May 31, 2006

Carter is taking bribes

Why can't Carter just get assassinated? Fox news reported the Saudi Arabian donation but currently can't find any blogs with the news.

Another great Carter episode.

May 29, 2006

The Fate of Nations and People - Comment inspired by NNcon

Here's some perspective. It is not just hobby like psychology for people to believe that the Left informs, supports, and provides comfort for dictatorial and tyrannical regimes and empires when it suits their purposes of weakening America.

You see it here now. Instead of supporting the power of the people in Iran, they make the decision that because they don't want the US invading Iran, this means that the Iranian people have no right to make their own decisions for their own interests. After all, what do the Left care for the interests of the downtrodden, fake liberal propaganda lies aside that is.

As I mentioned before, the Catch 22 they put America in is a rather vicious cycle of violence and abuse of innocent people in this world. If America helps people in Iraq and Afghanistan, they see this as an illegal and wrong action and make up rationales about how it would have been better for the Iraqis had America done something more peaceful, which is simply another description of "something that benefits the Left but not anyone else". That is what peace, means to the Left. And it is very important for people to understand how their enemies in the Left think, for you cannot accrue liberty for the downtrodden people of the world without realizing who and what the enemies of liberty are. The other side of the Catch 22 is that even if America does nothing, then we are blamed as ignoring and facilitating the violence for the "interests of America" which is taken to mean literally, by the Left, as the evil capitalistic and imperialistic policies of America. Some, like BMC, may not harbor exact enmity towards America, but they don't need to. They simply have to facilitate the purposes of those who do, Confud and conned and Iranian mullahs, for example. You need not do your own dirty work when you can push a few buttons on a computer, and have someone else do it for you. Is this not the contempt they hold for Zionist and American puppetmasters that pull the strings of the world? People at the keyboards pushing buttons that blow people up? Yet in the end, it is not as if they truly avoid this kind of strategy, because all of their propaganda operates on the principle of pulling strings behind the scenes. Do they really care about the Iraqis fighting for their freedom and a better life, so long as their propaganda hurts American efforts there? Do they really care about the workers in India working at the factories, when they refuse to support free trade because the outsourcing is an example of big business corruption rather than the cowardice politicians show when they fear being unelected by their manufacturing constituency?

Read the first posts in this thread, again. Notice how the first instinct, the first reaction, is to look at things to make America and our allies feel guilty. Is this a way to actually get us to help those other unfortunates that people feel we are ignoring? Not really. It's just a propaganda prop to misdirect our attention and use guilty to shackle our freedom of action. A pretext. Why shouldn't it be, obviously people believe neo-cons are using riots in Iran as a pretext for invasion, so why should the Left refuse to do what they obviously think the enemy is already doing (the enemy being neo-cons and not the mullahs). It's a bunch of mind games fit to demoralize Americans, and to prevent us from liberating people because the Left does not wish to see people feeling any loyalty or compassion towards America. For the oppressors truly cannot withstand it, if the people of this world look towards America as the model for the future, and not the socialistic ideology of the Left. There's all kinds of people in an ideology, if you recall. They need not be made solely out of one kind of anti-American, hate Bush, mold. But there are some common traits you can see. As you can see it here in this thread, in the behavior of chief representatives. A movement is only as good as the people in them, so I only ask that you judge the behavior of the people representing such ideologies, and not blindly decry socialism or Leftist philosophy. It is after all, the principle reason why people refuse to support communism, because the communists attract very bad people like Mao. And you should not give up this principle solely because the enemy sees neo-conservatism as a hated ideology that should be destroyed at whatever cost to the innocent children of this world. There need be no enmity between two nations just because they are competitors or even mortal enemies. There was no none after MacArthur occupied Japan, for example. And there were no more fanatic and crazy enemies than the Japanese in America's Second World War. It is people that matter, not ideology. Which I think, is important to remember.

In conclusion, people will defend Iran, mullahs and hanging rape victims aside, just to spite America because they want to stop us from invading Iran. Is this a moral and conscientious decision? One befitting a human being? Is this what the Left calls tough love? Destroying the village to save it? You tell me.

It is tough to remain on the path of righteousness and liberty, when you have people trying to pull you off and throw you under a train. They did this to George Washington, you know. They tried to make him take Philly because it was the capital of the US at the time. Washington refused. As refuse to invade Darfur. The interests of the capital and the politicians, the Left in other words, are not the same as the interests of world freedom or human rights. Let alone AMerican interests.

I just finished watching Washington the Warrior on the History Channel. Memorial day release, of course. It's a good synopsis of a rare individual, who fought for a set of ideals and never got corrupted by the power he required to secure those ideals. Which is very rare, even if you just notice current events and not historical ones.

The Left considers the insurgents freedom fighters not because they chop off people's heads, intimidate shop keepers, or declare Arabic independence but simply because they fight against America. Washington defined what a freedom fighter was. It is the choice of everyone else in the world, not to model themselves after American history and individuals. We can't make them, just as we can't fight their wars for them. They succede or they fail, based upon their own merits. So why are we in Iraq and Afghanistan helping them to succede? I guess it was a quirk of history. Just as it was a quirk of destiny and luck that Washington kept leading from the front and never got wounded at all.

Some people are just more lucky than others. Unfair, but that is how it is. Darfur would be in a much better situation had they switched places with Iraq, but nations and people can't just switch places in the path of history. And that is sad, but the Left isn't the one you should count upon to solve the problem however.

May 27, 2006

American Supremacy and the Future Weapons of War

I'm watching Future Weapons on the discovery channel, hosted by a man who spent 10 years in the SEALs. I suppose he just couldn't give up completely on the military and weapons, so he does a show about weapons ; ) This way, he can still get to test new stuff out even if he can't get into combat anymore.

There were a couple of the featured weapons systems that civilians have perhaps only heard about peripherally.

Predator UAVs. Metalstorm weapons systems. M-107 Barret semi-automatic (Army probably calling it the X(8)(7) something) Thermobaric warheads. I think the last two were indirect artillery pieces. The MRSCI, Mercy, multiple rocket system. And the Indirect Line of Sight artillery piece.

The Mrsci fires a high explosive rocket over 65 kilometers (numbers are from memory, error included) at pinpoint precision. A smart bomb basically fired from a rocket system. You know those rocket systems, where you have like a truck bed with a 6 pack silo based rectangular box on the back, and it raises itself up and then there's all kinds of dust and smoke when it fires. It looks like the crappy rockets used by Saddam in Gulf War 1, but this stuff is a lot more deadly because it is GPS guided. It also adapts such effective options as "delayed arming" which allows it to sink beneath a bunker (wood bunker, not concrete) and blow it up. Then there is the "airburst function". Always the most lethal function against infantry.

So basically, if there's an insurgent firing a mortar at your base, you can immediately fire a counter-battery shot at the location of the insurgent firing the mortars (trajectories calculated by computer models and sensors). This is why the insurgents tend to fire and then move, really really fast.

This precision rocket system is very good at blowing up wooden command bunkers. Where even normal artillery has trouble hitting because they've dug a six foot trench line in the ground and people are walking around in it. An artillery barrage would have to hit RIGHt on top of the command post, to blow it up, and even then it will only collapse the top portion. These precision rockets absolutely totaled that command structure. An airburst over an enemy mortar/artillery position totally eviscerates everyone in that general area, cause the shrapnel in the air becomes "englobed" and disperses along a sphere like trajectory. Think of having a big umbrella and anything under the umbrella gets hit by shrapnel that put fist sized holes in you.

This is simply the logical progression of GPS guided bombs. Now you can move a truck sized vehicle and have it blow people up from long distance. Since it ain't a big 2,000 pound bomb, they can carry more of them and it doesn't blow an entire neighborhood to kingdom come. So precision combined with limited collateral damage. good for urban terrain, which is why the US troops want them in Iraq.

Predaotor UAV

There are two versions. The A version and the bigger, badder, more expensive B version. The A version looks like an oversized hand held electronic airplane. The B version looks like a freaking miniaturized Cesna. With 2 hellfires on it.

They were talking about how they used the Predator A in Kosovo to do intelligence work, look at the ground faster than a satellite can, get the info the commanders, send the info the pilots, and the target then becomes dead after the mission has launched. Then cause they were getting impatient with not enough kills, they started making these planes bigger so they could fly them around for 30 hours straight on overwatch, along with the fact that they can now carry hellfire munitions or basically anything weighing at 3,000 pounds. Osama's third and second in command sure got surprised by these weapons systems.

So basically what we have here is the Leftist stereotype of video game warriors, flying multi-million dollar Predators from the safety of their base hundreds of miles away, shooting at people on a television screen (via sat uplink). From the mouths of Leftists, eventually they'll get lucky and get something right ;)

Since the Pred B flies at 30,000 feet, you ain't never going to see it. Yet it can see YOU with radar and optical imaging cameras. Once the National Guard put these to use on the Southern Border, they will know instantly where the drug dealers are coming from and the smugglers and basically everything else going on at the Southern Border. What did you expect from a multi-million dollar UAV that has been used successfully to blow up hardcore jihadist terroists as well as finding them in the first place? Using them on smugglers and drug dealers in Mexico, is called OverKill. Well, it would be OverKill if you armed with them hellfire missiles that is. But that probably won't happen. Most likely the NG will use this as a training exercise to give their pilots more "hours" with the gam I mean the plane.

The Metalstorm system

Now the Metalstorm is fun. First heard about it from John Ringo's Dance with the Devil book. Basically you put like 10 bullets lined up in one gun barrel, and then electronically detonate them all at once, starting with the first bullet. So what basically happens is, you pull the trigger on a Metalstorm weapon, 3 rounds exit the barrel and hit the target BEFORE RECOIL, and then the gun recoils. Talk about railguns. Basically this gives the weapon you are using "recoiless" accuracy. You can fire a burst, and still have that burst hit its target. The American version of the Arab "spray and pray" method. But a lot more efficient and deadly.

More coming up, taking a break.


Now the metalstorm I saw on Future Weapons came in a lot of different sizes. It wasn't just a huge installation on the ground or mounted on a vehicle. They had 3 barrelred handguns using the metalstorm system. They really emphasized the fact that it won't jam, that there are no moving parts other than the bulleting firing. With an air cooled assault rifles, you have the loading springs and the bullet casing jaming, the magazine from which the round comes, and so on. More parts, more malfunctions. With the metalstorm, if one bullet doesn't fire, the bullet behind it pushes the first bullet out. That sounds dangerous, but then again the powder they use isn't gunpowder, it doesn't "explode" if you hit it hard enough. They stopped using those awhile ago.

Some ideas they brought up was that you could mount these on rectangular box tubes and lower them from the side of a ship to destroy incoming torpedoes. Or mount it towards the air, to destroy ICBMs or Tomahawk cruise missiles.

What they didn't mention was the recoil and the ammunition consumption and reloading problem. It fires 1 million rounds a minute, so you're going to be needing A LOT of ammo. Since there is NO magazine, you are actually carrying around separate barrels with you. That's fine for a handgun, was they just made the magazine a tube that consists solely of bullets and just breech loads it in, with no magazine using verticle vullets. That is ironic. With the Henry Repeating rifle, they had to load the bullets behind each other, then the Mauser made it more efficient by loading it vertically, bullet on top of bulelt, which allowed pointed bullets to be loaded that were much more lethal than the round bullets the Repeater Gun was using. Those round bullets looks like a .38 special because it is really dangerous pushing a big pointed bullet behind the percussion cap of another bulelt, back in the days when they still used gunpowder and other unsafe derivatives.

The problem with reloading in my view is, for bigger gun arrays, they're going to have to either use a mechanized system or they are going to have to use hand loading like artillery pieces. This is not even including lugging around the ammo. The weapon works great, the logistics suck ;)

I predict that the auto-loading indirect artillery system will be the solution here for anything other than small arms Metalstorm systems.

M-107 Barret

The regular M-82 Barret was a .50 caliber gun designed to destroy light armored vehicles like humvees. It was bolt action, using either 5 round box magazine or 10 round box magazine, not really sure. Anyways, a regular M-82 barret once fired, pushes you back several feet. Even for a strong man, firing 10 Barret .50 caliber rounds is going to really hurt your shoulder.

When they go into Afghanistan and Iraq, they wanted an semi-automatic .50 caliber gun that could fire "continuously" without having to use the bolt and lose the sight picture. However, recoil was a big problem. Even if you could make the .50 caliber semi-automatic, and that was the easy part, if the freaking gun threw you back several feet after you fired it (based upon your weight) then how are you going to fire it semi-auto? You can't. So the designer, Barret (I think), totally redesigned the gun in order to have a weird sort of spring like barrel among other things I can't explain. Anyways, this reduced the recoil down by 75%. So that the Future Weapons host, the former SEAL, was able to fire it one after the other. He commented that there was quite a noticeable difference in the kick of the weapon compared to the M-82 Barrets he had used before.

You should have seen the kind of damage a .50 caliber sniper rifle will do to steel, concrete, and human flesh targets. It is totally amazing and aweinspiring. Include terrifying if someone is shooting at you with it. This thing can reach over 2 miles, and make your body explode. It is an absolute terror weapon on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan. The puny little SVD Dragunovs the insurgents used can't even penetrate US body armor. One time some soldier got shoot in the head, and his kevlar armor stopped the Dragunov round. He thought he got hit by a rock. It was right in the middle of his forehead, or it would have been had he not been wearing the kevlar helmet.

People who talk about our troops not having good body armor cause IEDs blow off their limbs, are either totally bullshitting the american people or they are just plaint ignint.

True believers, fanaticism, and religious zealotry

Some stuff inspired by reading Neo Neo con.

I can't really say whether this kind of belief system is better termed fanaticism, true belief, or simple religious zealotry. There are differences to those 3, but since nobody really talks about them I've found that I have had to make the differences up by myself.

But I will say that anyone who tries to destroy the United States and replace it with their own system, is a potential enemy. However, this differs a bit from how the Left works. True patriots on both sides of a conflict can have a reasonable conversation. Why? Because, even if they are fighting for different countries and putting their faith and belief in different countries, they actually have a lot of common traits. Not all the time, even people on the same side can have different ideas about whether to use violence or not (Malcom X Martin Luther King J) However, the idea of reasonable discourse, a "parley" if you will, between two opposing mortal enemies, is something I accept out of hand.

Yet the Left does not. Why? Is it because the Left has no history of military action, and therefore no history of reasoned conduct with the enemy? Is words and propaganda the only means by which they discourse with the enemy? Is it because the Left are not true patriots talking with true patriots because they don't believe in a nation at all? Lots of questions, and few if any answers.

The Left, in my view, don't act like true believers. Because true believers are not crazy, insane, out of control, or anything like that. Fanatics are out of control, true believers have more control than that.

A true believer, like an American patriot, can explain to you exactly why he believes America is good and her enemies are evil. Without any doubt, without any need to resort to anger to bolster their self-confidence or contempt for the enemy. It simply "is". It exists. For the true believer, reality is as reality is, and if reality is something else and that conflicts with his true beliefs, then he will change reality to his true beliefs. Nothing else matters.

The Left doesn't act like true believers, since I tend to believe if they were truly confident in their beliefs, they would go off like a steam engine every once in awhile. The Left spends little to no time considering the consistency of their beliefs. They also don't spend a lot of time considering how to best effect their beliefs.

For example. If they believe Hitler is bad because he killed people, then they should think about how to stop people from being killed in the same manner (Iran). People like Neo have heartfelt and true beliefs in certain things like human rights, and that is one reason why she refused to stay with the Left.

The psychology behind that is interesting. Because a true patriot, a true believer in America for example, would actually do armed insurrection if they believed the government of america was corrupt and taken over by the enemies of America, foreign or domestic.

If a person is loyal to the government and always the government, bar nothing, then that person is a fanatic, he is a feudal retainer.

In conclusion, a person with inconsistent beliefs and bad self-esteem, bolstered by the reassurance and warmth of rage and anger, cannot be said to truely believe in the things that they state as their beliefs.

It doesn't what the beliefs are. It only matters at what level do they hold their own beliefs in confidence. If someone fears even hearing the opposition, just how strong is that person's mind anyways? And can a person truly be said to be a true believer, if he is so weak mentally that anything can pass through and grip him in a righteous rage?

Fanaticism applies more readily to enraged beserkers. And the Left, are if anything, kind of beserk right now.

Those people on Fox News

This is some really funny stuff

New Black Panther beliefs

Two Black Panthers came onto O'Reilly's show. One of them said that Malcom X recommended that "you kill any good white people you will find, before they go bad". Or "we are going to do to you, what the white people did to us when they killed our women and our children.

"Why don't you kill anyone right now?"

Response-"You're the biggest killer around O'Reilly."

"Why don't you do armed insurrection?"

Response-"Because we believe peace is better than violence"

I can't find the video clip anywhere for this segment, but it is very chilling because one fanatic knows another as they say. One true believer recognizes another, and he was a true believer.

May 26, 2006

What does America need to do to crush the insurgency?

The rate of child cancers in Southern Iraq is the highest in the world.

Saddam=WMD=been used before.

Saddam was NOT provided with enough food to feed the population.

Oh Saddam had food, he just only fed his loyalists.

On the numbers. It may be far lower than 100,000 but am I supposed to accept that 40,000 is acceptable?

The amount that the United States has directly killed in Iraq, without resorting to semantical arguments of guilt without trial, is a lot lower than 40,000.

Basic HTML Linking 101

< a href="">Text< /a>

put the url inside the quotes. Remove the space between < a and < /a

May 25, 2006

A Pro-American story

Originally seen

Okay, so it is about Iraq, but any pro-American would feel good reading it. Go, read it.

Okay, now you've read it. But if you really want some good news, read this about American superpowerism.

What the World Really Thinks of America

The next time a fashion-parroting ignoramus or fifth-columnist informs you of how 'the rest of the world hates America', forward them this article, and remind them that India has more people than Europe and the Middle East put together. The delusions of fifth-columnists represent merely their fanatical hatred of a society that celebrates meritocracy, strong families, a powerful and proud military, and a great thirst for achievement.

Very good article with good stats, highly recommended.

Funny as funny is

This comment against Leftists on neo neocon's site is really funny. Posting it here since it probably will be deleted.

At 6:03 AM, May 25, 2006, Banagor said...

People against the war are really fucking stupid.

I'm sorry, but there just isn't a good reason to be against it.

Now, I know, all you war critics will say that's way over the top, but it's really bloody true: you're stupid. You are ignorant fools and morons and you really have no grasp of the real world.

The war was about a ton of things. The president mentioned disarmament because it was on issue that all the countries of the world could agree on, at least on paper. But does it matter? Is disarmament the reason we were flying our planes for billions of dollars over the span of twelve years in the skies of Iraq? Was that the reason we were there? Are you absolute fucking morons to believe that this is the only reason?

The reason was that Saddam was the bad guy. He's the enemy. I don't care what the hell the reason is that you are against because it doesn't matter: he's the enemy. And, in the real world, you take out the enemies that you can take out. That's the brutal nature of the world.

Grow the fuck up. That's the way the world works. It matters very much who controls what land, and it also matters what they do with it. It matters what happens in a world where anyone can travel to any place at any time and do anything they want and perhaps kill millions of people. It doesn't, however, matter if Saddam was planning a huge terrorist strike against America because even if he wasn't - and I really don't care if he was - he still fell under the same category: the enemy. If you're the enemy, then you're on the other side.

Leftists and anti-war nuts just dont' get that concept. That's why they get so outraged when we, on the right in this war, denounce them as the enemy. Orwell got it back then, and Bush (as much of a buffoon as they believe he is) gets it. What amazes me is that these erudite jerks don't get it. That's why we denounce people who are against this war, and why those on the other side are regarded with loathing and contempt. Being aghast doesn't change our point of view, because you can't change the nature of the world and you can't change human nature.

And in the world, you take out the enemy that you can take out. Saddam was already a prime target since many years and we already had enough military there to justify us finishing him off. All of a sudden, you now have some anti-war screechers claiming that they thought Iran was the real threat all along. Well, fine: what would you have had us done first? With draw all forces from around Iraq to concentrate on Iran? That would have been permissible? Where would they have been based? Or perhaps you just would have wanted us to leave the Middle East altogether and, quite literally, then given in to every single demand that Bin Laden had made of us? I've heard it before from the likes of Cindy Sheehan: just leave the Middle East. Great suggestion there. Just say it outright: do what Bin Laden says. That'll fix our problems.

And she and her friends wonder why they are mocked and reviled.

And then to the argument about the United Nations. What a wonderful little fantasy that one is. As if Americans really want to sit on a round table where sworn enemies of American interest can have a say whether or not to allow it to act; and even while our "friends" who should be supporting us are stabbing us in the back by doing deals with our enemy. What a great idea that is. And then that argument places so much trust in the United Nations. The UN is a failed body. It's a piece of fucking trash. The UN is the most stupid, incompetent, and boorish body to ever be put together. Just because the United Nations includes the "voices" of every country in the world doesn't mean shit. What kind of a bloody idiot thinks that this is a valid point of view? In the 1930's, the majority of the voices in the world supported fascism. What a great argument that is for vox populi. Not to mention the fact that the majority of the bodies sitting at the UN are from dictatorships. It's like trying to form a Better Business Bureau to protect your city from crime, and inviting the Mafia to have a free voice on the panel as equal partners. What enlightened thinking that one is. Ah, and lest we forget: had the UN been around in 1930, Hitler would have had representation there as well. When the President of Iran can threaten open genocide against an entire people and not get his ass thrown out of those "hallowed" halls of power, then what the hell would the UN have said to Hitler? "You're a bad boy?"

As I recall, Clinton went into Kosovo without UN permission. In fact, he never even went to the United Nations. Well, guess who was the driving intellectual clout behind that one? Leftists. And did they protest? No, because it suited their aims. But hey, whatever floats your intellectual agenda at the price of the lives of others, right? Not that I minded pounding the shit out of Slobo, but the same holds true for Saddam. Any moron can see that the two were bullies that had to be dealt with.

And then to the notion about WMD. Who gives a shit? I know full well that Iraq had them. I also know full well that they hid them or transposed them before we got there. Everyone knows he wasn't clean. But, oh, we didn't find anything so Bush must have lied - convenient and stupid self-serving moronic meme. But does it matter? Does it fucking matter?

No. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter who has WMD but how they are acting. Quite frankly, I don't give a damn who has WMD in this world as long as they aren't banging their fist in public and screaming for bloody murder while throngs of worshipers chant at gunpoint that he is the newly resurrected king of Babylon. That's Saddam, for you ignorant masses. And if Iran wasn't an insane regime which goes around threatening other countries and blowing people up with suicide bombers by proxy, then I wouldn't give a damn if they wanted a nuclear program. Do I lose sleep over the fact that the UK has a nuclear bomb? No, because they act like civilized and enlightened people overall.

But again: Iraq was the enemy. And so is Iran. The fact that they act the way they do makes them so. That defines the nature of the word "enemy", but leftists really don't get that either. It isn't that leftists have valid arguments to counter this, it's just that they are stupid as fuck or dishonest as lying Saudi pigs.

Wake the fuck up and accept the nature of the world you live in. I'm insulting everyone who is against the war for a reason: I have contempt for you. I loathe your comfy, cushy, smarmy little critiques to undermine this country for the sake of your political gain. I hate it, I hate you, and you're the fucking enemy too. If you stop acting like the enemy, I won't hate you.

And before you start screaming about freedom of speech, remember what Lincoln did to those who openly criticized his war. And he was right. And fuck you for trying to second-guess one of the greatest liberators, humanitarians, and minds that ever existed in this nation's history. And fuck you for trying to undermine something which is far, far, greater than you.

Pathetic fucking idiots.

May 24, 2006

The History of self-marketing

Confud said,
I've asked you several times what is a "supporter of the BBC" and what one of those does. I chose to question one of many outright bizzarre statements you've made.

Please answer it.

Supporter of the BBC means exactly that. Someone who believes and supports the BBC's function as they have outlined it. No different from the CBC or the ABC.

When you're characterizing Fox as the end all and be all to bad journalism, there's a really bad bias when either your information or your beliefs come from an organization like the BBC.

I really don't answer questions when they're part of the insult package, and I've already said this to SB and many others.

Forgive me as you will probably think I am a bit naive with my questions to you. I am trying to understand the seeming prevailing political psyche within the US. A lot of us in the outside world just don't get what is driving you.

I said,

"What is it that the US public actually thinks Iran has done wrong to the point of being threatened with a nuclear strike?"

Taking our embassy hostage. Aiding Hezbollah in blowing up our Marine barracks killing more in one attack than any single IED or suicide bomber has in Iraq on US troops. Sending money and destabilization agents into Iraq. Hanging a teenaged girl for being raped. Oh you know, the usual things that will piss off the Jacksonian segment of America.

As I've pointed out before to our Brit visitors. America has had a very successful history of using wars to solve our problems. Revolutionary War solved independence from Britain. Civil War solved slavery for us. WWII solved fascism. Cold War solved communism. You get the picture. Compare this to what the rest of the world accomplishes with war. Zippo, you get zip, in terms of success. Any other country tries to do war, they just make the world more of a mess.

You can believe its engineered, but that's not how 85% of America sees it as.

You said,

Oh, OK. So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation. I'm not on the side of the mullahs or anyone else, but the Iranian revolution came about because the Shah's regime was an incredibly brutal period in a country with a very long history and a proud culture.
Sorry to be a little abrasive about this, but I did find your response to my genuine question, a touch arrogant and dismissive. Tally ho.

Elvis said,

arrogant and dismissive is kinda the neo con norm.....get used to it.
[...]oh and ignore yrmdwnkr - he is truly out there on his own....check out his blog, highly comical. all sci-fi and war games

Note who started calling people names after I had answered in a calm response to your "genuine question".
You said,

I did look at the young Y man's blog and I agree with you, I don't think I'll get much insight there. Apparently, 6 billion people are jealous of his power and money.

Apparently answering questions gets repaid with snarky remarks about my power and money.

I said in reply,

"So this is to be a revenge attack for the revenge attack that was the Tehran embassy occupation."

Something like that, but with Bush his motives are not personal but solely about WMDs. He believes Iran is a threat, Bush however is an internationalist, he believes in the UN and in Europe. Most of America actually are not very confident in the UN. Sure, there's the 22% on our Left that always favors the UN, but you're always going to have someone favor something in any poll.

Bush could easily have destroyed the UN after Oil for Food was found out, and taken retributive action against Iran free of any international barriers, but he didn't. A lot of Americans regret that. I know I do.

"Where will it end?

It'll end when one side wins. When was Europe's wars going to end? When America stepped in and Ended it For Them. That's when.

Not a lot of people actually believe Bush is sincere, but he actually is. You won't get any real grasp on American policy until you accept that premise. Unlike Europe, Americans elect their President directly by a modified popular vote. We don't vote for the Republicans and the Republicans elect Bush themselves like a Parliamentary system would do in Europe. This means Bush's policies are not Congressional but rather sourced from the people, the base of power.

Confud's reply,

You are pretty offensive for someone so young and obviously untravelled. That sort of stuff usually takes years of practice. But, you are confusing me for someone who will respond to your racist claptrap. Two pieces of advice for you though. You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy. FOX news may tell you what you want to hear, but it won't way you down with any facts.
The second is, that if you are going to spin a yarn, there needs to be an element of truth somewhere in there. Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

Don't even start on people not answering your questions Confud, don't even start. You really don't want to know where I can take it.

From the mouths of Giants

If Luther is the spiritual leader, then I don't think the Palestinian suicide bombers are the loyal followers of the "movement".

David Blaine

First heard about him with the man in the bubble thing. Now I'm writing this because of a TLC special on David Blaine. I also remember him doing a show on Discovery channel in the boondocks of some kind tribal culture (maybe Amazon or Africa), showing off his magic tricks. They are truly amazing. He takes diamonds off the setting of a ring, with his teeth, swallows the diamond, and then makes it appear out of the corner of his eye. All while video tapped surrounded by people. He gets a gold ring and drops it down a sewer drain, and then walks a few feet away and there's the ring inside a glass bottle. What the hell, it had the same inscriptions. He somehow put a card inside a basketball that people had to cut open to see.

His philosophy and the way he thinks is scary and intimidating. He said that he doesn't think about the consequences of putting his body encased in ice, he just does it cause he has to, and that's it. That's determination, that is willpower.

The tri-luminal system of intelligence. Problem solving IQ, wisdom, and knowledge is also required.

A lot of people at neo neocon's site that belittles the capacity of humanity to achieve greatness, don't believe willpower is going to accomplish anything. They don't believe that humanity's limits are the universe.

That's their problem. When the Japanese talk about exceeding your genkai, they weren't kidding.

Martin Luther King Junior said, "If a man has not found something he is willing to die for, that man is not fit to live". If you combine this with um, violence and martial virtue, that would be something quite unstoppable. The Left believes the perfect soldier is a conscienceless war machine that follows orders and that is it. They don't know what they are talking about.

Dead or Alive

Some similar arguments to the ones I made, about giving Iraq a fair deal in return for making them fight and die against terroists.

May 23, 2006

Sun Tzu's moral ground and Leftist obstructionism

Let me explain the moral high ground to people.

When you're supporting fascistic dictators like Amanie in Iran or Saddam in Iraq or the Osama/Omar in Afghanistan, this means you will never believe Bush(who is against all these 3 regimes) will ever have the Moral Law.

The Moral Law applies to those who are ruled, those who follow, and those who are lead. It does not apply to the followers, initiates, or soldiers of the Enemy.

When the objectives of one person is to destroy Saddam and when the objective of another person is to destroy the person trying to destroy Saddam by trying to stop an illegal invasion. (which would be legal if only the UN had approved it, unfortunately they were kinda worried about their bribes not arriving afterwards) When you have these two people together, neither will recognize the Moral Law of the other, because the Moral Law requires that you have the same objectives. What is moral for the guy trying to liberate women and children is not the same thing as what is moral to the oppressors of said women and children.

Here's a few words on Sun Tzu's last section, Spies.

Sun Tzu said: Raising a host of a hundred thousand men and engaging them in war entails heavy loss on the people and a drain on the resources. The daily expenditure will amount to a thousand ounces of silver. There will be commotion at home and abr oad, and men will drop out exhausted.

If the troops don't drop in exhaustion, the people paying taxes back at the state will. Duh, come on.

"commotion at home"? What the heck is that? Could it be anti-war protests and sabotage? You tell me, you should know.

# When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.

# Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the strain.

# Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.

# Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays.

"Other chieftans" indeed.

This is the def of moral law as used by Sun.

The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success. Bush means what he says, and says what he means. When he says he is a compassionate conservative, that's what he means, as people can see concerning immigration.

The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler

Who exactly believes people who think Bush has no legitimacy think he is their ruler?

So... what? People in Britain feel the need to say Bush has no Moral Law because.... they think Bush is their ruler and is complaining? Come on.

I could write something to defend myself against conned, but I really don't want to get conned. So, instead of explaining why I don't defend myself against a person who believes the worst of his political opponents, I'll just provide this link as self-evidence.

Here is how I debate with honorable opponents

Cold, Hot, Just Right

Russia is a good example of too "hot" a soup.

Israel is a good example of too cold a soup.

While the US has just the right temperature to fight insurgents.

Each link is an example of the thesis, of course. With Israel's cutting off funds to Hamas being a noticeable one, given that Israel has been fighting a war with Hamas AND PlO decades before Hamas came into power...

Funding the people who kill your citizens, that is cold.

May 22, 2006

Our good old Iranian pals

We're too guillible, unlike the cosmopolitan (lite) Europeans, Canadians, and Australians

I guess this is another example of neo-con guillibility

Rejected by his family for his sexuality, arrested, tortured, and thrown into prison -- where he was repeatedly gang-raped with the complicity of his jailers -- Mekabiz is today homeless and living on the streets of Mashad, but remains in contact with the city's underground gay community, which helped arrange this iterview. In the following interview via Internet (translated from the Persian by Ava of the Persian Gay and Lesbian Organization) Mekabiz tells his tragic story:

Note the gang rape. Islam has nothing against pocking men in the arse. Gays, now they got a problem with those. In Islam, if the man is doing the penetrating, whether that is "thighing" a 5 year old child or a 15 year old boy/girl, Islam says that is okay.

If you're a male or female feminist which hates men, then go here if you're so buddy buddy with women

May 21, 2006

Terroists? Execute them

This is why you don't keep terroists alive past their sell by date.

May 20, 2006

The Leftist philosophy of black and white

I just hate it when all these fake multiculturalists come in and try talking trash about their black and white viewpoints.

Their misdiagnosed and rather ignorant analysis is both an insult to their own intelligence as it is a piece of junk.

It is the fake multiculturalists and the fake liberals that see things in terms of good or evil. Why else would Lucas Arts say anger leads to the Dark Side, while the Light Side is ALWAYS good?

These people pay lip service to multiculturalism, but when confronted with the real multiculturalism of Oriental philosophies about dark and light, creation and destruction, they are totally clueless.

The Left, and most Democrats, believe that they are Good because they are liberals and enlightened, while everyone else is Evil because they are heathenish and ignorant of the light.

It never occurs to them to think that black and white are both necessary for vision. It never occurs to them that creation requires destruction and destruction requires creation. It never occurs to them that peace requires war, and war requires peace. Regardless of how smart they think they are, regardless of how multicultural they beat into your head that they are, they are still parochial village clowns from the back ass of nowhere.

THese are the kind of people who will tell you with a straight face that killing is always wrong. These are the kind of people who will tell you that ignoring violence and injustice by turning the cheek is always right and proper. These are the people who think in absolutes, and it is why the Left is so ruthless and so incompetent.

The philosophy of Good vs Evil, Light vs Darkness, is forever closed to the predators of ignorance. Which is a good thing, armed with real knowledge, the ruthless revolutionary Leftists might actually be dangerous.

To add to what I said in Neo's comments section. The oriental and Eastern philosophies don't focus on Angels (Good) and Devils (Evil). Rather, the Eastern Philosophies tend to compact it all together and say that daevas can be bad and mischievous as well as devils. So it is rather like paganism in this respect, before Christianity came onto the scene. Only in Hinduism, and other Eastern Philosophies, can you find a god that is both man and woman and both the destroyer and the creator. Wack.

Lucas Arts is a very good example of the fake liberal fake multicultural, rich robber baron, Left. What he creates is also a reflection of his thought processes. Obvious, but there are things you can derive from that subtle conclusion.

The Canadian perspective

While every army including the US Army has the tendency to throw soldiers under the bus for embarassing the Army or the Corps (Abu Ghraib comes to mind, and various other "incidents" about shooting too many bullets) but it looks like Canada has it worse.

The NYTimes depression and demoralizing propaganda

If Al Qaeda had the NYTimes on their side, Al Qaeda would be committing suicide because they would be so demoralized. But, the NYTimes is in America... instead.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, May 18 — Deaths run like water through the life of the Bahjat family. Four neighbors. A barber. Three grocers. Two men who ran a currency exchange shop.

“The main thing now is to just get out of Iraq,” said Assad Bahjat, with his wife, Eileen, and their two children, Elvis, left, and Andres. More Photos »

But when six armed men stormed into their sons' primary school this month, shot a guard dead, and left fliers ordering it to close, Assad Bahjat knew it was time to leave.

"The main thing now is to just get out of Iraq," said Mr. Bahjat, standing in a room heaped with suitcases and bedroom furniture in eastern Baghdad.

In the latest indication of the crushing hardships weighing on the lives of Iraqis, increasing portions of the middle class seem to be doing everything they can to leave the country. In the last 10 months, the state has issued new passports to 1.85 million Iraqis, 7 percent of the population and a quarter of the country's estimated middle class.

The school system offers another clue: Since 2004, the Ministry of Education has issued 39,554 letters permitting parents to take their children's academic records abroad. The number of such letters issued in 2005 was double that in 2004, according to the director of the ministry's examination department. Iraqi officials and international organizations put the number of Iraqis in Jordan at close to a million. Syrian cities also have growing Iraqi populations.

Since the bombing of a shrine in Samarra in February touched off a sectarian rampage, crime and killing have spread further through Iraqi society, paralyzing neighborhoods and smashing families. Now, on the brink of a new, permanent government, Iraqis are expressing the darkest view of their future in three years. "We're like sheep at a slaughter farm," said a businessman, who is arranging a move to Jordan. "We are just waiting for our time." The Samarra bombing produced a new kind of sectarian violence. Gangs of Shiites in Baghdad pulled Sunni Arabs out of houses and mosques and killed them in a spree that prompted retaliatory attacks and displaced 14,500 families in three months, according to the Ministry for Migration.

Most frightening, many middle-class Iraqis say, was how little the government did to stop the violence. That failure boded ominously for the future, leaving them feeling that the government was incapable of protecting them and more darkly, that perhaps it helped in the killing. Shiite-dominated government forces have been accused of carrying out sectarian killings.

"Now I am isolated," said Monkath Abdul Razzaq, a middle-class Sunni Arab, who decided to leave after the bombing. "I have no government. I have no protection from the government. Anyone can come to my house, take me, kill me and throw me in the trash."

Traces of the leaving are sprinkled throughout daily life. Mr. Abdul Razzaq, who will move his family to Syria next month, where he has already rented an apartment, said a fistfight broke out while he waited for five hours in a packed passport office to fill out applications for his two young sons. In Salheyah, a commercial district in central Baghdad, bus companies that specialize in Syria and Jordan say ticket sales have surged.

Karim al-Ani, the owner of one of the firms, Tiger Company, said a busy day last year used to be three buses, but in recent months it comes close to 10. "Before it was more tourists," he said. "Now we are taking everything, even furniture."

The impact can be seen in neighborhoods here. While much of the city bustles during daytime hours, the more war-torn areas, like in the south and in Ameriya, Ghazaliya, and Khadra in the west, are eerily empty at midday. On Mr. Bahjat's block in Dawra, only about 5 houses out of 40 remain occupied. Empty houses in the area are scrawled with the words "Omar Brigade," a Sunni group that kills Shiites.

Residents have been known to protest, at least on paper. In an act of helpless fury this winter, a large banner hung across a house in Dawra that read, "Do God and Islam agree that I should leave my house to live in a camp with my five children and wife?"

"Shadows," said Eileen Bahjat, Mr. Bahjat's wife, standing with her two sons and describing what is left in the neighborhood. "Shadows and killing."

Revolutions and their ends

I think he genuinely wanted to end it and was prepared to make some concessions to do that. And he stuck his neck out to do that. He showed some guts.

When you're riding the tiger, the only way you're going to get off is when you land in the tiger's stomach.

Ghotbzadeh was convicted in August 1982 and executed the following month.

That was fast.

It's unclear whether or not the current Iranian President, our good friend Ahmadinejad, was one of those "student" hostage-takers, although several former hostages have identified him as such.

Bowden doesn't seem very unsure about this fact. The writer, not the commenter.

France suggested to the Shah that they could "arrange for Khomeini to have a fatal accident"; the Shah declined the assassination offer, arguing that this would make him a martyr.

Right, another "martyr" argument that leads to death and destruction. Same thing was said about Fallujah, Osama, and Sadr. Just get rid of these people, you'll be sorry if you don't.

Elmondo brings up an interesting point. It relates to why I say that revolutions don't have a good track record and how revolutions always end up purging the revolutionary grass roots membership. A lot of it has to do with populism. The dangers of populism

I remember the union protests. One specific incident involved the steel workers union fighting Carnegie, the owner of the steel mills. The unions just wanted better terms. Carnegie's negotiation team specifically set out to put the terms so low that they would never be accepted. Carnegie was out to break the unions. So what did the unions do? The unions broke into the steel mill after Carnegie closed it, and had a shoot out with the strike breakers that was being brought in at a private river port inside the steel mill perimeters. In the end, the National Guard arrested the union leader and members. Why? Because regardless of the justice of their cause, they trespassed on someone's private property.

The principle of human rights, is tenuous and vulnerable. Once a bloody revolution violates the "rules", there is nothing there to stop the cycle of violence. The United States has had the chance to grow and improve because the military was always there to crush "populist" uprisings that used violence or violated the laws. This is why non-violent revolutions are much more successful.

The military can't crush "too many" uprisings of course, given the 2nd Ammendment. So what we have is a deadlock, a balance, the only thing that can allow for civic improvement. A Mexican standoff is always better than people shooting at each other.

Violence doesn't solve your political problems as easily as you might imagine. Presumably because if you can overthrow the Man, why can't someone else overthrow you? If the United States can throw off the shackles of Briton, why can't the South secede from the Union? These are the questions that face a nation. And the track record for movements and revolutions that use violence to solve their problems is less than 1 out of 10. America is a charmed land, where a "civil war" ended up with a more united and more powerful nation than before. When a "Revolution" ended up with the first democratic experiment. America is downright weird, historically speaking. A freak of history.

I cannot remember the last time that an armed and violent revolution brought about a progressive/positive ending. OH ya, Fox is reporting that HAMAS got caught trying to smuggle 815k to Gaza from Egypt. Abbas confiscated it, heh. Now Hamas wants their dough back. It just gets better and better for the cash strapped terroist organization after Israel, America, and Europe finally cut off terroist funding.

Populist revolutions don't work unless you have the Socialist, Leftist, and Rich class with you. It is those people that you need to purge afterwards. Remember Cuba? Ya, that was just like Iran. Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan... the list just goes on and on and on.

May 19, 2006

Sun Tzu vs Clausewitz

Bottom line: Sun says try to attack the plans first (asymmetrical warfare in today’s parlance), Carl says attack the forces and centers of gravity first (a more “symmetrical” or “conventional” way of waging war.)

Comes now Iran. The basic “beef” we’ve got with Iran is that they are supporting terrorism, rapidly developing nuclear weapons, contributing to the instability of the region through regime statements and support of insurgents in Iraq. All three of these issues are becoming more and more dangerous toward US interests in the region.

A General Clausewitz, if he could be resurrected form the grave and transported to the E-Ring of the Pentagon, would probably be looking at Iran’s deployment of military forces. He would consider the blue force commitment in Iraq, the enemy population centers, and devise courses of action for a military strike to solve the problem. In modern terms, Clausewitz might have looked approvingly on the initial invasion plan for Iraq, as a solution to removing Saddam from power.

A zombie General Tzu might consider the cultural, economic, and political spheres of influence in Iran –and the relation these pressures have on the ruling regime. He might next consider how to exploit gaps and apply pressure in order to accomplish the mission. If the mission was to convince Iran to abandon their nukes and stop supporting terrorism, disconnecting the regime that allows these activities from a population that might have other ideas about where their country should go –and replacing it with a more conciliatory one (or convincing the current one to see it our way) could be the choice he may recommend. Tzu might have nodded if he got to peruse the SOF plans for infiltrating into Afghanistan, teaming up with the Northern Alliance, and using US airpower to thwart the Taliban.

So how would America implement a “Tzu”-like strategy for dealing with the current Iran problem? How could we “balk his plans” best? Obviously, a full-on, Clausewitzian conventional, OIF-1-style attack would be a 100% solution for our three goals: terrorist support, nuke pursuit, and regime change, but it would be a HUGE drain on the nation, the military, and the economy. But we don’t always need a 100% solution to our problems –sometimes a 75% solution will work just fine. Using the three main problems I outlined, and –this is important- assuming regime irrationality, let’s take a look at how to sucker-punch the Iranian regime.

Links on Carter and his betrayal of America - courtesy of nyomythus

Exclusive. Analysis. By Alan Peters,1 GIS. Strong intelligence has begun to emerge that US President Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah of Iran. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Pres. Carter’s resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office.

The linkage between the destruction of the Shah’s Government — directly attributable to Carter’s actions — and the Iran-Iraq war which cost millions of dead and injured on both sides, and to the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism makes the new information of considerable significance.

Pres. Carter’s anti-Shah feelings appeared to have ignited after he sent a group of several of his friends from his home state, Georgia, to Tehran with an audience arranged with His Majesty directly by the Oval Office and in Carter’s name. At this meeting, as reported by Prime Minister Amir Abbas Hoveyda to some confidantes, these businessmen told the Shah that Pres. Carter wanted a contract. previously awarded to Brown & Root to build a huge port complex at Bandar Mahshahr, to be cancelled and as a personal favor to him to be awarded to the visiting group at 10 percent above the cost quoted by Brown & Root.

The group would then charge the 10 percent as a management fee and supervise the project for Iran, passing the actual construction work back to Brown & Root for implementation, as previously awarded. They insisted that without their management the project would face untold difficulties at the US end and that Pres. Carter was “trying to be helpful”. They told the Shah that in these perilous political times, he should appreciate the favor which Pres. Carter was doing him.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, the Georgia visitors left a stunned monarch and his bewildered Prime Minister speechless, other than to later comment among close confidantes about the hypocrisy of the US President, who talked glibly of God and religion but practiced blackmail and extortion through his emissaries.

The multi-billion dollar Bandar Mahshahr project would have made 10 percent “management fee” a huge sum to give away to Pres. Carter’s friends as a favor for unnecessary services. The Shah politely declined the “personal” management request which had been passed on to him. The refusal appeared to earn the Shah the determination of Carter to remove him from office.

Carter subsequently refused to allow tear gas and rubber bullets to be exported to Iran when anti-Shah rioting broke out, nor to allow water cannon vehicles to reach Iran to control such outbreaks, generally instigated out of the Soviet Embassy in Tehran. There was speculation in some Iranian quarters — as well as in some US minds — at the time and later that Carter’s actions were the result of either close ties to, or empathy for, the Soviet Union, which was anxious to break out of the longstanding US-led strategic containment of the USSR, which had prevented the Soviets from reaching the warm waters of the Indian Ocean.

Sensing that Iran’s exports could be blocked by a couple of ships sunk in the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, the Shah planned a port which would have the capacity to handle virtually all of Iran’s sea exports unimpeded.

Contrary to accusations leveled at him about the huge, “megalomaniac” projects like Bandar Mahshahr, these served as a means to provide jobs for a million graduating high school students every year for whom there were no university slots available. Guest workers, mostly from Pakistan and Afghanistan were used to start and expand the projects and Iranians replaced the foreigners as job demand required, while essential infrastructure for Iran was built ahead of schedule.

In late February 2004, Islamic Iran’s Deputy Minister of Economy stated that the country needed $18-billion a year to create one-million jobs and achieve economic prosperity. And at the first job creation conference held in Tehran’s Amir Kabir University, Iran’s Student News Agency estimated the jobless at some three-million. Or a budget figure of $54-billion to deal with the problem.

Thirty years earlier, the Shah had already taken steps to resolve the same challenges, which were lost in the revolution which had been so resolutely supported by Jimmy Carter.

A quarter-century after the toppling of the Shah and his Government by the widespread unrest which had been largely initiated by groups with Soviet funding — but which was, ironically, to bring the mullahs rather than the radical-left to power — Ayatollah Shariatmadari’s warning that the clerics were not equipped to run the country was echoed by the Head of Islamic Iran’s Investment Organization, who said: “We are hardly familiar with the required knowledge concerning the proper use of foreign resources both in State and private sectors, nor how to make the best use of domestic resources.” Not even after 25 years.

Historians and observers still debate Carter’s reasons for his actions during his tenure at the White House, where almost everything, including shutting down satellite surveillance over Cuba at an inappropriate time for the US, seemed to benefit Soviet aims and policies. Some claim he was inept and ignorant, others that he was allowing his liberal leanings to overshadow US national interests.

The British Foreign & Commonwealth Office had enough doubts in this respect, even to the extent of questioning whether Carter was a Russian mole, that they sent around 200 observers to monitor Carter’s 1980 presidential campaign against Ronald Reagan to see if the Soviets would try to “buy” the presidency for Carter.

In the narrow aspect of Carter setting aside international common sense to remove the US’ most powerful ally in the Middle East, this focused change was definitely contrary to US interests and events over the next 25 years proved this.

According to Prime Minister Hoveyda, Jimmy Carter’s next attack on the Shah was a formal country to country demand that the Shah sign a 50-year oil agreement with the US to supply oil at a fixed price of $8 a barrel. No longer couched as a personal request, the Shah was told he should heed the contract proposal if he wished to enjoy continued support from the US. In these perilous, political times which, could become much worse.

Faced with this growing pressure and threat, the monarch still could not believe that Iran, the staunchest US ally in the region, other than Israel, would be discarded or maimed so readily by Carter, expecting he would be prevailed upon by more experienced minds to avoid destabilizing the regional power structure

and tried to explain his position. Firstly, Iran did not have 50-years of proven oil reserves that could be covered by a contract. Secondly, when the petrochemical complex in Bandar Abbas, in the South, was completed a few years later, each barrel of oil would produce $1,000 worth of petrochemicals so it would be treasonous for the Shah to give oil away for only $8.

Apologists, while acknowledging that Carter had caused the destabilization of the monarchy in Iran, claim he was only trying to salvage what he could from a rapidly deteriorating political situation to obtain maximum benefits for the US. But, after the Shah was forced from the throne, Carter’s focused effort to get re- elected via the Iran hostage situation points to less high minded motives.

Rumor has always had it that Carter had tried to negotiate to have the US hostages, held for 444 days by the Islamic Republic which he had helped establish in Iran, released just before the November 1980 election date, but that opposition (Republican) candidate Ronald Reagan had subverted, taken over and blocked the plan. An eye-witness account of the seizure by “students” of the US Embassy on November 4, 1979, in Tehran confirms a different scenario.

The mostly “rent-a-crowd” group of “students” organized to climb the US Embassy walls was spearheaded by a mullah on top of a Volkswagen van, who with a two-way radio in one hand and a bullhorn in the other, controlled the speed of the march on the Embassy according to instructions he received over the radio. He would slow it down, hurry it up and slow it down again in spurts and starts, triggering the curiosity of an educated pro-Khomeini vigilante, who later told the story to a friend in London.


No Apology for Iraq and lyrics for the soldiers

Some lyrics about Soldiers and Angels.

No Apology for Iraq

The priorities of Democrats

Sadly, I have asked to be removed from their mailing list. I understood when I first contributed that I would receive more requests for donations--that's what charities do. But the request I received last week was the deal breaker: a cardboard mailing tube with an American flag and a small tag enclosed. I was asked to sign the little tag, enclose it with the flag and a donation, and return the whole thing in the mailing tube using their pre-paid address label. The flag (just slightly bigger than 4x6, on a wooden stick) was to be carried in a demonstration in Washington "showing all our troops how much we support them and their mission."* The flag was accompanied by a letter in which Ms. Patton-Bader railed against all those liberals who "rejoice . . . with every American death" and who desperately want America "to lose this war."

People can support Soldier's Angels or not, I don't really care a fig for that. What I do point out, because it is important, is how the logic English Professor uses lays out. We have the thesis, obviously, that Bader is attacking liberals, because EP says she is attacking liberals, and that this offends EProfessor because it offended EProfessor. Aside from the circular logic argument, the more important thing is the comments section.

Here you have people agreeing with EP, notably because they want to treat soldiers as soldiers, instead of political props, which they say demeans their sacrifice.

Given these beliefs, I would have expected EP to write out the entire text she received from Baden. She doesn't do that, even presuming she signed the flag and sent it out, EP does not even paraphrase the great majority of the text she received. Since she does not do that, we are asked to believe her portrayal as the accurate portrayal. Most Republicans I know, could never get away with that, so it became a Republican habit not to do that anymore.

I do wonder whether Murtha's recent comments will be portrayed in the same light. Meaning, an anecdote about hearing it, and then the conclusion, then the comments section agreeing that the Democrats should not treat soldiers as political props, using them to gain political power. I would like to see people who prioritize things they get offended over from Republicans, also prioritize the things from their own party. That's not too much to ask, given that EP was the one who first brought up the subject.

But even if EP doesn't write about Murtha, as it is her blog, the question still remains why Democrats prioritize offensive things from Soldier's Angels but not the more important, in my view, actions of Murtha.

See, most of the problems with Democrats is their priorities. They'll get a problem and talk about it, but then they ignore anything else related to it for various reasons. If that's too vague, then look at Democrats when they talk about Osama. To Hear Democrats talk, if you just get rid of Osama, then the War on Terror would end because every other terroist organization is not gunning for Americans. Is that not a difference in priorities?

And of course anyone who asserts that liberals "rejoice" when American soldiers are killed has zero credibility with me.

This might be valid, if EP had quoted the majority or even paraphrased accurately a portion of the subject she is refering. EP didn't do that. So the only person we have to trust for the accuracy of the information is EP's memory. Which tends to act with opinion first. Why do I say that? Because if it was an opinion that it is wrong to say that liberals rejoice, because liberals like her don't rejoice, that is one thing. But that's not what EP chose to emphasis in their priorities. She said that anyone saying liberals like Murtha would rejoice in soldier's deaths, as Murtha rejoiced when the Marines were accused of slaughtering innocent civilians in Haditha, has no possibility of being right.

It's tribalistic in the extreme. Any attack on the party liberals, is on an attack on every liberal. Any attack on the family or my own, is a direct attack on me. That kind of mentality. There might be some benefits to that of course, but it is not apparent of what worth when the protective instincts are towards fake liberals in the party of so called liberalism.

Here's my take on things, with no research just gut instinct. I don't pretend to have proper and exact methodology, I don't pretend that what I'm saying is an accurate portrayal of other people's positions. I will say that it is far more probable that the flag is separate from the donations, that the donations go to one thing, but the flag will go to another. This is of course, entirely devoid of any details other than the ones provided by EP, but I suppose if that is good for EP and her audience, it is good for my prediction methodology.

Some stuff I got through Research cause I was just curious.

Soldiers' Angels

Holly Aho

Blackfive's someone you should know, Ms Patton-Bader.

May 18, 2006

Response to Murtha and atrocities

It isn't logical. The Marines out of all the branches, have felt the heat to implement PTSD treatment by introducing miniature debriefings after combat patrols. Since they're at the tip of the spear all the time, the Marines have had to find ways of how to uncoil after combat, especially since this is a multi-tour war with people having to go back to civilian life (reserves) and going back to family, and then going back to war again sometime later. Combat stress, would obviously be found a lot sooner than Vietnam, because of the length of the tours.

Besides, the military saw what happened at My Lai, how guerrila tactics can disrupt the psychology of combat units and make them go beserk. What attack would have caused this rage on the part of the Marines? Cummulatively, the Marine barracks bombing killed far more than an Iraqi suicide bomber and inflicted far greater psychological damage, than even the Mosul suicide bombing.

Open minded liberals - Or Not as the case may be

You are pretty offensive for someone so young and obviously untravelled. That sort of stuff usually takes years of practice. But, you are confusing me for someone who will respond to your racist claptrap. Two pieces of advice for you though. You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy. FOX news may tell you what you want to hear, but it won't way you down with any facts.
The second is, that if you are going to spin a yarn, there needs to be an element of truth somewhere in there. Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

It's the usual pattern. Open minded liberal comes to Neo-Con's blog, asks questions, then when he doesn't like the answers, starts talking about American arrogance or what not.

Not surprising, and very expected. It is disappointing however, to see it keep happening as folks from Europe come over to this site, because it reinforces my belief, and not jack trainor's, that Europe won't live to hit rock bottom to bounce back up.

Racist is probably one of the 3 deadly insults in Britain and Europe. War monger is probably the worst, along with fascist.

Since I keep my expectations low, I don't run the risk of getting angry when those expectations are met.

You should learn a bit of balanced history before you spout off on the Palestinian tragedy.

Ya, I'll keep that in mind about the next person who says they are open minded about their questions and confusion.

Bush believes in the UN and is an internationalist? 0 out of 10, sonny.

Well, I am seriously interested in getting some genuine perspective about the mindset because this situation has the potential to be a disaster beyond a scale that we've seen.


I am trying to understand the seeming prevailing political psyche within the US.

Good luck in trying to understand something that you've already decided on. There's a 75% chance this fake lying liberal didn't even read the links, because presumably he would have talked about nuking Mecca if he did.

Bye, bye. Send us a note when the jihadists string you up in the streets, we'll take a picture.

The link has the background to this argument.

The Indian Sub-Continent - Or they got Marxists too?

To deny that the relationship between India and the United States has been transformed from the cold war suspicion to strategic partnership where the two have deepening mutual interests, as the Marxists do, may be in line with their ideology. But a little analysis would throw up the fact that for the Marxists to retain their power base in West Bengal, the vote bank politics with Muslim fundamentalism has become important. So much so the CPM bosses have turned against their own Chief Minister when Buddhadeb Bhattacharya criticized the madrasas and expressed concern at infiltration from Bangladesh especially in the border districts of his state. Sometime back, he was even forced to eat his own words on the need to reform the syllabus in the madrasas and on their proliferation and funding.

The Left has been successful in creating an environment in this country for several decades now in which anyone who exposes their double talk or finds some virtue in American policies is dubbed a “reactionary” or a “CIA agent” or worse. This hypocrisy prompted the late Piloo Modi, the Swatantra party leader, to come to Parliament wearing a badge that “I am a CIA agent” needling the Left and some Congressmen with their own barbs. But those were days when the Left would refuse to believe that the people in the Soviet Union were resenting an oppressive regime. The overthrow of Communist regimes throughout Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union through popular uprising ought to have given the Left a lesson. But even now they refuse to read the writing on the Berlin Wall as people clawed into it and brought it down.

The Left would have you believe that America's beef should be localized on Osama only, not a War on Global Terror, not a war on any global scale. This shows you the lie of the Left, it is global, precisely because Marxism, Socialism, and the Left are global. transnational as den beste termed it. It transcends nations, just as jihadism transcends nations.

I suggest you read it all, SB and others.

India eviscerates the Left

It was funny though, I actually came across this in my research on "Indian execution techniques" but I couldn't find anything on google about staking. But I did on crucifixion, ain't that funny. All the things it showed up was about American Indians, or Native Indians, or whatever. India doesn't seem to be very um... popular to the anglo-saxon world.

Not a very good resume for the Left's "diplomatic, international, UN based" initiatives, now is it.

May 15, 2006

The Fortress of your Mind - Or what manner of ruler are you?

You can't have a debate when 70% of the population on the internet doesn't know anything about Logic 101.

You can have an argument, you can try to persuade others of your viewpoint, but having a debate necessitates some basic fairness of environment. You can't have a basketball game when the other team is missing 4 players on the roster (total 5) , and you can't have a debate with people who don't know how to debate.

If we're talking about propaganda, which is what persuasion is or vice a versa, then repetition is one of the most useful methods. While it is the logical fallacy of ad nauseam argument, propaganda does not adhere to the fairness doctrine in debates.

This is what Newt said that Einstein said about insanity. Insanity is when you keep doing what you have always been doing, and expecting to get a different result.

This is in contrast to the one of Murphy's Laws. If it is stupid, and it works, then it ain't stupid.

I think Neo's been pretty clear about what she means by liberal and democratic, as opposed to the movement of fake liberalism going on, masquearding as open minded folks and molks.

I almost forgot, but I think one of the most pernicious and insidious aspects to people arguing on the internet has to do about self-esteem and self-confidence. If someone is not confident in their abilities, judgements, beliefs, ideas, and analysis then that person has an increased likely hood of attacking other people for challenging their beliefs, which are already shaky to begin.

I'm not refering directly to agreeing to disagree, but it's probably the closest thing to use as an example. When I challenge Jack Trainor's beliefs with my own, I don't feel a need to attack him psychologically, I just don't agree with his portrayal. However, I'm confident in my own opinions and beliefs to feel no particular hostility to learning about why Jack believes as he does.

Someone who isn't confident, would probably behave in a much more hostile manner, and extend the argument to many many comments, which eventually actually goes nowhere.

I like to know and learn stuff. In chess, I'm always looking for my opponent's strategy and seeing what tricks he uses. I use the same philosophy in arguments. I can't argue my position effectively if I do not understand my opponent's position. If there is room for additional points to be made, I'll make them. If it is simply a different prioritization and emphasis on different interpretations, like Jack's emphasis on Truman and my emphasis on Roosevelt, then there is no more debate because both interpretations are valid. I'll resign my game if it is futile to keep moving the pieces in chess, sure. But sometimes I won't, that's valid as well. But I separate the belief in victory from other motivations. For example, if I have a knight and a king with 2 pawns, and my enemy has 2 rooks, the king, and 4 pawns. I might not resign, I would keep moving, forcing my opponent to show me how to do the end game. You could resign of course, but then you would never learn. But if you already know how to do the end game, then you will only waste time by continuing an argument.

To clarify, because there are 3 different strains of thought going on in the above paragraph that is probably not exactly well constructed. The end game of chess is contrasted directly with continuing an argument on the internet past the point of usefulness. I didn't choose to continue the argument with Jack Trainor because he said his piece and I said mine, and I chose not to continue the argument because it is useless to try to convince people to emphasize one group of true facts over another group of true facts. If someone's interpretation is wrong, that's one thing, but if their interpretation is just different, then you should consider devoting your energies to something else.

Someone whose internal beliefs are unstable and who has a lack of self-confidence, will never admit that any different interpretation might be correct. That would be like a dictator allowing someone to successfully rebel against him, this would set into action a chain of events that would eventually unseat him from power. We are the commander of our minds, and every individual uses a different method of control on mental behavior.

You've seen one defense used already. Fanaticism. Believe so strongly, that nothing your enemy will do will convince you otherwise. But nobody is a fanatic about EVERYTHING, that's not possible. You'd have to go schizoid to do that. Someone who believes the light is green regardless of what anyone else says, may be a fanatic, but he is also certifiably insane.

(jeez louis, Bush just said on Fox that Mexico is our friend and neighbor. Well they're our neighbor, but they're not negotiating in good faith. People who want to send people to the US so that they can produce a higher GDP than Mexicans in Mexico, are interested not in friendship but in exploitation for their own greed, like Fox is.)

Someone who has a shaky internal belief system, will adopt more and more fanatical beliefs. Simply because they don't know of any other way to strenghten their beliefs than that. This is contrasted to open-mindedness, tolerance, and diversity. Where your strength of belief is increased by its inherent superiority compared to its competitors. A person cannot both use oppressive internal mental controls and open-minded democratic internal mental controls at the same time.

May 12, 2006

Some new(old) arguments about civil liberties

I don't think a lot of people realize this, or if they do they don't talk about it, is that not doing these things is the real violation of civil liberties. What do I mean by that?

It means simply that if you increase the risk of attack, you're basically planning to throw out your civil liberties. The more attacks that occur, the more people that die, the more civil liberties the people are going to vote out. This was the fear on 9/11, and it still exists, precisely because we have not been attacked again.

People who want to increase the risk of attack because they believe their civil liberties are too valuable to risk, are themselves the Angels of the Apocalypse. They are the true danger, because their policies will guarantee the destruction of civil rights.

This kind of reverse logic isn't so rare,I wish it were. You see it with taxes. The Democrats argue that increasing taxes will pay for etc. The real reality is that decreasing taxes increases revenues, which increases taxes. Then there's gun control. Take away guns from law abiding civilians, and the Democrats argue that crime will fall. The reality is the opposite, take away guns from law abiding civilians and crime will increase.

Beware people who promise that you will get what you need, so long as you do what they tell you to do. It's too bad that people who don't know how to use Logic can't tell the difference between con-artists and real charities.

Ugly Americans

"We are seen as loud, arrogant and completely self-absorbed," said Reinhard, chairman emeritus of the advertising agency DDB Worldwide. "People see in us the ultimate arrogance — assuming that everybody wants to be like us."

This month, San Francisco-based BDA — whose board includes executives from Exxon and McDonald's — began distributing a "World Citizen's Guide" to corporate travelers. Its 16 points are a mirror image of the behavioral patterns that earned Americans a boorish reputation in the first place.

My take is that, everyone does want the power of America and Americans. They just aren't willing to be Americans, obviously. Because to be Americans, might mean that they would have to be limited by the US Constitution in the exercise of this power and that's a big no no to the dictators and Europeans.

I'm just saying, everyone would love the money and power of the United States, that is pretty obvious.

Valerie Plame

If being outed brings me millions in 1 book deal, I'd say Bring it On

Democrats are such hypocrites. They cheer on the NSA leaks and the CIA leaks and whatever leaks they benefit from, but then they construct some fake national security issue around Valerie Plame. It is one of the best propaganda projects I've ever seen, in any consistent basis. THe only people with better propaganda projects were the Soviets and the Islamic Jihadists.

May 11, 2006

The Mind of the Enemy

The quotes aren't exactly saying the same thing, but oh well.

What's really weird is that Al Qaeda knows that focusing on propaganda is effective in the short term, but not in the long term. Simply because if you fight a propaganda war, you tend to focus on media enhanced operations like VBIEDs and IEDs, rather than command and control, infiltration networks, and intelligence networks among the population. Those traits are required to take the battle to the field. Guerrilas cannot win without a battlefield engagement, that ends successfully. The Tet Offensive is one such field engagement. While it had its propaganda aspects, they still had to come out of the woodworks to make the assaults. They got smashed, and lsot the battle, but they did win the war. So propagand wars are always a bit of a gamble.

Obviously Al Qaeda understands that the gamble went sour. The Democrat Left tends to believe the terroists aren't playing them like a third stringer, the Democrats tend to believe it is Bush badly manipulating the terroists, not the other way around given how Bush is the real danger to their personal power bases not the terroists.

The Captain's summary and interpretation is also good. There are more interpretations of course, but that would be a lot of writing.

The question of why the Democrats deny that their actions to acquire personal power over the Republicans is helping the moral enemies of the American people, is a bit tricky. Why do they deny it and why do they not learn from the evidence already compiled?

Do they truly want power so much that they are willing to sacrifice the integrity of their minds and souls? Yes, I do think they are.

May 09, 2006

The dangers of populism - Or what the people want is not always beneficial

From bookwrom

It should be no surprise by now that populism has always been a fundamentally left-wing phenomena. Indeed, just looking around the world to see which countries call themselves “people’s republics” should be evidence enough of that. Throughout history, populist movements, no matter what their ideological origins, ineluctably devolve into socialist enterprises—and most of them start out that way. Right now, we’re witnessing the growth of classically populist movements across Latin America. The president of Bolivia just last week essentially appropriated the nation’s oil and gas reserves. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez has been posing as the voice-of-the-people-made-flesh for years now as he systematically dismantles the market economy in explicit homage to Fidel Castro. In America, Populists have invariably championed socialistic policies. The Populist Party—also called the People’s Party—pushed for the nationalization of railroads and other industries, and demanded “popular” control over natural resources. (You can peruse the U.S. Populist Party’s 1892 platform here. Note its call for mandatory unionization, the seizure of lands from corporations and “aliens,” and the nationalization of the telephone companies.) Father Charles Coughlin and Huey Long were explicitly socialist (though they didn’t always use the word) in their economic policies. Patrick Buchanan’s move toward populism coincided with—indeed, required—a steady rejection of free market principles (see Ramesh’s “A Conservative No More”).

From the mobs storming Versailles to the Banana Republic dictators seizing the oil fields, populist programs have been based as much upon grasping envy and narcissistic resentment of those who “think they’re better than us” as on any sort of principle. It’s not just that populist arguments are most often arguments in name only. They are sharp rhetorical sticks poked in the eye of those with little to lose and much to gain by overturning the board when the rules work against them. Individual responsibility gets lost in a swamp of whininess about what others “owe” the people. When Homer Simpson ran for sanitation commissioner, he captured the populist pose perfectly: “Animals are crapping in our houses and we’re picking it up! Did we lose a war? That's not America! That's not even Mexico!”

May 08, 2006

The British have done it again - Guns are Evil

From Dean

May 07, 2006

An Iraqi finishes Ranger school

From Dean.

Good news? Obviously.

Rumsfield Why he Fights.

Watching a Fox Special aobut RUmsfield right now, why he fights. Some outtakes.

Rumsfield was talking about the uniformity of thought of the pentagon bureacracy, not a problem with the men of women serving, but all too often the bureacratic excesses inflicted upon them, that is the problem. September 10.

Then September 11 morning, a dinner, Rumsfield was talking about Pearl Harbor and 'Surprise'. Before the planes was on CNN.


Next was the contrast between the media's adoration of Rumsfield (People magazine sexiest man of the year) compared to what happened during Iraq. Rumsfield had 5% of the troops used in Afghanistan that the Old Guard Army wanted. And Rumsfield had enormous success and enormous public support. Then when Rumsfield wanted 40,000 for Iraq, and compromised on 150,000, we have diaster.


I think the real lessons of Iraq isn't the tired mantra of the Democrats the "more troops" mantra. I think the real lessons of Iraq are based upon the counter-insurgency operations done successfully in places like El Salvador. The Senate limited the number of American military in El Salvador, so they used about 50 SF advisors and used them to train up a force that can hold off the rebels.

This is what one person said about the fight, who was lead it. "I saw it was a benefit, to force me to fight smarter with less".

Isn't that really what happened. There were few fighters in Afghanistan, so we fought longer and smarter. More troops in Iraq, fought shorter, and more stupid by using brute force. 150,000 occupation forces, who thought that this force was enough to secure Iraq? Did not the very size of the force and the quickness it sliced through Iraq, urge the belief that it was enough? Of course it did.

May 05, 2006

Sexual prostitutes in German - The Consequences of Serfdom

Old news story about a woman who had her "benefits" cut because she refused work as a prostitute. Prostitution is legal, so the government shouldn't pay you if you don't wanna "work" as a "working girl".

Women empowerment!!! It's great to be living in the world where women aren't forced into serving as sexual slaves to their husbands at home, eh?

Pain Tolerance and the efficiency of Torture

Ya, you tend to learn this in martial arts or just simple pain tolerance training. It’s pretty classic that the guy who fears getting hit, will feel more pain, than another guy who “wants” to get hit so he can counter-attack.

The warrior mentality. Whatever damage you do to me, I will return a thousand fold unto you.

The same kind of thinking works in hypnosis. If you make yourself believe you will feel no pain, it’s just as effective as actual endorphines and adrenaline in a real fight where you get real pain. I tend to think people who have a much higher pain tolerance threshold, have to work at it. Meaning, not only do they have to believe the goal is worth the pain, but they also have to experience it. It sets up a sort of Pavlovian response system.

Natural endorphines are produced when you take damage and pain, and adrenaline as well. You’ve heard that endorphines are the body’s natural pain-killer, it gives you this natural high. One of the reasons Extreme Sports people do what they do, not for the pain, but for the adrenaline and the endorphines that make them feel more alive than anything else. That and the winning.

As for dogs, I think genetically they are designed not to show any pain. Because in the animal pack kingdom, showing pain is a weakness. Attempting to hide your pain, effects a sort of mind over body control. In a way, your control impulses are flowing down the nerve, combating the pain being sent Up the nerve. Not exactly how it works, but that’s how it seems to behave in reality.

I think it works the same way for humans, hypnosis being a example. I don’t know why some people have higher pain tolerances than others. It could be genetics (alpha male genes of strength and aggression) or it could be personality (SOBs who don’t give up, never, ever, never) or it could be environment (growing up in crime spots and learning how to look afraid scared or in pain, otherwise it invites attack).

Regardless, it’s pretty obvious that some people have a higher tolerance for pain than let’s say, other people.

This has to do with torture as well, or as some people call it “coerced interrogation tactics”. Independent of the morality of it, let’s talk about effectiveness. When people say torture is not effective because people will say whatever you want to stop the pain, is that really true? To a certain extent, it is true.

But just as people have higher and lower and different methods to resist pain (Marines do it via physical training and mental toughness, terroists use drugs to make themselves take 5 bullets and keep going), people also have different resistances to having pain inflicted upon them to get them to give information.

Sure, people can resist, they can lie, and their automatic instinct is to preserve their life, limbs, and eyes so they will do what they BELIEVE will stop the pain. That’s the key difference. All you have to do, is to make them believe, that they will suffer more pain if they lie and get caught, then they would if they just told the truth and did not resist. If they believe this, and if you are successful in making them believe, it is worth more than all the physical pain you can inflict upon that person for I don’t know, weeks.

That’s one methodology. The other methodology is even more immoral on a relative scale, and it takes longer. What this method does, is to break people’s will. You don’t break people’s will via pain or even through fear of pain (which is greater than pain, and most expert interrogators already know this) completely. This method provides no avenue to stop the pain. No avenue, meaning you don’t ask them questions about this or that or the other. You just hurt them, over and over, until they either go insane or they become your slave and are willing to do anything you want, because they’ve given into hopelessness.

I think one of the Nazi torture tactics, they favored, was the one about the father and the child. They’d strap both of them in electric chairs, and then put a button in front of the child. So long as the child pushes the button, the father doesn’t get electrocuted, but as long as he holds it, the child gets electrocuted. If he stops holding down the button, the electricity goes from the child’s chair to the father’s. Everytime you depress or unpress the button, the electric charge goes up. The father’s button works the same way. Except if BOTH of them holds the button down, both of them gets electrocuted. Eventually I think, the father will stop resisting. Then you could either ask him questions, or brainwash him or the child or both at the same time.

This may or may not be historically accurate, of course, but it is one of the references I read. But regardless, torture defined as the intentional application of pain on a human being to get them to do what you want, is very effective.

A lot of the torture done on Americans in Vietnam and Japan, weren’t done for the information. They just did it cause it was fun. Anyone doing torture for fun, is not going to be very effective. So ya, the torture inflicted on Americans, wasn’t very effective. It’s the efficient people, like the Germans, that take torture to new levels, because they make it more efficient. Evil, is efficient, make no bars about that.

The reason why I bring up the torture subject in relation to Book’s post about self-hypnosis and pain tolerance thresholds, is because it is very important to understand how pain works and why it works. Because if you want to act in a moral and “Good Guy” kind of way, without doing to the terroists what they would do to us if they captured us on the battlefied, you have to understand the LoopHoles. And this is one of them. You can inflict all the pain you want on terroists, but you don’t need to lay a hand on them or make them bleed or even hit in the face. All You Need To Do is to Make Them Believe. Believe what? Believe that you are actually going to do to him, what he believes he would have done to you, or believe that you are going to do to him many things that he could not resist.

It is emotion, fear, and belief that is the most efficient manner to inflict pain. It is not putting the gloves on and going wack a mole across someone’s face when he is strapped to a chair. That’s the amateur concept of interrogation and torture. It works, I suppose, if you take a Soccer Mom off the streets or Joe Smoe from a garbage dumpster. JIhadists? No.

So there you go, you can be the good guy and now lower yourself to the enemy’s shoes, but you have to think outside the box. And you can’t have a reputation as a Western weenie that has to put on white gloves to handle the Koran. Ghenghis Khan even realized that a good fearsome reputation would save more lives in the end, his and everyone else he conquers that is.

How do you get people to stop fighting you and making you kill them? Make them afraid of you, so afraid, they will nothing to harm you. It’s the basic reason why deterence worked, and saved humanity from committing suicide.