civilizatin.

Another good news is that it isn't as bad as Europe. Which means, we still have time judging from what is going on in Europe. However, this produces apathy in the politicians, and that cannot be allowed to happen. Five years have already been wasted. In a way, this is another opportunity rendered unto us by God.

For had 9/11 not occured, what then would our chances of being able to solve the immigration problem be? How many people would have not cared? How many would still feel the pain of an unresolved doubt about Vietnam? Too many, perhaps, for us to succede with reinvigorating patriotism.

To those who oppose the belief that America is the pre-eminent civilization in the history of mankind, 9/11 was a disaster. Not in the amount of lives lost, but the progress that was setback as Americans "woke up" from their brainwashing. 5 years is not enough to turn back the clock on decades of corrosion, no, but it is far better than nothing. For as we see in Europe, there will come a time when not even the "wake up call" of hundreds dieing will stop the assimilation of socialist ideals and hand out philosophies from taking hold of men's minds and souls.

I don't like Europe, but I do have to say that I am rather grateful, for my nation, that they serve as an example of just how wrong, moronic beliefs can get you if you turn your back on your ancestors.

An Interview concerning Anti-Americanism - Or what insights do Europeans have on this phenomenon

John Hawkins: In the book, you said that anti-Americanism seemed to be at least in part, a religion substitute for many Europeans. Can you elaborate on that idea?

Claire Berlinski: Certainly. The phenomena to be explained are the irrationality and the ardor of European anti-Americanism. Irrational, because entirely disproportionate to any real faults in American society. Of course America has flaws, and no, it is not lunacy to point them out. But in poll after poll, you see substantial numbers of Europeans, non-trivial numbers, who believe the September 11 attacks were staged, yes, staged, by an oil-hungry American military-industrial complex to justify its imperialist adventures in Iraq. In Germany, 20 percent of the population believes this. In France, a book arguing this case was a galloping bestseller. Now that is bughouse nuts. Totally bats in the belfry. Then the ardor: "My anti-Americanism," wrote one columnist in the British Telegraph, "has become almost uncontrollable. It has possessed me, like a disease. It rises up in my throat like acid reflux, that fashionable American sickness." If only we could harness all that outrage and transform it into a non-polluting energy source! You see this kind of thing all the time in the European press. (Meanwhile, if the French, say, wipe out the entire Ivorian air force, do you see protestors on the streets chanting "No blood for cocoa?" What a question.) When you have these two phenomena together-irrationality and this curious passion, this fervor-it seems reasonable to conclude that you are in the presence of something like a cult. So you consider it, sociologically. What role does this ideology serve in the European psyche? One answer: It fulfills many of the roles once played by the Church. It offers a comprehensive-if lunatic-answer to the question, "Why is the world the way it is, and why is there evil in that world?" It provides a devil to excoriate and then to exorcise. There is community and belonging in anti-American activism, ecstasy in protest. Again, a form of Christian heresy, and no more lunatic, surely, than anything the Cathars believed, if also no less.

The definition of religion has been modified by socialist propaganda apparati into meaning Christianity or anything relating to a Holy Book. But in reality, religion is belief in almost any systemic belief system. Whether of Scientific Atheism, Deism, or anti-Americanism.

You even have Shintoism, as a religion, in Japan which focuses on patriotism and honoring your ancestors.

The difference between Europe and America

Europe euthanizes babies in the name of "compassion"

German Euthanasia 1938-1945

THE SEEDS OF GERMAN EUTHANASIA were planted in 1920 in the book Permission to Destroy Life Unworthy of Life (Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Leben). Its authors were two of the most respected academics in their respective fields: Karl Binding was a renowned law professor, and Alfred Hoche a physician and humanitarian.

The authors accepted wholeheartedly that people with terminal illnesses, the mentally ill or retarded, and deformed people could be euthanized as "life unworthy of life." More than that, the authors professionalized and medicalized the concept and, according to Robert Jay Lifton in The Nazi Doctors, promoted euthanasia in these circumstances as "purely a healing treatment" and a "healing work"--justified as a splendid way to relieve suffering while saving money spent on caring for the disabled.

Over the years Binding and Hoche's attitudes percolated throughout German society and became accepted widely. These attitudes were stoked enthusiastically by the Nazis so that by 1938 the German government received an outpouring of requests from the relatives of severely disabled infants and young children seeking permission to end their lives.

Americans save babies.

Decide for yourself which one is true compassion.

Here is who we fight against, and I don't think the Europeans are on our side in this fight.

Some notes on France and America

We go to Normandy. At the hotel, the woman confides to us: “My two sons are planning on leaving. While I pay for their education they’ll stay, but as soon as they’re done, they’re planning to leave and they want to go to America.”
“Why?”
Because the country’s going to hell. Because the bureaucracy favors the Arabs.

As a matter of loyalty, I feel that our real friends in Eastern Europe deserves to come to America. Not the French. Personal debts of honor still matter to me, even if it does not to 90% of the rest of the world.

Besides, we have too many anti-American fake liberals already, we don't need anymore from the bailing French. If they ain't willing to fight for their country, they sure as heck won't fight for ours.

“What about anti-Americanism?” I ask the waiter who was marrying an American girl and hoping to go to the States to start a restaurant.
“Oh, that was bad back at the time of the Iraq war, but no longer,” he said, with a reassuring confidence.

A wave of anti-Americanism that poisoned the Western alliance and has contributed so much to making Sadaam Hussein’s removal a nightmare in the winter of 2003, was in his eyes a passing squall. Not a problem.

It reminded me of the remark that an FBI guy said to some scholars about the Waco catastrophe: “We didn’t do anything wrong, and we won’t do it again.” Except that this Gaulois who wanted to jump ship to America wasn’t even saying “We won’t do it again.” There was not even the admission that the wave of pro-Chirac anti-Americanism was a stupidity that hurt France. Just a promise that, right now, we don’t feel any anti-Americanism.

Ja, pull the other one. About as believalbe as Zarqawi saying he won't kill you right now.

The Jews I meet with show heavy signs of wear. One of the sweetest and smartest of the French Jewish intellectuals I know, a woman of Tunisian origin, one of the single-generation acculturaters, comes towards me without knowing I see her. Her face is so drawn with care that I have difficulty identifying her. I go by her haircut, until, upon seeing me, her smile comes back and wipes away the lines of worry.

The Halimi Affair, whose Jewish and Muslim dimension the French Jews know about in much greater detail than their Christian and post-Christian fellow-citizens, has that community in a panic.

I'm sorry to say this, but the Jews have a learning problem. After what happened in WWII with the French betraying their French-Jews and trading Jews for Collaboration, you'd think the Jews would remember and hold a grudge with ruthless efficiency. But no. They still choose to live in France. It boggles my American mind.

We told ourselves, they’re unaware. If we can get them to look at this clearly, we can persuade them.

Don't make me laugh. Relying upon dishonorable shits with one of the worst track records in history, is not wise.

I don't like France, not because they are anti-American, but because they have no honor, no dignity, and no utility.

I feel more comraderie with the Japanese that America fought in WWII, than I would ever feel for the french.

“Since 9-11, there’s been a notable change in the Muslim community. Before you rarely heard Arabic spoken. Now they speak it loudly, the mothers aggressively take over areas in parks and gardens. They started to pick up their heads and feel pride.”
“Over 9-11?”
“Yes, it gave them a sense of power.”

There was a discussion going on in another post-comment about Belmont's War to the Knife postulations.

This is a useful addendum. If 9/11 gave the Muslims in this world a sense of power, just imagine what a nuclear attack resulting in 500,000 casualties would do. Can we say world wide Muslim insurrection?

Richard Landes is a good source of amazing information, Neo, thanks for providing me with the opportunity to read him.

Israel and Peace - Or the Consequences of a lack of ruthlessness

Israel lacks, has lack, and will always lack one thing. Ruthlessness. It is what separates them from AMerica. And it is also what separates America from everyone else in the world, except for our enemies of course. Israel has always had compassion, but compassion will not bring peace. Israel now is going isolationist, and while I would not advocate such a solution for America, it is the only solution available to the Israelis.

Unfortunately for the Israelis, they do not have the philosophy "peace through superior firepower". Their will has been sapped by countless suicide bombings. Americans would never have tolerated the existence of such a threat to our women and children. Yet Israel has tolerated it for 50 years. Israel has given and still continues to give money to the Palestinian Authority, inspite of the casualties they suffer because of this policy. This policy is Israel's compassion, and it has killed more Israelis than any Palestinian suicide bomber ever will.

Compassion kills. It has killed Europe, and it will continue to kill Americans until we kill compassion ourselves.

The charges dropped - Or is Rahman really in the clear?

I smile whenever I read vega. Cause surely he does his place of origin proud with his moniker.

The solution in this case is the same as that which protected blacks from the lynchings of the KKK, the neo-Nazis, or whatever militia group there were.

Threat and enforcement of instant execution or arrest, upon any damage to Rahman either directly or indirectly. If we can't prove it in an Afghanistani court that some "cleric" assassinated Rahman, then we'd just order the cleric disappeared as an object lesson in who has the real power in the region.

This would have the effect of putting the clerics, the warlords, and the criminals in stasis. Karzai has to represent his constituents, but he has to also realize who holds the real power in the region.

When these clerics that called for Rahman's assassination, disappear and I do support their disappearance 100%, many will blame the United States government and many will say Karzai bended under Western pressure.

However, if Karzai were to say that he told America to effect the punishment of the traitors in Afghanistan, those that would fight against the lawfully elected government of Afghanistan for reasons of Islam, in public and we then confirm Karzai's words, Karzai would not only save face but he would also prove the power of the secular state vs the religious theocracies. This helps protect and create the institutions that Afghanistan needs for democracy to work.

All it would take is the death of a few hate mongering clerics. Not a wholly huge price to pay.

This is an opportunity, like many, that could have been capitalized by Bush if he had been willing to be aggressive and use violence. Bush, however, chose the non-aggressive path of peace, diplomacy. Condi Rice convinced Karzai to drop the charges.

This has weakened Karzai to charges of Western puppet controls, and increased the power of the religious hate militias in Afghanistan. This has made the greater US strategy more vulnerable to failure, because it will now be easier to convince Afghanistanis to commit violence to "purify" Afghanistan of anti-Islamic foreigners.

One such misstep is not fatal for the cause of democracy. But as you can see in Iraq and at the American homefront, a series of such missteps in capitalizing on opportunities given to you by enemy assaults, will produce an alarming sign of your defeat in this war.

Bush has latitude to make such mistakes in the short run, but his latitude is quickly running out. The only thing holding his administration and the war effort up are two things. Blogs and the military. That is it, those are the two main pillars of Bush's effective policy.

The UN doesn't back Bush, the Republicans don't back Bush cause it is his second term and his polls are low, and the Democrats don't back him. Not even his own bureacracy, CIa/State, backs Bush. Bush has no pillars of power in the diplomatic/peaceful/non-aggressive sphere. All his powers, or political capital, rests with propaganda in the form of blogs and military power in the military.

Those are Bush's strengths. Yet he wasted his political capital on domestic issues like social security, because he tried to play to his weaknesses.

As Sun Tzu has said time and time again, with few if anyone paying attention, concentrate your STRENGTH against the enemy's WEAKNESSES. When you are weak and your enemy is strong, avoid battle and confrontation.

Bush is strong on defense, the military, and on the blogs where information is freely debated and facts exist to be easily read.

Bush is weak on domestic propaganda, enemy propaganda, foreign diplomacy, international diplomacy, and internal politiking.

In such a situation as Abdul Rahman, Bush should have used his military option. He did not. Al-Sadr is the ultimate personification of what happens when Bush tries to use diplomacy to "sooth" the raging beast of Iraq.

Absolute, total application of force is not the best solution. Unfortunately, Bush doesn't have Hitler or Clinton's rhetorical skills. Neither does Bush have the propaganda skills of a Leni Riefenstahl or a Goebels or a Dick Morris. All that is left to Bush is absolute displays of force and threats, and he won't use it.

This is why the war is more or less inching along, and few if any ultimate victories are seen.

We're stuck in a trench war, where both sides are hitting our strong points (terroists vs our military) and we're hitting their fortifications (diplomacy vs Islamic propaganda and terror).

You don't win a war through attrition, by pitting your troops against the enemy's best fortifications and troops. Bush, though he knows it not, is relying on a strategy of attrition, to delay things until the Iraqis can take over. But that doesn't mean what Bush wants us to think it means. When the Iraqis take over, that means it is time to take the next town. And somehow I don't think Bush has any plans in the works for that, given his actions on Iran. If he wanted to take military action, he already would have. Like every other instance, Bush uses diplomacy. And because Bush has few if any access to good diplomacy, Bush's diplomacy fails miserably.

There is a way to use diplomacy to intimidate Iran into backing off and Syria into backing off, but it requires giving Iraq and Afghanistan nuclear weapons and launch abilities. It also includes raids into Syrian and Iranian territory, without a declaration of war. It also requires full naval blockade and sinking of Syrian and Iranian registered ships, with the point of not rescuing any survivors.

It's a good thing the charges were dropped. But there's just going to be another incident the Islamics will create so that they can capitalize on. The fight goes on, and few if any gains are acquired with this "victory".

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice said she could not confirm that an Afghan court had dismissed the case and stressed the U.S. needs to respect the sovereignty of Afghanistan, which she called a "young democracy."

These words are part of the international law outlook of Washington, France, Germany, and the UN. It is categorically not the outlook of Americans and Jacksonians. It just isn't. Personally, I don't give a damn about other nation's sovereignty, since it's not like if we respect their sovereignty they are going to respect ours. France has no qualms about telling us what to do, regardless of us refraining from blasting France on their problems at the highest levels.

Leaving the ME alone didn't prevent 9/11, it didn't prevent first Trade Center bombing, it didn't prevent the murder of 140 Marines, it didn't prevent the death of around 19 sailors on the USS Cole, and it sure as heck didn't prevent the execution of Americans captured while the terroists hijacked planes and cruise ships.

International sovereignty is a joke, and it is one that the Islamics understand quite well.

The very fact that Afghanistan is a young democracy, means that you have to MAKE IT LOOK like Karzai didn't give into Western pressure. You have to. Otherwise the next time you try and visit, the Taliban will be back in full force. If they aren't already.

With power comes responsibility, the power over life and death means you are responsible for Afghanistan, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice. The President, if he doesn't understand this fact, dooms the war effort to trench warfare.

While the U.S., Britain and other countries that prop-up his government have demanded the trial be dropped, Karzai has had to be careful not to offend Islamic sensibilities at home and alienate religious conservatives who wield considerable power.

Without missing their heads and limbs, will find it quite hard to "wield considerable power".

Historically, American democracy was quite bloody. Democracy requires bloody to be shed, because you can't have a democracy where the wacko White SUpremacists run around spouting their "politics" and assassination programs. The Wild West, if they ever caught a criminal, hung him. Chaotic situations are balanced by the sheer ruthlessness and moral clarity of the righteous and the peaceful citizens.

If you are unwilling to execute the enemy of democracy, Secretary Rice and President Bush, you will eventually end up with a government that isn't a democracy at all.

Let it be clear. Afghanistan does not have "sovereignty". Sovereign states don't rely upon an "umbrella" protection from a superpower. Proxy nations are protected by their umbrella sponsors. Sovereign nations have their own defense.

In this world of ours, few nations are sovereign, which is why the idea of sovereignty is a joke. To get true sovereignty means reducing American military power and influence, which is why the Democrats keep talking about sovereignty in relation to Saddam.

Policharki, a high-security prison housing some 2,000 inmates, including about 350 Taliban and al-Qaida militants who were blamed for inciting a riot there late last month that killed six people.

A fledging democracy would have executed these 350 people for traitors already.

But Afghanistan is unable to do so. They fear the reaction from the United States. Whether Rice knows it or not, but 70 to 90% of Afghanistan's domestic and foreign policies are decided from their perception of the reaction from the United States of America.

Republicans seem to have a rather shortsighted vision of American power and influence, to the point where they believe that it somehow doesn't affect other nations just because we don't want it to affect them.

The politicians, certainly do, if not middle America.

American decadence, such as the inability to execute someone guilty of mass murder in less than 1 year, and executing someone like Tookie without 25 years, is a weakness that fledging democracies should not be saddled with.

If the Wild West took 25 years to execute someone, their buddies would have sprung him and executed the sherrif in a shoot out. Eventually you won't have a sheriff or a federal marshall force to protect the town with.

You can afford to be merciful if you hold all the cards, but America has never held all the cards in the world, especially now. Even if we did, that doesn't mean Afghanistan could not be picked off even if America at large was safe. And as was proven on 9/11, if the enemy takes territory but not American territory, that still helps them with the logistics required to assault America herself. Seas no longer offer the same protection as they once did.

Bush obviously doesn't want to become an Empire, but the socio-political balance of powers in the world, demands that America either relinquish our power or become worthy of our power in this world. If you want to be a leader, then you must lead. Not only that, but you must be loyal to YOUR SIDE and ruthless towards the enemy.

No leader could maintain power by rewarding his enemies and punishing his allies, no leader could maintain power by ignoring threats and trying to "negotiate" deals between his allies and his enemies.

As I said before, the military plays a big part in sustaining our victory. That is why America, is so grateful. They see a strength and vitality in the military, a clarity of purpose, that they don't see in Washington. The military is not as decadent as American politicians. The military has the death penalty for many offenses still, under military law. Military justice is to justice as military music is to true music.

I'd take military justice over "let's parole child rapists" any day of the century. Administrative punishment is far better than the KELO Act.

The reason why the war isn't lost now, is because the military is facing the evils in Iraq and Afghanistan, and either freezing them or killing them. This buys the politicians time to create a political solution.

The solution is correct, it is the details of application that are wrong.

Whatever respect people hold for America, is because of Bush's determination and the force used by our military.

The West pays premium attention to "ideas" of liberty. But for the great majority of people in the Middle East, simple survival trumps ideas. If you can't provide our auxilliary forces (iraq/Afghanistan) with freedom from execution and assassination, then they're not going to go with such a weak horse as us.

This might be a hindrance if we were using Imperial politics. But since we are using idea and liberty politics, it is a sheer disaster to have the people we free, think we are weak because our military can use bombs but they Catch and Release terroists and criminals.

If the Mexicans caught an American rapist, and then released him and had him escape to Europe which is free from capital punishment, we'd be pretty pissed I would think. The Iraqis are just as upset when we catch and release Saddamites and terroists back into Iraq, for them to blow up more people.

When listening to a Virgin mp3, I came up with an idea about a very good psychological operation that would fullfill many needs. This is getting quite long, so I'll save that for later on my blog.

Dog heirarchies and Afghanistan social heirarchies

The only strength is fanatical adherence to Mohammad’s early medieval, post-pagan, desert nomad pronouncements.

The other strength is called a fission chain reaction.

Except we don't use that strength of ours, therefore it doesn't make us strong. I noted before that the ultimate weapon of mass destruction aren't nuclear devices, but actually propaganda and psychological projects.

It has to do with the genkai, as the Japanese term it. All attacks have a limit, a rate of fire if you will. Stronger attacks have a slower rate of fire, while weaker ones have a higher rate of fire. A missile launch can shoot one missile, and then has to be reloaded or discarded. A 30mm gatling gun, however, can fire many lesser damaging projectiles at a much higher rate.

This belief in the limit, has pervaded Japanese society. It is probably the single reason why Japan didnd't surrender after they received one nuclear device on their soil. They believed that such a powerful weapon could not be used all that often. That belief was shattered by the second. Now they were right in the sense that we only had 2 bombs, and that it takes time to make these WMDs because of their destructive potential, getting hit with a chain combo of nukes when you expected that such a powerful attack would come rarely, is a deep psychological wound.

Propaganda, has a much higher limit. It can be used over and over. And at higher echelons, like Hitler's, propaganda kills more people in the end than nukes ever have. Simply because you have such a high limit to the use to which propaganda can be used for, while you have such a low limit for how nuclear weapons may be used.

The solution, thus, is either to increase our use of propaganda or to increase the limits imposed upon our weapons of mass destruction. If the goal is to get people to stop fighting, many solutions are available. If the goal is just to get rid of people, then go see this link.

ground-zero-v2.html

One of the things I found fascinating was the Japanese Special Attack Forces. It takes a lot of real multicultural ability to understand such an alien culture as Japan, back in the WWII days. But we did it.

japanese-letters-from-kamikaze-special.html

http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/2006/03/japans-surrender.html

The interesting part is that you don't need to use canine pact dynamics to explain this phenomenon. Basic human behaviors are quite satisfactory.

The problem with neutrality

But NPR is wonderful. Democrats feel that it’s too conservative while Republicans feel that it’s too liberal, which is a sure sign that it’s doing its job.

A lot of people say that. Another way to look at it is with the two generals. Both are trying to deceive each other in the war, in order to gain an advantage. A neutral village, however, doesn't want to let either of the general's troops in, regardless of their attempts at negotiation and reasoning. The village doesn't let the soldiers in because they believe both are telling lies, and that it would be better to stand in the middle, where both sides cannot benefit and will be pissed.

Eventually, one of the generals got fed up and realized that the other general must be playing him for a fool with these negotiations, obviously the other general had reached an agreement with the village elder to attempt this stalling tactic in order for the other general to pull some surprise attack. The suspicious general, having realized this, orders an attack on the village. The other general, seeing the enemy run to the gates of the village, realizes that the village leader was stalling him so that the suspicious general could steal a march and get inside the village, using it as a fortification to kill the slow general's troops. So the slow general starts to march on the village. The suspicious general sees this as confirmation of his belief that the village elder was in kahoots with his enemy.

Eventually, after the fast general wins and takes over the village, he executes the village leader, his family, and his entire village for allying his village with the slow general. This is what being neutral gets you in war. As it should be. Bookworm might be interested to know that had we not faced Hitler and taken sides when we did, we would have faced both Stalin and Hitler's armies. Just cause one of them would be dead (Slow General), doesn't mean you aren't going to get hit by the entire resource of both of their sides.

Some people believe that truth is derived from a sum of averages. I believe truth is derived from competition, risk taking, and skill. Along with a good bit of luck.

The law of averages people would look at my story and say that the truth was that both of the generals were wrong. I say, the truth is that both of the generals were right. Both generals were benefiting from the villager's neutrality, and the suspicious general realized that he couldn't trust his enemy to keep up the status quo. It was a war to a knife after all, annihilation or victory. The slow general would have done the same as the suspicious general, except the slow general was a bit slow.

Think it through, both generals were benefiting from the villager's neutrality. So obviously one general will come to realize that he will benefit more, if he was the "only" one benefiting from the villager. To do that, he has to capture the village and deny it to the enemy.

Neutrality doesn't mean you're doing your job, neutrality means you're buying time to delay the point when everyone attacks you at once.

If the terroists don't get you like they did Tom Fox, the American people will get you like they did Dan Rather. Choose sides, it is both more responsible as well as much wiser.

One way you can analyze your opponent's propaganda is to do a psychological analysis of the character of their leader and propagandists. Depending upon the result, you will come to the right conclusion as to their biases and goals, without paying one iota of attention to their actual techniques. Studying the techniques might teach you how good their propaganda technique is, and how much truth to lie ration they have in the mix, but it really does not tell you whether their biases are pro-American or anti-American, fake liberal or true liberal, conservative or isolationist, Republican or Democrat.

The gem amongst the rubble

Found this link on google, while searching for something else entirely. The last post topic in fact.

"The crucial phenomenon in the society is that of honor. This is the supreme value, more important than life itself. Sharaf is a man’s honor of the man. It is dynamic and can rise or fall in line with the man’s activity and how he is perceived.
[...]
"The opposite pole of honor is shame. Researchers are not certain what is more important, the notion of honor or the fear of the shame that will be caused if honor is compromised. It is not honor, but shame that is the key issue. Public exposure is what harms a man’s honor and humiliates him. The Arab is constantly engaged in avoiding whatever causes shame, in word and deed, while striving vigorously to promote his honor. Beyond shame and preventing its occurrence, there is vengeance, which is also to be displayed to all."

This reminded me quite stunning of Japan's honor code. Not as a similarity, but as a basis for strategizing. We learned from Japan, through a military funded study about Japan's culture. The commissioned book, the Sword and the Chrysanthemum, was part of the study by the military on Japan and Japanese perspectives on the war. This is the same internal study that they just finished on OIF.

Is it possible that we will gain the same insights into Islamic culture as we did in Japanese culture, and thus in effect successfully be capable of using psychological attacks to defeat our enemies once again?

A goal worth pursuing, because if you keep reading, the Islamic culture is quite a lot more depraved than the Japanese culture was before we nuked them into defeat.

Piracy in international waters - Or what is the role of the US Navy

Southeast Asia - Indonesia in green

I've been keeping my eye on the Malacca Strait (pink arrow in map) for a long time. Although the Strait narrows to less than two miles in width at one point, a significant portion of the world's shipping passes through this area, including nearly all of the petroleum imported to Asia (esp. to China and Japan). It would be a trip of over 1,000 miles to go around the Malacca Strait.

That's fair enough, piracy still exists. It just doesn't exist in waters controlled by American commanders. But the main point still stands. The existence of piracy in waters that are controlled by Japan, Indonesia, Australia, and China as compared to the Persian Gulf, mediterranean and the Atlantic is a good contrast.

It would be problematic to say that America prevents piracy if there was no piracy. Hard to prove something that doesn't exist. That tends to produce people who say that piracy evaporated because of speaking Truth to Power, like when the Berlin Wall fell.

and I agree with that, but even an organization that powerful can't stop piracy/hijackings/illegal boardings everywhere

Our Navy can do it. Stop piracy everywhere, that is. But it would require an American Imperial will that is strong enough to overule and intimidate local governments. Since we'd be using our submarines to blow up pirate vessels on our permission, not on anyone else's. Regardless of whose flag the target flies. That can cause problems, if we didn't have an understanding with certain nations.

So I differ on the technical basis. Meaning, I think the problem is political, not military.

but even an organization that powerful can't stop piracy/hijackings/illegal boardings everywhere, and unfortunately, such acts are commonplace in some areas of the world.

It is not surprising that they are common. But most criminal gangs are state sponsored, privateers in other words. Such a network of piracy would require a network, and state sponsorship. Which probably makes it the terroist's funding source and black market.

Piracy seems to be very common in the chaotic parts of the world. As in the 17th century, the colonies in America were constantly raided by other nation's privateers and freelance pirates. Not only ships, but entire towns and capitals were looted and slaughtered. Sometimes more than once in a row.

The pirates today are a mixed bunch and can be found all over the world and can be anyone from a highly trained guerilla warrior to a rogue military unit (such as in Indonesia) to part of an international criminal gang or cartel. Pirates might also be part of international terrorist organizations (particularly Abu Sayaf out of the Philippines, which has strong links to Al-Qaeda as well as Asian crime syndicates and the heroin trade) or even simply local down-and-out fishermen who see a rich prize steaming by and can't resist (he states that poverty has driven many to piracy in the Caribbean, in Nigeria, Bangladesh, and elsewhere). Burnett writes that pirate weapons can vary from knives and machetes to modern assault rifles and grenade launchers. Pirates have even been known to have an insider in the crew of a ship, planted there to assist in a plan act of piracy.

The reader will discover that pirates can attack any ship - ranging from small private yachts to the largest of the supertankers - in any locale, including port or on open, international waters. The goal of the pirates can vary from robbing the ship's safe and the sailors of their personal possessions (such as money and jewelry) to the ship's cargo (be it millions of dollars in petroleum or on a private yacht the expensive electronics) to the ship and the sailors themselves, the former turned into a phantom ship that is used to smuggle weapons, drugs, or illegal immigrants, the latter fodder for a thriving international kidnapping trade (that is if the crew are not simply killed and dumped overboard).

Pirates can be found anywhere in the world though the main areas that they seem to operate in are west from Indonesian waters to as far east as Taiwan and the Philippines (favoring the vital shipping lanes through the Malacca Straits and the dangerous waters of the South China Sea), as well as off the coast of Brazil, off the Somali coast of East Africa, and West Africa. The Malacca Straits in particular are a vital area plagued at times by pirates; as $500 billion in goods passes through it annually, sometimes as many as 600 ships a day going through the Straits, which in some places are less than a mile wide, it is a target rich environment for pirates but one that is not particularly well policed. Though some waters where pirates operate are regularly patrolled - the Royal Malaysian Marine Police and the Singapore marine police are very active against pirates - other countries are unable or unwilling to work against them, with in Indonesia some military units either working with the pirates or pirates themselves. His description of the South China Sea - bordered by Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, the Philippines, China, and Taiwan - was particularly chilling, an area where international laws and standards aren't particularly well-enforced; which he writes is an "unpatrolled black hole where unarmed vessels and their civilian crews simply fall off the edge of the planet," an area where Abu Sayaf rebels have been know to attack ships with mortars and rocket-propelled grenades and kidnap rich tourists off of resort islands.

This is part of a review from the Amazon Book Dangerous Waters .

I notice that the pirates don't wantonly kill the crew more often than not. Perhaps even they understand that if they catch the notice of the United States Navy, that they would be ended in 6 months.

President Bush has a problem, in that he does not apply our strength against the terroist's weaknesses. One of the terroist's weaknesses is that they tend to congregate in chaotic parts of the world, and use crime to fuel their terror machine. They are also minimally present on the seas, and terroists on the high seas are bereft of much of their propaganda advantages. Such as tv crews, hand cameras, and various other things. They can't slip away into the night and meld with civilians, like they can in afghanistan and Baghdad. It would be ridiculously easy to execute the crew of a pirate ship and cover it up, but let the terroists know we did. It would be ridiculously easy to torpedo suspected terrorist ships and the ship would just go "missing" if there were no survivors.

Pirates is an economics game, just like suicide bombings is. Cut their economic life rope, and they're dead.

Why I supported the war

I didn't support the war, because I didn't like setting the precedent that would be set by pre-emptive invasion. Then one of my friends, a Ph.D. in Philosophy, told me about Saddam. That was all that it took. I sincerely believed that war was not the answer, because I didn't want innocents being killed. Hence, logically, if innocents are already being killed in Iraq and if Saddam is already pre-emptively invading Kuwait, what the hell do I gain by holding back the executioner's axe? Nothing. I had no doubts after that.

Thanks, Erp. As for the accuracy of polls, the media will purposefully skew poll results and Democrat samples to disfavor Bush. But generally, Bush has lost about 20% among REpublicans. Don't worry about the Democrats, but that 20% among Republicans is crucial. You keep losing the Republicans, and you're going to lose, period. Bush understands this, which is why he is starting another media offense. He needs to keep the pressure though. Bush likes to attack one or two countries, and then stop. This is not a good idea. This is like your armored tank division running of gas before they reach the goal line, not a good thing.

While the polls are "largely accurate" as DQ says, that is not the same thing as saying that you should trust or believe the polls.

It is untrue that most people who supported the war thought we'd be out of it by now. The Jackosnians aren't favoring a draw down, in fact many Jacksonians favor a draw up, more troops not less. This means what? This means that the main supporting element of the Iraqi War expected that we'd have peace and stability, law and order, in iraq at this time. Because Bush is too soft on Sadr, etc, etc, Iran, Syria, etc etc, we do not have law and security. This upsets and disappoints many military and civilian people of the Jacksonian persuasion.

Most Americans don't care about troops in Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, etc etc. Simply because there is law and order there. It is harder to do in Iraq than Germany and Japan, simply because we beat the shit out of Germany and Japan, to be honest. We'd showed demonstrably that pocking with the United States of America leads to an early grave for you AND your family, AND your family's family.

Most people stop fighting after they realized that.

The Iraqis neither trust America nor is afraid of America. Nor is Iran, Syria, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or any other of our current enemies afraid of us.

The military is our outer shield, because of the weakness at the core of American political leadership, the outer shield is getting beat the crap on. Which, to be honest, is only killing so few of the military because the military has gotten a lot harder since Vietnam, to kill. Which is a good thing. But still, that is not sustainable if law and order is not brought about.

The strategy of Bush, to let the Iraqis take hold, has its merits. But the same problems we had bringing order to Iraq, is the same problems the Iraqi government will face. If we hadn't solved those problems of law and security, why does Bush think the Iraqis will be better?

The obvious answer is that if we can get the terroists to kill Iraqis only, the American people would stop caring about our occupation forces, like the American people stopped caring about troops in Japan and SK. Cynical, but effective. However, it takes a long long long time to do.

My frustration, unlike others, is not with the time. The time is directly related to how many people you are willing to kill to stop the violence. If you aren't willing to do anything, you get looters in New Orleans. If you are willing to do the nuclear option, you get the peace and prosperity of Japan.

My frustration is with the details in Bush's strategy. I'm not going to tell Bush to change his strats like the Democrats, cause that is Bush's responsibility to make and not mine. However, I can tell him how to improve his tactics. Which suck, currently.

The best news I've heard is that a recent report is either done or coming out, an internal military comprehensive review, of lessons learned from OIF. This is the first such report, since the one did in WWII that lead to the accurate understanding of Japan's Emperor system and Shintoism principles. Because we paid money to study Japan and how their citizens thought and viewed the war, we were able to force Japan to surrender rather than fight to the death. We purposefully did not bomb the Imperial Palace, because we KNEW that without the Emperor we would have to fight japan to the death.

It is good news for Iraq, because with this additional understanding, proper tactics may finally have a chance to be constructed.

What most people don't realize is that the military brass in Iraq has no idea how to win hearts and minds. Their plan changes every year. First it was get reconstruction, then it was train Iraqis, then it was body armor and IEDs, then it was... etc. The only people with any idea how to win hearts and minds is the military platoon leaders and military company leaders, brigade leaders, etc. The military has solved their cluelessness by giving their troops more initiative and authority, less red tape. But that doesn't replace central strategy, however.

Why people like Bush

Neo Neocon used to dislike Bush too. That was, up until she realized that you need a certain iron determination, free from intellectual debate and moral equivocation, to protect women and children you care about.

When there is no threat, the neighbor with 500 rifles, 50 pistols, and about a million stack of ammunition for each kind of caliber might seem like a god dag loon. A danger to all that is peaceful. That is, up until you get invaded by barbarian rapists and murderers, and then he seems like a godsend.

Emotions vary, as the circumstances change.

Personally, I don't approve of the job the President is doing. And I am what is known as a "Bush partisan". In reality, I am an American partisan. What I fight for isn't to benefit Bush, my oaths and obligations weren't personal oaths to Bush as my liege lord. No, my oaths and loyalties are to the Constitution and the people of America.

Emotionally and philosophically, America is worth dieing for and it is also worth killing for. Fox might die for his beliefs, but I'll also kill for them. Which I guess, invalidates me as a possible friend to Tom Fox. That's fine with me. It wasn't no peace activists that rescued the "hostages". Better word would be "human shields".

In the end, a person can like Bush as I do, but he can also disagree with what and how he is doing his job. I hope the Democrats don't have a heart attack when they realize that most Republicans aren't fanatic Bush supporters, bar nothing. Or, maybe I do.

ADDENDUM

I do, however, object to a Beltway mentality, seen in how Washington journalists report on the politics of the war, which reflects the apparent belief that wars are supposed to go by the book.

Nothing goes according to plan, not even Dan Rather's fake but accurate project. The Beltway journalists might want to clean up their own house, before criticizing the house in which they are guests of.

Yes, at times Bush drives me crazy, too. His refusal to veto any spending bills fueled a growing deficit. The Bushies were dangerously overconfident about what it would take to win the war in Iraq. They may well have underestimated how many troops were needed in 2003.

I study the military as a hobby, so maybe you don't know that Bush didn't "estimate" anything. The military generals, the general staff, and the joint chiefs did the estimating and Bush did the approving. That was it. If you don't like the numbers of troops, you need to analyze it from the perspective of attacking the beliefs of a general, not of a President.

Vetoing spending bills or threatening to veto bills, is supposed to be a way for the President to gain political favors in Washington. From both sides. Because Bush doesn't use that Constitutional power of his, his "capital" is getting drained dry. Obvious really. I mean, the President didn't even get the promise from Edward Kennedy to shut the pock up for a year, in return for not vetoing his No Child Left Behind in the BackSeat of Kennedy's Car Bill.

Talk about a waste of opportunities.

Human nature - Or the fallibility of liberal ideologies

Visual propaganda

Your post reminds me that in this day and age, there is few if anything we need to make up to revival WWII days. The amount of videos taped by the terroists, found in Fallujah and elsewhen and where, are mind boggling stunning. Literally, mind boggling to a point at which the human mind begins to fail to grasp the meaning of those videos.

For the terroists, taping executions and tortures are both an entertainment venue and a weapon to terrorize others into ceasing their resistance to the "cause".

It would be highly catharthic for the numerous victims of Uday and Qusay to see, for themselves using their own eyes, the recreated hit and assassination of Uday and Qusay, carried out by foreign American forces. Because they knew the reality, and they had never dared hope that anyone who had the power, would kill Uday and Qusay.

It is one of the grandest and most uplifting stories of Iraq. Yet such a story cannot be told, if the witnesses and the members just sit there and let it bake in the sun. Like Black Hawk Dawn, you have to dig for witnesses, write a book, get a Hollywood movie made. Such experiences cannot be osmosed through a "few words". Or even a great many words. Black Hawk Down was the first movie that caused me to question the anti-military liberal biases I had integrated from watching television and cable. It was the first movie that portrayed American soldiers as something other than mindless, brutish, thugs in the service of a contemptible cause and leader.

When the convoy came back to the Ranger base with their wounded, I was amazed that the Rangers were standing in line to go back. I could not understand why they were so eager to rush back into the crucible of pain, death, tragedy, and sorrow. The firestorm of bullets, rpgs, and crashed helicopters. The sound of the wounded and the ever present dust, enemies, and bullet cracks. It was literally inconceivable, until I had personally seen it with my eyes. Then I could conceive it, then I could mold my mind around such a foreign concept as loyalty to a cause and to a brotherhood, beyond death, fire, and adversity.

You cannot help but feel admiration for the courage and the virtues of such men. You could also not help but feel contempt for Clinton, when he made all their sacrifices in vain when he pulled out. I hadn't considered that until I heard one of the Rangers who was there, speak on History Channel about his experiences. He said he didn't mind dieing in combat, so long as his death would mean something in the end.

Such experiences produce ties of loyalty between the viewer and the person on screen. Regardless of whether we knew each other or not. Because after seeing such will and determination, I could not condemn them to a meaningless fight just because I had personal weaknesses about a cause. Such knowledge helped in Iraq, although enemy IED psychological attacks were just as devastating to me as to anyone else at the time.

If our government and nation is truly based upon the belief that a group of citizens informed to the fullest extent by good information, can govern themselves through the wise selection of representatives of leaders, then there is no excuse not to tell the story of Qusay and Uday along with the stories of the men and women who finally ended their miserable, loathsome lives.

This is only one application of the psychology and the propaganda, learned through painstaking observation of Al Qaeda, AP, Al Rueters, Dan Rather, and Al-Jaazeera's antics.

You cannot be afraid about learning from the enemy. If your goal truly is victory, if it is truly the safety of our women and our children, then you should be willing to do whatever it takes to defeat the enemy. Including becoming more like them, including learning from them, including doing things you never would have imagined you would have done in peace time.

Bush promised to use whatever tools was at his disposal to protect the American people, you, me, our families. In my eyes at least, Bush has not made good on that promise, the promise he made right after 9/11.

In reply to steve's comments. Propaganda is about the human soul. That's it.

Artists have to know what they are crafting and why they are doing it. A writer or an artist cannot just sit down, shut off his brain, and start drawing/writing. Purpose is required.

The second reason why I don't like steve's characterization, is the assumption that propaganda is about political issues only. Rather tunnel visioned.

As for steve's thinking on Stalin and music, it looks rather compartamentalized to me. I don't think separating enjoyment and philosophical understanding from each other in specific categories, is a good idea for the human soul at large.

At its heart, propaganda is the art of persuasion as much as military science is about the art of war. Or perhaps even the science of war. Whether it persuades the eye through aesthetics, or the human ear and mind through rhetoric, does not matter.

In the end, a movie is not just entertainment as Fahrenheit, Syriana, and Munich have proven. It is a powerful means to communicate with people you would never meet.

Terroists captured while storming a station

Sad news. Why? Read on.

Four police were killed, including the commander of the special unit, and five were wounded, al-Mohammadawi said. None of the attackers died, and among the captives was a Syrian.

Fighting an attrition war, is itself a bad idea. Fighting an attrition war and losing, is even more lethally stupid.

Here we lost the commander of a Special Police unit, and we didn't even execute the terroists. What the hell is CENTCOM doing. They need to get their asses out of their heads, and understand that in a guerilla war information is PARAMOUNT. Having the enemy surrender may look good on your war record, but this isn't a conventional war, so stop fighting as if it is.

Some may argue that if terroists surrender, then we will get good information out of them. Hello?! People, where have you been? The locations of weapons caches and other important information are coming from IRAQI CIVILIANS, who sure as pock will not keep risking their lives as the contingent of terroists that you are eventually going to release, grows, grows, grows, and grows.

On Tuesday, about 100 masked gunmen stormed a jail in Muqdadiyah near the Iranian border and freed more than 30 prisoners, most of them fellow insurgents.

If you executed those motherpockers in the first place like I recommended, there would be no one to "rescue". And no Iraqi ally would have died because some military general brass wanted to "capture the enemy" according to some dumb military book of war.

Another way to look at it is that the US military likes being ordered around by civilians. The military would feel uncomfortable executing people they catch on the battlefield, because they see that as a "policy decision". So they bump it up to the civilians. American civilians, then bump it to the Iraqi leaders, which are weak, corrupt, stupid, ignorant, infiltrated, and don't have the institutions or the political will to execute the terroists. They have just started executions, and there were only 13 of them. That is not NEARLY enough. Keep this up and we'll be another Israel, forever fighting the terroists that are released from jails.

LT Colonel Kurilla, as seen from Michael Yon's site, has already witnessed terroists he caught, return and kill more American soldiers under his command. He was SHOT by one of those catch and released terroists, he should know.

More to the point, by releasing terroists and criminals from Abu Ghraib as a "good will gesture", the people of Mosul no longer are willing to cooperate with us and risk their lives. Because now they have realized that America is a paper tiger, that we are weak, that the strong horse and the winning side is with the ruthless terroists. Why should they join us when the terroists will kill their families for helping America? What do they get if they help Americans, more catch and release criminals released in their neighborhoods to kill their people? Bullshit.

Police continued to find corpses in the shadowy war between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Three bodies, blindfolded and bearing signs of torture, were found in a western Baghdad neighborhood just after midnight, and the body of a young man shot in the chest was discovered in Musayyib, about 40 miles south of the capital, police said.

The body of a man in an Iraqi military uniform who had been killed outside Madain was also taken to a morgue in the southern city of Kut, an official said.

Back in the capital, roadside bombs targeting police patrols wounded at least six officers - including four who work as guards at the Education Ministry - and two other policemen and a passer-by were wounded in a drive-by shooting, police said.

The American people and the Iraqi people DESERVE their share of bodybags for the sacrifices we and the Iraqi people have made. CENTCOM and the President better get that through their thick skulls before the war is lost.

I support the war, as is obvious. It is not that I dislike people for criticizing the war effort. Rather, I dislike people for criticizing the war effort because they are a god dug distraction from the real improvements that can be made.

Their criticisms are nothing but the farthest flung arm of the enemy's propaganda apparatus. There are enough problems without having to deal with agent provocateurs.

The insurgency's strength, spiraling sectarian violence and the continuing stalemate over forming a government in Iraq have led politicians and foreign policy experts to say Iraq was on the brink or perhaps in the midst of civil war.

An increasing number of Americans are calling for a pullout of U.S. forces regardless of the consequences for Iraq, but most mainstream Iraqi politicians do not want the troops to leave until the insurgency is defeated. Some more radical leaders, like firebrand Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, demand an immediate pullout.

Speaking of agent provocateurs...

Gotta love the AP, the English version of Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm.

The propaganda of terroists

All the strength a civilization may rally, is found in past generations and the core beliefs that made everything possible the first time around.

Endlessly reinventing yourselves is nothing but a waste of time.

Google Shintoism.

Another point that I think needs to be made, is what happens when enemy propaganda works.

And what happens, really, is that you get someone like steve, who cares about Americans, to fight against the war effort because he doesn't want to see any further helpless soldiers die in a gruesome and helpless manner.

The primary component to break someone spiritually is not pain, pain is nothing that a strong warrior cannot withstand. No, the primary component in spiritually breaking someone is making them feel helpless.

The strongest man is nothing but fodder, once he is made helpless in his mind.

The enemy uses IEDs, not because it kills Americans since militarily they don't do much at all, but because they know the media will cover it and people like steve will SEE it. Ever hear of seeing is believing? Our eyes are genetically programmed to believe what we see, a legacy of our prey/predator days of survival. And the single reason why propaganda became such a powerful tool with the advent of television, as Neo noted.

There are two kinds of people the terroists seek to influence. Those who support America, and those who don't support America.

For the supporters of America, which I assume steve is part of, the images of American casualties break your heart because they seem so helpless. Like little kittens strangled out in the rain, while the strangler gets off scott free and laughs about it. Look at those little kittens, crawling through the mud, don't it break your heart?

The Way of the Sword is as much mental as physical.

For those who seek to destroy America, the terroists are able to provide IED and VBiED and Mosul suicide IEDs for those anti-Americans to use to buttress their positions politically, and to weaken the proponents of America.

The policy makers of America thus are hampered in two separate fronts. The domestic enemy, which is the great majority of the Democratic party. And domestic allies, the great majority of Republicans. Both complain and assault the policy makers.

Look at the recent debate about body armor. It came exclusively because of IEDs. Now improved body armor might save one life, but what would save more lives would be to execute the terroists once they have been drained of information rather than releasing them to kill more Americans.

But there is no political force to propose such legislation, because you don't see it on tv. And you don't see it on tv because the terroists and our domestic enemies don't allow you to see it on tv. The terroists try very hard not to allow their enemies to understand just how valuable American stupidity in catching and releasing terroists are, to their jihad. As was noted here before, the terroists gain more and more experience after they get out of jail. It is one of the reasons why Israel is still fighting Palestine. They don't kill the terroists they do find. Here we have a 10 year old child with 3rd degree burns and in critical care, not recieving proper medical treatment because their family can't afford it. Then we have the terroist that tried to blow the child up, sleeping in the NEXT POCKING ROOM, treated by the American military doctors because he was a CASUALTY of the other side. That, is more of a problem than any kind of "body armor".

It is not surprising that Bush wouldn't pay any attention to catch and release of terroists. He doesn't even pay attention to the Mexican border with the catch and release of Mexican rapists and murderers, doing their profession on American soil and American citizens. Why should Bush change military policy, if there is no public awareness of the problem?

The terroists make us aware of problems that they want us to fix. The terroists hide problems that they don't want us to fix, by making us take our eye off of the real problems.

This kind of propaganda, the highest echelon propaganda available to humanity, is so subversive and so subtle that people like Steve, somehow thinks that his beliefs were made by his own free will.

Only it wasn't.

Some may believe that nuclear weapons are the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. But they are wrong. If I can convince a nation to suicide, then that ability to persuade is more destructive than any nuclear weapon. Why? Because I can use it and nobody notices that it is I doing the killing. With a nuke, there is no subtlety, there is no doubt, there is no plausible denial. With propaganda, psychological operations, and subversive projects I can use them to their fullest extent, without getting caught. The genkai, thus, of propaganda is much higher than WMDs. The limit to that which is placed upon the weapon, in how it is used.

In the end, people killed by nukes is obviously smaller than killed by bad ideas, purposefully bad ideas. (Nazi, Palestine, Stalin, Pol Pot, Japan, I could go on)

It is far more efficient to convince your enemies to kill themselves, than it is to do the deed yourself. That has been human wisdom since the advent of time itself.

The solution is not to convince people that the terroists are controlling their beliefs through carefully selected sound bites and images, the solution is to push back with counter-propaganda of the highest quantity and quality. PUsh the enemy out of the battlespace of men's minds, back to their dark dungeons of despair.

It will be a hard fight. Because the Islamists have had decades to fortify their position. We will not win this war by being defensive minded. We have to attack, audacity and more audacity is required.

In storming the fortress of men's minds, controlled by Islam, we will take horrendous casualties. But those casualties on D-Day were required, if only because the French betrayed themselves and their allies in giving Hitler a set of fortifications.

If we lose, then future generations will have nothing but contempt for those of us who fought a vile and contemptible struggle. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. - Duke

If we win, then all will be forgiven.

There is no substitute for victory.

Know thy enemy, and know thy self. Do yourself a favor and study psychology and propaganda.

Iraq anniversary - 3 years

Fighting wars you can win: Definitely. You pose the question of maybe countries shouldn't go to war, on the idea that you can't predict the outcome. Not really the same, I don't think.

That's not what Neo did.

We are there because we are waiting for what?

We are waiting for you, Steve, to bring us the critical logistics supply that is required to win the war. We are still waiting.


IMO, political realities made it difficult for Bush, initially, to explicitly explain this threat. He's doing a better job now - though there is obvious room vor improvement.

Bush wouldn't know how to tell you about this threat, even if he wanted to and could afford to politically. So there are 3 barriers preventing Bush from explictly explaining the threat.

It's hard for me to understand why people don't get this.

They just don't care. As Steve said, he doesn't care how many Iraqis are murdered in the streets, it doesn't affect him.

My second point was, and is, that we have NO SPECIFIC GOALS.

Bush would be brain dead to tell you the specific strategic and tactical goals of this war, just so you can blab it on the internet and tell our enemy. You do understand that Al-Qaeda data mines the internet on a regular basis, right?

This is so not secure.

Problem is, I'm not getting them.

Which is a good thing, it shows that military security has not been cracked or "leaked".

BUT that's not how this war was sold to the American people, and that's why they are tired of it.

WWII wasn't sold to the American people, since Roosevelt said he wouldn't get involved in foreign wars...

War isn't a commodity to be sold and bought.

that's the party line that is currently being put out there

There is no party line, since there is no party propaganda apparatus. Show me Bush's propaganda apparatus and then you can talk about party lines.

Having spent quite a bit of time sitting immobilized in an APC or an Amtrac I can tell you my heart goes out to anyone who has to sit knee in the crotch of the guy sitting across from you, utterly helpless, waiting to be blown up.

A warrior is never helpless. Those people you see helpless in that vehicle, are not warriors.

Do we switch on to full appeasement mode from here on out?

So long as American soldiers don't die, I don't think steve cares about what else happens.

I simply want our people in a position to minimize this particularly helpless and therefore gruesome form of death.

I suppose helpless children must be protected now and again.

I'm being honest about how I feel about this: that's why I can't take any pleasure in this, at all.

You can't take enemy propaganda that demoralizes you... Okay. You ever hear of mental defenses?

even wrote a constitution for them

Now we're verging on the "made up facts" branch of logic.

they certainly won't be defeated by 150 K Americans, many of whom are in vulnerable support roles to begin with.

Sounds like the Iraqi police that bunked up in their stations, and allowed the terroists to slaughter everyone in the neighborhood. A bunch of cowards.

Steve, enemy propaganda is going to affect your thinking regardless of the situation in Iraq. I say regardless because propaganda uses psychological attacks that bypass both armor and military power.

So it doesn't matter if we pull back in. Cause the enemy is just going to come up with some new trick to show you on tv and demoralize you. THEN, you will be complaining about that new trick and trying to get Americans out of harm's way yet again.

Don't make me remind you about the Marine Corps barracks bombing that killed 220 Marines. You can pull in your helpless children all you want, steve, from the IEDs, but it's not going to make your mental defenses against enemy propaganda any stronger. Nor will it save any American lives. You don't win a war on the defensive, and you sure as hell aren't saving lives in the long term by fortifying up.

Link

Here is Glenn's thoughts on reading history, the 21st century way.

President Bush's press conference

This was painful to watch.

One question from an attractive female ABC reporter, was, "Are you willing to sacrifice American troops to save Iraqi lives".

Here's what I think Bush should have answered with.

"Given that the ABC network has no problems with endangering our troops by embedding reporters among them, I don't know why you're asking that question"

"Given that our military obeys their oaths and honors their obligations, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for reporters that are ashamed that they are American. They are willing to sacrifice themselves for reporters that are sympathetic to the enemy, they are willing to sacrifice themselves for all of that and yet the idea of soldiers sacrificing themselves for Iraqi women and children seems to you all to be something special and outrageous. Well, let me tell you this, there are far more worthy people in this world, deserving of American protection, than United States journalists."

Then the President said, "please, don't take this as criticism". In our reality, he said that. The President is afraid to criticize the media, obviously the same isn't returned.

Bush also should have said "Iraq harbored terroists as well as the Taliban, so if you don't like war with Iraq then at least be consistent and criticize Afghanistan about. The only reason Afghanistan isn't as bad as Iraq, is because they don't have reporters in there inciting terrorism and enemy propaganda."

It is a time of Blogger Facelifts

Back to Iraq

Let’s conduct a little thought experiment. “The media” here are fiercely competitive. Everyone of us is looking for any angle — any! — that will break news, make our stories stand out or otherwise distinguish ourselves. That’s what journalists do, and the corps here comes from the entire ideological spectrum, from the conservative to the socialist. But weirdly, this herd of cats — which is what we could be best be compared to — have all come to the same conclusion: Iraq is a mess.

It seems perhaps he has not encountered the logical fallacy of appealing to the people, by quoting the biggest number he can find. Everyone believes it eh? Well, I can make everyone believe that the Soviet Empire would not fall in 1989 too, but that doesn't mean reality would change. In fact, everyone did believe the Soviet Empire wouldn't fall, except Reagan.

I would argue that this prevailing view is the aggregate of a lot of professional reporting, mine but a small bit. If it gravitates toward a single viewpoint, well, that’s the way it is. Sorry, truth hurts.

This is what happens when you have reporters trying to use philosophy and say they have the "truth".

With a good propaganda apparatus, I can make the truth to be whatever I want it to be. With a propaganda apparatus as good as the ones the Palestinians and Al Qaeda have, I can bend reality to my will. Let alone fool these Baghdad Hotel reporters.

The Next thing he will start telling me is that if everyone believed Iraq had WMDs, that this then means the truth hurts and that Iraq has WMDs...

Cross out everyone with a lot of people, and it is the same thing.

and somehow I’m supposed to suddenly doubt my own observations and experience? Pardon me if I believe my lyin’ eyes instead of him.

This is the kind of person that terroists specifically target. A terroist would do their best to find this unit he is imbedded with, and then focus all their attacks on that unit. Would be quite an anti-American propaganda win for for the terroists to have an American reporter report heavy attacks and show images of burning American vehicles. If he says he believes his lying eyes, then the terroists will give him what he wants and lie to his eyes and show him all the attacks and violence in the world.

Before the invention of the camera and light speed satellites, the eyes never lied. Now they do. The truth hurts, but the truth is the truth. But seeing is no longer seeing the truth anymore, even if seeing is believing still stands.

Mr. Peters, you should be ashamed of yourself. Three Iraqi journalists have been killed this week alone trying to report the news, and the stringer who work for us are no less the journalists than the guys at the Iraqi networks.

I'm supposed to believe you that your stringers are like the patriots in the Iraqi networks? I'm supposed to believe your lying eyes over the evidence I see before me of systemic propaganda and infiltration attempts, designed to manipulate the international media?

The reason why Iraqis are killed and not foreign journalists, is because foreign journalists report the news in a way that the terroists like and the Iraqis don't. How could that be, if they use the same resources? For one thing, they don't use the same resources, and for another thing, because they don't report the same news.

Maybe Mr. Peters would like a nice chat with “Salih” from the Washington Post, who reported a story about the looting of Saddam’s palaces in Tikrit after the U.S. military turned it over to the Iraqi security forces. His reward? A $50,000 bounty put on his head by the head of security in Tikrit, Jassam Jabara.

Perhaps he’d like to talk to the family of Allan Enwiyah, the translator for the Christian Science Monitor’s Jill Carroll. He was killed when Jill was kidnapped Jan. 7, unprotected by American firepower. She is still captive, by the way.

The last time I checked, those weren't Chris's stringers. Either Chris is talking about strangers or he is talking about friends he knows and have worked with, obviously the latter precludes Chris's objectivity here.

How dare you, Ralph. How dare you question these men and women’s intentions and honesty.

*neck cracking* If Chris wants to play that game, then I hope his defenses are in strack.

…Sunnis were killing Shia civilians, and Shia, often under official cover, were retaliating. I asked Haidar if the rumors I’d heard were true — that the Ministry of Interior had been infiltrated and dominated by the Badr Organization Militia, the military forces of the radical Shia Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, or SCIRI. Yes, he said, and added that Ministry of Interior members affiliated with Badr were assassinating Sunnis throughout Iraq. Sunni officers were being removed and replaced by unknown Shias.

How dare you, Chris. How DARE you question the loyalty and patriotism of Iraqis who are dieing by the tens of thousands. Former AP reporter.

Finally, I’ll let a former Army guy have the last word. This from a buddy of mine who was a Public Affairs Officer just a few short months ago:

Oh my god, dude. [Peters] is completely full of sh*t. That’s all I can say. Apparently that f**k hasn’t spent enough time down in the trenches here to understad the little bastards will run out and wave at any patrol for one reason — begging for choclate or soccer balls. They don’t care the Grunts are valiently coming to save the day. … He’s not aware of how f**king dangerous it is for gringos to roam the streets here.

The profanity is probably the reason Army PR doesn't know their ass from a MOAB bomb.

Chris, cares, he really really cares. But only about those people he has seen and worked with. Everyone else can go kill themselves.

However, Iraqi authorities are refusing to identify the other victims found around the capital because they fear fueling (more) sectarian violence. Based on my experience here, it’s likely most of these bodies are of Sunni men, killed in reprisal for Sunday’s car bomb attacks in Sadr City that killed 58 and wounded more than 200. The culprits are probably members of the Shi’ite-led security forces or members of the Mahdi Militia, based in Sadr City.

Spoken like Al-Qaeda's propaganda arm. Let's just speculate. Don't pay any attention to how these speculations have been paid for by Al Qaeda in blood.

But a guy who writes exclusively for publications that supported the war before it went down comes here and says things are fine, and somehow I’m supposed to suddenly doubt my own observations and experience? Pardon me if I believe my lyin’ eyes instead of him.

Allow me to answer in Chris's own words.

A reader -- I can't find the email now -- asked some months ago if I would change my mind on the war if it was proven that Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction. I answered that no, I wouldn't, since I didn't -- and don't -- believe that the war was about WMD or an evil tyrant but about realpolitik plans for projecting American power into the Middle East. My response to this reader is to flip the question: "Do you still think this war was necessary since it may very well turn out that there are no WMD to be found?" (Mind you, I'm sure the U.S. will find some cache of chemicals or a few warheads, but President Bush repeatedly invoked a clear and present danger to the survival of the United States as a justification for war. A few dozen litres of mustard gas or even VX does not strike me as justification for shredding the U.N. Charter, demolishing NATO, harming further the United States' image abroad and increasing the risk of terrorism at home.)

There is no reason to believe any stories Chris, with paid Iraqi stringers, writes because Chris was always against the war.

Chris, the one who fell for Al-Qaeda and Sadr's Civil War propaganda project. Chris, the one who fell for the Democrat's "president said imminent danger" propaganda project.

Some guy that believed the war was unjustified because of the neo-cons, comes to Iraq, and expects me to believe him instead of my own logic and the events I have observed.

Polygamy

One of the arguments against gay marriage, was that legally it would also validate polygamy, which would end up destroying American culture and our civilization. The arguments were true, they just weren't argued well.

As Newsweek notes, these stirrings for the mainstreaming of polygamy (or, more accurately, polyamory) have their roots in the increasing legitimization of gay marriage. In an essay 10 years ago, I pointed out that it is utterly logical for polygamy rights to follow gay rights. After all, if traditional marriage is defined as the union of (1) two people of (2) opposite gender, and if, as gay marriage advocates insist, the gender requirement is nothing but prejudice, exclusion and an arbitrary denial of one's autonomous choices in love, then the first requirement -- the number restriction (two and only two) -- is a similarly arbitrary, discriminatory and indefensible denial of individual choice.

One of the reasons why rape is used as punishment is because it is easy to use as a reward for sexually frustrated young men of the Arab persuasion. Why? Because the Arabs practice polygamy. Because they practice polygamy, there is a HUGE percentage of young men that can't get wives. Why? Because their fathers have 10 wives, that is why. In a 50/50 male/female population, 1 man with 10 wives, comes to about 50 times 10, equaling 500. 50 men out of a 100 population sample, with a 450 young men with no wives. Not every Arab man has 10 wives, no, the norm is probably somewhere around 2 or 3. So, to do the math, 50 men times 2 equals 100 women married. Leaving 50 extra men living the singles life of jihad, insurgency, and blowing themselves up. No wonder Palestinian mothers approve of jihad suicide murder, they're just getting rid of these useless men in their family. It frees up widows too.

So, what does that have to do with Western civilization and polygamy? Easy. When a society no longer has a constructive manner in which they can harness the energies of their young men, because there are no women to marry, that society then begins to self-destruct. Bookworm blogged about this a while ago.

For instance, if men can't find women to marry, what would motivate them to have children and to work their ass off providing for them? It is an economic model, this "monogamy". One woman for each man. One nuclear family to fight for, to work for, and to live for.

If a man has multiple wives, then he isn't motivated to do anything because he can just skip among his wives and play Harem politics.

If a woman has multiple husbands, then they start fighting over whose child the woman should birth, and the other husbands would not work as hard for children that aren't theirs biologically.

I'm not refering to free will here by the way. But the biological imperatives that make men function and make us competitive.

Why would YOU personally work your ass off if you knew your "co-husband" had a much higher paycheck than yours?

Why would YOU personally work your ass off if 5 women were fighting to get your affections? You'd be too busy fighting them off and quelling dispute, and hiring Harem managers, to have time to work. Most sane men would just quit their jobs and rely on the income of their women wives. We are talking about Western civ here, with so called "equal pay", not Saudi Arabia.

Bingo had a essay splurge about this polygamy question awhile ago.

Ross in Range wrote about the benefits some of the unusual traits of monogamy. Namely, the dynamics of younger women marrying older men, having children early, and then getting a career.

In point of fact, men succede in their careers primarily because they want to have cash and to support their families. Look at Google, for example. Is not the idea that more women will find you attractive if you are financially successful, a good motivator for YOUNG men?

It all leads back to my main point. Young men have energies that can either be diverted into Global jihad and murdering and raping, or they can be diverted and converted from the raw rage of emotions into the constructive purposes of a job, money, and being a provider and protector.

Polygamy, in fact, destroys the mechanism society has in maintaining a peaceful and prosperous society.

That is not a good idea. And that, is why gay marriage is believed to destroy the institution of marriage, ladies and gentlemen. Any institution's purpose is to benefit society. Marriage is coming to benefit society less and less. But in a sea of bad options, polygamy isn't any better.

UPDATE For those interested in Muslim culture and culture shock, read Ross's article about that subject.

Chomsky and tricks

Someone posted a link that was Chomsky's response to Oliver Kamm, which was discussed by Neo Neocon here. The precursor to Chomsky's riposte.

Kamm--whom I found via Austin Bay's link to this Guardian article of Kamm's on the reasons why, despite flaws in execution, he still supports the Iraq war--is what Norman Geras would call a "principled leftist" and what Kamm himself calls a "tough liberal." Kamm is also the author of an intriguing-sounding book (although I couldn't find it on Amazon) entitled: Anti-Totalitarianism: the Left-Wing Case for a Neoconservative Foreign Policy.

Chomsky sounds a lot more rational than I would have given him credit for. But then again, perhaps that explains his success. He is not a true believer and he is not crazy like Daily Kos. Whatever passion and excorciation he holds as his image, it still entitles him to the moral and logical position of the spiritual leader. A position highlighted by Haim Harari.

Words can be lethal. They kill people. It is often said that politicians, diplomats and perhaps also lawyers and business people must sometimes lie, as part of their professional life. But the norms of politics and diplomacy are childish, in comparison with the level of incitement and total absolute deliberate fabrications, which have reached new heights in the region we are talking about. An incredible number of people in the Arab world believe that September 11 never happened, or was an American provocation or, even better, a Jewish plot.
[...]
But words also work in other ways, more subtle. A demonstration in Berlin, carrying banners supporting Saddam's regime and featuring three-year old babies dressed as suicide murderers, is defined by the press and by political leaders as a "peace demonstration". You may support or oppose the Iraq war, but to refer to fans of Saddam, Arafat or Bin Laden as peace activists is a bit too much. A woman walks into an Israeli restaurant in mid-day, eats, observes families with old people and children eating their lunch in the adjacent tables and pays the bill. She then blows herself up, killing 20 people, including many children, with heads and arms rolling around in the restaurant. She is called "martyr" by several Arab leaders and "activist" by the European press. Dignitaries condemn the act but visit her bereaved family and the money flows.

There is a new game in town: The actual murderer is called "the military wing", the one who pays him, equips him and sends him is now called "the political wing" and the head of the operation is called the "spiritual leader". There are numerous other examples of such Orwellian nomenclature, used every day not only by terror chiefs but also by Western media. These words are much more dangerous than many people realize. They provide an emotional infrastructure for atrocities. It was Joseph Goebels who said that if you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it. He is now being outperformed by his successors.

I turned with interest to Oliver Kamm's critique of the "crude and dishonest arguments" he attributes to me (Prospect, Nov. 2005), hoping to learn something. And I did, though not quite what he intended; rather, about the lengths to which some will go to prevent exposure of state crimes and their own complicity in them. His substantive charges are as follows.

You can sense part of his strategy here. Parry and riposte. Re-posit rather than deposit. To put back what you had taken, rather than deposit, which puts your things into an account or withdrawal, taking what is yours from an account. Reposit, as you can see, takes what someone else has sent you and puts it back in its place. The idea isn't alien, because it combines equal parts defense and offense. Not only do you defend against your attackers, but you use the force of their attack against them. Which is part, though not the entire whole, of Chomsky's strategy here.

To demonstrate "a particularly dishonest handling of source material," Kamm alleges that "[Chomsky] manipulates a self-mocking reference in the memoirs of the then US Ambassador to the UN...to yield the conclusion that Moynihan took pride in Nazi-like policies." Kamm wisely evades the statements of Moynihan that I quoted from his 1978 memoirs. The topic is Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor, condemned by the Security Council, which ordered Indonesia to withdraw. But the order had no effect. Moynihan explains why: "The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success." He then refers to reports that within two months some 60,000 people had been killed, "10 percent of the population, almost the proportion of casualties experienced by the Soviet Union during the Second World War" - at the hands of Nazi Germany, of course. His comparison, not mine, as Kamm pretends. And his clearly expressed pride: there is not the slightest hint of self-mockery, and the only "manipulation" is Kamm's, in his desperate effort to deny truly horrendous crimes of state; his state, hence his complicity.

Presumably, this would be convincing as it uses the exact words of Moynihan. But as Kamm noticed, because it is so seamless you actually have to find the original. But what if you can't FIND the original, as most readers of Chomsky would not have access to the original source?

The only alternative, or perhaps a segment of the only alternatives, is to do a logical consistency analysis. In other words, move on and try to get the entire piece down and attack Chomsky through some other defensive fortification, where he might not be as strong.

Far more Timorese had been killed by the time Moynihan's memoirs appeared in 1978, thanks to immediate US military and diplomatic support (or as Kamm prefers, Ford's "indolence, at best"), joined by the UK in 1978 as atrocities were peaking, and continuing through the final paroxysm of violence in August-September 1999, until Clinton finally ordered a halt a few weeks later, under great international and domestic pressure. Indonesia instantly withdrew, making it crystal clear who bears responsibility for one of the closest approximations to true genocide of the post-war period.

The contention seems to be that in one scenario, Ford didn't care, and in the other, Ford cared enough to actively create the circumstances.

The review includes the assessment of the German Ambassador to Sudan in the Harvard International Review that "several tens of thousands" died as a result of the bombing and the similar estimate in the Boston Globe by the regional director of the respected Near East foundation, who had field experience in Sudan, along with the immediate warning by Human Rights Watch that a "terrible crisis" might follow, reporting very severe consequences of the bombing even in the first few weeks. And much more.

Read this and keep that in mind. It will be relevant much latter, when I compare this "scenario" and its being justified by "our good German ambassador", with an apparent flaw.

Kamm claims that I provided no evidence to support the judgment that the US was bombing Afghanistan with the knowledge that it might lead to the death of millions of people. It takes real talent to miss the extensive evidence cited in the few pages I devoted to these matters.

Here is the comparison necessary to acquire the entire meta-concept to Chomsky, and his flavor in the other incidents he hath quoted.

The Afghanistan situation, is portrayed on the same categorical time-line as the Indonesian affair.

Notice these specific congruences in attack methodology.

The topic is Indonesia's 1975 invasion of East Timor, condemned by the Security Council, which ordered Indonesia to withdraw. But the order had no effect. Moynihan explains why: "The United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success."

The citations include the New York Times report three weeks before the bombing that Washington "demanded [from Pakistan] the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population," and the Times report that the numbers at risk of starvation were estimated to have risen by 50% a month later, to 7.5 million.

To slice these two disaparate statements together, Washington demanded the civil war that killed [whatever numbers} X numbers quoted by Chomsky; Washington demanded that Pakistan eliminate food convoys.

Similar tactics can be defeated by recognizing the similarity and using the proper-counters. Because one counter that works for one tactic, will work for the other tactic, because both of Chomsky's attack-tactics are congruent in purpose and battlelayout.

To use a mathematical analogy. Sin over opposite side A, is equal to sin over opposite side B and is equal to sin over opposite side C. All are congruent, in the sense that all are EQUAL. And hence if you find the solution to one, you have the solution to the other. The same proto-analysis can be applied to what Chomsky has said.

To use a non-mathematical and non-military analysis, it is to compare apples to apples. The same size, different colors.

Now, back to our Chomsky uninterrupted.

Also cited are reports in the Times of the bitterness of fleeing aid workers who said that "The country was on a lifeline and we just cut the line" by threatening to bomb; the report by the UN World Food Program that the threat forced them to reduce food supplies to 15% of what was needed and later that the bombing itself caused them to terminate it entirely; warnings by major relief agencies of a likely "humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in Afghanistan with 7.5 million short of food and at risk of starvation";

7.5 million, quite a lot of people. Similar, perhaps, to the scenarios predicted before Afghanistan. Of "intense humanitarian crises" overwhelming the region. Oh wait, they are the SAME prediction, my bad.

Also included was the urgent plea by 1000 Afghan leaders in late October to terminate the "bombing of innocent people" and to adopt other means to overthrow the hated Taliban regime, a goal they believed could be achieved without slaughter and destruction; and the denunciation of the bombing by one of the anti-Taliban leaders who was most respected by Washington and Hamid Karzai, Abdul Haq, who described the bombing as "a big setback" for efforts to overthrow the Taliban from within, carried out because Washington "is trying to show its muscle, score a victory and scare everyone in the world" but "don't care about the suffering of the Afghans or how many people we will lose."

Not to go off on a tangent, but I just want to point out that the normal way of refutation (refuting the above) would be to point to a different anti-Taliban leader and quote what he said, to refute the other supposed "anti-Taliban respected whatever leader". But that is the normal refutation way, my purpose is to analyze the enemy's tactics and battle harmonization, in order to derive patterns that can be predicted and therefore defeated. The overall object is not to refute facts with facts, that is the direct manner. The overall goal should be to defeat the enemy with your strength while nullifying his strength. THe Oblique approach In Jujitsu, it is called using your Stahara (bastardized Japanese term for lower abdomen) against the opponent's arm. So in effect, the goal is to use 100% of your balanced and focused strength against the opponent's 20% strength as encompassed in his arm alone. Sledgehammer, meet arm bone. This as opposed to the facts vs facts slugfest otherwise known as "bring a bigger hammer", in which two opponents slug it out. One hits the other in the face, the other returns the blow to the face, then they trade the same set of blows over, and over, and over. You get the picture. The strongest man wins. And Chomsky, is strong in propaganda. Be wary of thinking you can beat the master at his own tricks.

Think of it this way. If you do go into a slugfest to defend some woman's honor, that might win the respect of the woman, who already has respect for you. Even if you lose. But losing will never convince the backers of your opponent, to support you instead of their friend. Now the analogies are going on a quantum bifurcation, so I'll stop.

For those interested.

Massoud

Interview with Massoud

Massoud believed that you could not fight the Taliban or Al Qaeda through bombs and assassinations of certain people. He believed that "it wouldn't be enough". Why did he believe so? Because it was the system that had to be changed, in addition to the leaders. We witnessed that when Massoud was assassinated. It did not change the end result one iota in Afghanistan and democracy. Not one iota. Assassination is not enough, as the CiA wanted to do with Bin laden before 9/11, but ultimately failed to carry out. Assassination helps, it demoralizes the enemy and removes the leader's talents from the personnel pool, but it is in itself not enough to win.

Such things are not meant to counter Chomsky, but to educate those who seek knowledge and the truth. Because only through understanding yourself and others, can you ever understand your enemies.

Once again, much more instructive than the transparent falsification is Kamm's cold indifference to the reports he claims do not exist.

Kamm claims that I provided no evidence to support the judgment that the US was bombing Afghanistan with the knowledge that it might lead to the death of millions of people. It takes real talent to miss the extensive evidence cited in the few pages I devoted to these matters.

Comparing the bold with the italic, representing respectively the ending and beginning, certain conclusions can be drawn. Chomsky uses the "evidence" of the false predictions prior to Afghanistan to support and justify his conclusion of American intentionally risking Afghanistani lives. Because those lives were not lost, Chomsky can't say that we were responsible for a genocide. No, he can only accuse us of that in his Indonesian example, in the beginning of his attack methodology.

Chomsky knowingly manipulates Kamm's contention that this is no evidence, to mean that they didn't exist. But they do exist, but as evidence, they were completely fabricated. By the New York Times and Chomsky's propaganda apparatus even. The network comes full circle. What is produced in one arm supports Chomsky's contention in the other. Notice how Chomsky says the evidence "exists", not that the evidence wasn't fabricated. As a propagandist, you must be very careful in what you say and the exact words you use. Analogous to the honorable man, who is very careful to promise only what he can deliver. So if he says he will bring Agent B to a certain party if he captured that person, that means if he KILLS that person instead of captures him, then he didn't violate his promise. Honesty and honor are sometimes congruent with deception, in contrast with the fake liberal contention which they don't personally adhere to.

Attack one hand, the other hand strikes the fatality blow. Strike the other hand, and Chomsky's New York Times hand will excorciate you. It is comparable to the terroist cell structure, and quite a lot more effective since it is out in the open rather than hidden underground.

He does not try to refute the statement, but rather offers it to show that I "liken America's conduct to that of Nazi Germany" and that my "judgment of the US" is that it is comparable to Nazi Germany, a "diagnosis [that is] central to Chomsky's political output." The inference is too ridiculous for comment, and he does not tell us of his objection to the actual, and radically different, statement.

This is one of Chomsky's weak points. Chomsky knows he has to pull the Hitler card to get people like Soros to fund and make sure he has spending money. But he really can't say that, now can he.

It would be "too ridiculous" to comment on because to deny it, would be to refute his very existence. And that would be quite ridiculous, wouldn't you agree?

The context, which he again omits, is a 1968 report in the New York Times of a protest against an exhibit at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry where children could "enter a helicopter for simulating firing of a machine gun at targets" in Vietnam, with a light flashing when a hit was scored on a hut -- "even though no people appear," revealing the extremism of the protestors. This was a year after the warning by the highly respected military historian and Vietnam specialist Bernard Fall that "Vietnam as a cultural and historic entity...is threatened with extinction ...[as]... the countryside literally dies under the blows of the largest military machine ever unleashed on an area of this size."

One hand knowing exactly what the other hand is doing. Unlike a terrorist cell structure which is hampered by the fact that central coordination of resources is never possible without systemic security holes, Chomsky's network can work together and still procure benefits from being held separate.

Apart from misquoting and omitting the crucial context, Kamm also fails to tell us how one should react to this performance, apart from his own standard reaction of tacit acquiescence to horrendous crimes and his dedicated efforts, failing with impressive consistency, to find something to criticize in the efforts to terminate state crimes for which he and I share responsibility, particularly so in a free society, where we cannot plead fear in extenuation for silent complicity.

Very effective. Take Kamm's accusations of context manipulation and reflect it back at Kamm. Both initiating an attack and defending against one. Whatever damage you do to me, I shall reflect unto you a thousand fold.

UPDATE With the link to Kamm's Against Chomsky article.

Update A Kamm quote.

He once described the task of the media as "to select the facts, or to invent them, in such a way as to render the required conclusions not too transparently absurd—at least for properly disciplined minds." There could scarcely be a nicer encapsulation of his own practice.