October 31, 2006

Self Defense

//Yes Yes, I'm sure there will be people reading this and going bananas over the American gun toting hardcore thuggery or whatever they came up with this time, goose-stepping myrmidons perhaps, but the truth is the truth. And reality is pretty hard regardless of how flubbery others wish to become.

I guess now it is the time to do self-defense 2nd Ammendment redux. In light of that, I just checked my email.

Here is something you might be interested in, Bookworm.

Danny mentioned something similar before, basically that martial arts take years to even approach perfection, and it is not a time sensitive solution to self-defense. Tae Kwan Do for example, only tests for self-defense techniques, for like which belt, 5th rank? They aren't exactly training the people in advanced techniques suited for killing in defense of your life or the life of others.

What I've seen, is that martial arts teach predominantly discipline. A mental outlook. It uses friendly and safe competition in order to improve, and practice techniques that would otherwise hurt people who didn't know what to do. Like Judo and learning how to fall down, you really can't spar with someone who hasn't learned how to fall correctly, cause you might injure him. That would be bad for practice, and without practice, you will find it hard to improve your skills.Those who get up to several "Dan" levels in the black belt circles, probably do have the years in order to react instantly with muscle memory. And that matters a lot in battles to the death. Your reaction speed, and first strikes. But even then, it still isn't a practical self-defense program for the average woman or man with a job and kids.

So, here comes America, with the American philosophy and the 2nd Ammendment. Can't learn martial arts? Then get a gun and learn how to shoot it! That is the popular solution, but it never exactly satisfied me. Basically because I was always a believer in that people should be weapons, not pieces of equipment. The Marine philosophy in a way.

If you know of Tony Martin in Britain, then you know just having a gun doesn't mean you are going to be able to use it correctly. It takes a certain mental focus. A lot of Americans have this focus, but not the techniques or skills or the training. The Left has a great solution for this problem. Basically, their position is that because you can be disarmed and use a gun incorrectly and what not, then this means the government should ban guns and that way nobody would be individually responsible for their own protection. The future police state will be adequate to protecting people's personal safeties, the Left thinks.

Not my cup of coffee.

This sounds more like my kind of drink, however. Read it.


You must NEVER look for violence... but you also must NEVER have a problem bringing it to the table... meaner, harder and more effective than that bigger, stronger psycho trying to scare the crap out of you with his "Mad Dawg" act, waving his 9mm in your face.

Tookie, maddog enough to shoot you with a shotgun at point blank range while you on the ground, boy.

I'm constantly amazed at how people deal with the ever escalating likelihood that they are going to face unavoidable criminal violenceS often when they're unprepared and unarmed, and facing a very ready and very armed goon set to dust them if he doesn't get what he's after:


Suddenly the arm bar that was so easy to execute on a willing opponent in class... is way too complicated to even remember.

The mace that was effective on that dummy in practice... is now hopelessly buried in the bottom of your purse.

That kick to the groin you perfected on soft mats... is nearly impossible to execute with a car door in the way.

And the shiny new handgun... loaded with most all your courage... is safely locked in your home right by your bed with the trigger-lock securely fastened.

Now what?

I'll tell you what.

When the unthinkable happens... when you're face to face with destiny... you must be able to pull out...

Muscle memory and bypassing the freeze effect in battle is pretty critical. Nothing different from the way they train soldiers, to reload and shoot, without even thinking about it. Their muscles already know what to do, even if their brains are still trying to catch up.

Certainly this guy has adapted such principles to self-defense. As far as I know, in martial arts it takes years to develop the body memory in order to react automatically. But the thing is, after years of martial arts discipline, your brain is already pretty much trained to do what you need to do under fear. And it still doesn't mean you will know what to do when it goes on.

This program is designed tailor made for people who are beginners, to highly advanced. Just like Combat Conditioning. Always bring a gun to a rock fight, Bookworm, but always keep a backup contingency plan in case you don't got that gun and you can't bring it because the criminal did a first strike against you.

I write this because, all these Lefties coming in here and other places, belittling and sneering at America's love affairs with guns, little guns, and popguns. Or whatever they call our weapons that we use to defend ourselves against the rioting mofo bas turds.

They are not going to burn me in a bus, not without me crushing a few tracheas in the process if I can. I can't promise that I'll live, but I can at least guarantee that somebody is going down with me. A gun is not the only weapon available to me.

As a believer in Aristotelian virtue philosophy, I hate injustices. It angers me to see the strong oppress the weak. As it should anger any good human. Anger is a weak word to describe what I have felt at times.

What this Larkin guy said about the new business he got after 9/11, is pretty interesting. It is another side of the story, that the blogosphere just doesn't see, most probably because CEOs don't blog that often. Security problems and time constraints, you know.

In a way, I have the fake liberals to thank. Everytime I saw on a tv screen or a movie or some mumbo jumbo news article, that a woman or a man had become a "victim" of this that or the other, and that this means we should forgive the criminal and go easy on him cause it wasn't his fault. I had a hankering to eviscerate the little criminal guys. And it really burned to always see those kind of people "get off" without their just deserts. And my just deserts are very, very, sweet.

Look, if the philosophical principle behind the First Ammendment is that with more information, the better decisions people are able to make, then the principle of the 2nd Ammendment is this.

To always be prepared to obliterate any and all enemies that threaten you or your own, so that you will always have the freedom from fear and the freedom of speech, guaranteed by yourself not the gov mint. When I say obliterate, I don't mean cripple by shattering their knee caps, I don't mean knocking them unconscious with one of those silly Hollywood punches. I don't even mean using a wooden stake and ramming it up their arse, to leave them to die in the sun. (that punishment, I'll reserve for when the state has some terrorist prisoners) I mean inflict so much pain and damage, that they would rather kill themselves, than live another moment in your presence. It is not a game to me, I think I've made that clear. If the situation does not require certain actions, then don't use them. If it requires that the Marine getting attacked by 2 teenagers and one female, all armed with weapons, to kill the girl to stay alive, then so be it. If you have to do it in a brutal fashoin that causes lots of screaming and shock and blood that splatters unto your enemy's faces, then so be it. Whatever is necessary. Moral high ground, need not apply.

America isn't just Gun toting mofo retards, you know. The Europ weenies and their Leftist allies seem to think that the "gun" is the "weapon". No.

The weapon is in your head people. France can have 1000 nukes, but if the rioters paralyze their police force and army, then it doesn't matter what guns you have if you can't use them. Strike the mind, and nothing else matters.

The program I linked to, is pretty good in its principles, and the background looks solid. I haven't tried it out, but then again, I'm not doing this for my benefit. But just to give you, Bookworm, and anyone else more options in their self-defense. One size does not fit all, but one should keep trying, after all. I already know that speed and power comes from your leg work, stance, and stepping. Given ranged weapons and knives, I guess it is very very important to be able to quick step within an opponent's guard, so fast that he cannot react. The more power to weight ratio in your legs, the faster you become and the more powerful your blows are when you step foward on an offensive basis.

I myself train on that predominantly. By working my triceps via pushups, and getting the calve strength up, it allows for quick bursts of speed and blows. It isn't as good as that father pushing his disabled son through triathlons and marathons, but still.

Bruce Lee pretty much said the same thing. In a fight, you cannot depend upon any school of martial arts, or "technique" you might have learned. Because those techniques are too rigid, it cannot be adapted. Bruce Lee, if you see his basic art, focuses on interupting attacks. Not blocking them. He focuses on the maximal positioning, doing the right things NOW so that the end of the battle ALWAYS goes in your favor. Being as water, using the intercepting fist to intercept, not block or attack. Instant attack, instant defense. Always adaptable, as water when in a container, but focused and hard as ice when attacking. It is more of a philosophy, than a school of martial arts. Larkin seems to be saying that he teaches principles, which to me means philosophical concepts. Why do you need to Do X, Y, Z, in this situation?

This requires people to figure out ALL the right moves for you, which Larkin seems to have done. He's trained SEALs, he has spent the decades necessary figuring out what you need or need not do. You don't have to experiment, you don't have to guess, all you have to do is to learn the age old wisdom that other people have already figured out for you.

October 29, 2006

One Reason Why Lawyers are Disliked

Exhibit 2: Universal Studios presumably decided to greenlight the movie Serenity largely because the series it's based on, Firefly, had such a rabid fan base. To take advantage of this, they provided an unusually large amout of artistic and promotional material and encouraged fans to participate in the marketing of the movie by setting up web sites and printing bumper stickers.

Bad endings for both exhibits. Who are these lawyer's bosses, and did the lawyers get the bosses to do this or what?

Insta has some more updated material here, concerning Firefly. This here is a podcast with John Scalzi, which Instapundit seems to like.

Justitia Photo Blogging

Go to her site and look through most of the archives, cause her pictures are very serene and impactful.

Army Video

Great Army Recruitment Video, but it is for something else.

From Instapundit.

The Chrysanthemum and the Sword

Cross posting from a Bookworm comment section. Mostly because of this link, I wanted to save. It is a very nice book about Japanense culture, which I think is a way to acquire wisdom about the current war as well. Here is also a relevant link to Blackfive, concerning a subject I brought up below. People are fed up with the passive Bush administration and US High Command. They have enough loyalty and dignity not to openly attack Bush because of their disgust and distaste, but it is only barely. And it is of course, a recommendation for America, not for Bush, that Americans are still so restrained and polite. What is funny is that there's another book, with a reversed title. Sword and the Chrysanthemum

I get confused about it as well, don't worry.

I’m listening to Duncan Hunter on Fox right now, and he knows his stuff. Chairman of the Armed Services Committe.

Hunter not only has good points, but his delivery is spot on.

Such things as America recovered from the 9/11 economic hit, and such things as going into Japan and Germany, setting up a free government, and then leaving. Iraq isn’t some new fancy thing America has never done before.

The only thing I would disagree on, is that we didn’t leave Germany and Japan, which Hunter implied and claimed that we did for the last step. 3 steps. Invade then setup free gov. Get military up to protect gov and people. Leave. Japan didn’t have a military because we were their military by agreement, and the German military is on and off again. Our bases are still there, and a big part of our projected force.

So what we are doing in Iraq isn’t new, but it isn’t the same old same old any idiot could do, like the Democrats implied.

In Iraq we are creating a real military. Defined as a force that is combat tested, blooded, and hardcore for the fighting. Not what we did in Germany and Japan. America doesn’t want to leave Iraq, America wants to win, winning as defined as “the enemy becomes obliterated and is unable or unwilling to kill Americans”. Whether that means you kill 90% of the enemy or 10%, doesn’t really matter to Americans. Just that you do it. So this means America has to use all the knowledge we learned from Japan and Germany, and apply it to the new challenge in Iraq. Government programs should be setup to study how America dealt with Japan and so forth, get the Vietnam guys back as well, we want to know their stuff as well. Bush should get on the stump and talk about how important it is for every American and servicemember to read The Chrysanthemum and the Sword, a government funded research book. In fact, he should send free copies out, and get it out on the net. America hungers for new ideas, to combat the miasma of media propaganda and depression out of Iraq. The hunger is so great it is beginning to consume whatever is available.

The less Bush talks about killing the enemy, the lower his polls get. Just natural. Bush talks about how he knows his job is to protect America. No, Bush, stop talking about protection, instead start talking about how many people you are going to execute and blow up, that threaten America. That is what Americans want to hear, that is what we need when we see American casualties.

“Dead or Alive, Osama bin Laden”. Either you’re with us, in which you will be alive, or you are against us in which we will invade and kill you. That is what Americans want.


Sure, people have problems with the Republicans. But as Americans, their duty is to find better solutions if they do not like the current ones. They betray not only their duty to themselves, but their entire nation, by being wanton children interested more in instant gratification than survival.

This Hunter guy had the gall to tell Bush to send in all the Iraq battalions to fight in Baghdad, on the basis that more fights/battles equals a better military force. How dare he offer good advice when the Democrats are busy confusing Bush and making Bush waste his energy on their interests.

Comment by Ymarsakar | October 29, 2006

October 21, 2006


A reply to Ali's post.

I find it impossible to believe that the human race may ever be free from prejudicial and biased thinking.

But why would JihadWatch (or a reader of it) be interested in Muslim activism against Muslim oppression — that would destroy the entire (weak) thesis on which Jihad Watch rests, namely, that all or most Muslims are dangerous.

That is only one of the examples of things humans continue to do.

I simply think that people should follow proper blogging protocol. It's possible that Reader James doesn't know such protocol (which is the most likely excuse forthcoming). That's fine Reader James, I let you off the hook. I am not blaming JihadWatch, however, they couldn't have known the link was jacked.

Look. If you care about blogging protocol, why are you letting people who you think violated it, off the hook? And why do you ask questions about why JihadWatch didn't cite you when you already know the answer to that question? And if you aren't blaming JihadWatch, why are you using a post titled with a question you already knew the answer to, as a vehicle to cast aspersions and accussations on JihadWatch?

This does remind me of the Iraqi bloggers attacking Iraq the Model for their post on the Lancet Study. Instead of combining and uniting against a common foe, they would rather have an internecine war. Instead of finding commonality against Iran, I find people more eager to pick apart the differences and enlarge them beyond reason.

October 20, 2006

Treason Doth Never Prosper

Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

Andre was the courier between Arnold and Clinton regarding the closing of the deal. With his ship forced back by American troops, Andre was sent on foot back to British lines with a pass from Arnold as well as documents for Clinton in his sock. He was captured and placed into American custody when the documents were found. Arnold heard of his capture and was able to make his escape...to the same ship, the Vulture, which Andre had arrived on. Andre was put on trial, and met his death as a spy. Arnold defected to the British and received substantial remuneration for his defection. These included pay, land in Canada, pensions for himself, his wife and his children (five surviving from Peggy and three from his first marriage to Margaret) and a military commission as a British Provincial brigadier general.

The British provided handsomely for Arnold, but never completely trusted him. He was never given an important military command. They moved to London where he found no job, some admiration and even some contempt. He moved his family to Canada where he reentered the shipping business. The Tories there disliked him and had no use for him, and eventually he returned his family to London. When the fighting began between France and England, he tried again for military service, but to no avail. His shipping ventures eventually failed and he died in 1801, virtually unknown, his wife joining him in death three years later.



Public opinion in Iraq

You can read what is going on here at Deans.

Americans once had to decide whether to continue to live under British rule, or pledge their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to rebelling against the unfair rule and taxes of the British in order to acquire self autonomy and yes freedom.

Americans are the real deal, Fatima. When they say that they will fight to the death, that is exactly what they will do simply because they Believe. As their forefathers believed when they signed the Declaration of Independence, and thus put their necks in the garrote for if the British ever caught them, they would be hanged as rebels. Their properties were seized, their homes destroyed, and their families shattered. The power and vitality of America is a direct consequence of the will and endurance that American ancestors showed in the past. American power does not accrue from Hollywood, money, or technological widgets in bombs. Most people seem to be under this misapprehension for some reason.

Americans believe as much in freedom as Muslims believe in Islam and Allah.

More than that, Americans believe that their fate is not pre-determined, that it is not the will of God or the US Constitution that we be this way or that. Americans, at least Jacksonian Americans, will kill as many people as it takes to secure liberty and sacrifice as many of their family members as it takes to secure liberty.

This is true belief, and it is an image totally opposite from the decadent and greedy American that most of the world sees. It is the core strength, unobscured by illusion.

When Americans talk about Iraqis not taking personal responsibility, they are not talking about what treasure wrote about. Meaning, work and school, insisting on better conditions.

While I may not agree with the accussation that Iraqis are lazy shiftabouts, I do understand the American perspective. Americans see a people, who are more ready to blame the all powerful and omnipotent Americans, than they are to use the resources and power at their disposal in order to better their living conditions. It is all about demanding what Americans can do, what Americans cannot do, and what someone else has not done for me. This kind of Arab mentality is totally alien to Americans, of most stripes. Americans take matters into their own hands, whether it is by playing the system or taking personal initiative to prevent being cheated by the system. Getting out and improving on what they see as problems, via political grassroots organization and voting.

Banding together as a community, forming a solution, and then demanding the politicians accept that solution and implement it. That is the American way.

And for most Americans, they do not truely understand how it can be any other way. It is not true for all of Americans, but it is true in general.

The American military, if given the order, could begin purging the militias and gangs in all of Iraq. But this would mean overriding the Iraqi government, and the will and desires of tribes and the Iraqi people.

After all, what do Iraqis really want. Do they want America the occupier to solve all of their problems, from basic services to hostage taking, crime, and too much wetness after a storm?

Or do they want to decide for themselves how to solve these problems with Iraqi resources?

It seems everybody is confused. They want America to provide protection, but they don't want America the occupier. They want basic services restored, but they don't want to do it themselves without help. They want the violence to be solved, but they talk mostly about their distaste and shame at how Iraq the Model echoes the lines about freedom.

If you don't want freedom, then America can take back Iraq's sovereignty, impose martial law, and you can have security the old fashioned way. Through the iron fist and bodies hanging along the streets of Baghdad.

But for some reason, a lot of people would protest such things as being too violent. They want security, but so long as not too many people get killed to get it. Iraq is a big place, I'm sure there are lots of people with different views. Who should America listen to?

Many American soldiers and bloggers have wrote about how Sunnis and Shia don't click with Americans, but the Kurds do. The reason is simple. The Kurds have the psychology of Americans. They are willing to die and to kill for their beliefs. They are eager to do things for themselves, instead of complaining and blaming whoever is available or has power over them. They don't talk about inshallah, and they don't think of things in terms of security, but in terms of dignity and liberty.

Look, America could have had a lot of security in the Revolutionary War, so long as the people stayed at home and obeyed the British. We didn't do that. If you want Iraq to become strong as a nation, then I'm sorry to say but you'll have to survive the crucible of war and death.

America didn't acquire our power and prosperity by accident, after all. We killed for it, millions of people has America killed in WWI and WWII, to acquire the status we have. It is not something paid for by money, or bribes, or favors. But earned by blood. Ours and our enemies.

Their other entries are so typical to what Bush and his henchmen say.

Bush is not your President. He is not the one who decides if Al Sadr gets an axe through his head or an invitation to the government of Iraq. Bremer wasn't your President either.

There is a lot of hostility and repressed anger at people who aren't your elected leaders. At some level, you know you can't do anything about them. But while most Americans adapt to this angst by personal action, Iraqis seem to be caught in a zone where they aren't or can't do anything.

The only question is. Why do you show more hostility towards the leaders of other nations, than you show to the leaders of your own nation? You do realize that you always refer to your government as "the government", but you refer to America's leaders specifically as Bush and his henchemen. Why do you know our leaders more intimately than you mention the names of your own?

Have you seen them criticizing what happened in Abu Ghraib, Haditha, or Mahmoudiya? They did! but they put the blame on Iraqis!!!

At some level in your mind and heart, you know that America didn't get to where we are and have won the wars we did, because we blamed other people. America has always blamed Americans, first, foremost, and only. Even anti-Americans in America blame America first.

Some sees this as our weakness, but the same self-criticism inherent in a functional democracy is also a great strength in war and peace-time.

People living under a dictatorship are used to feeling impotent rage at the dictator. A lot of Iraqi bloggers say that they didn't like Saddam and wanted him to be gone. But do they actually realize that they talk with more rage and venome against Bush than they do against Saddam? There is a psychological reason for that. If you lived under Saddam, then you could think as much as you wanted about how to kill Saddam, but you could never express it. That was the road you had to walk, one small deviation, and you were gone.

Now, people know in their heart that they are free to criticize whom you wish. But instead of saying every hated thing they have in their heart to Saddam, they say it instead about Bush.

Or maybe Bush is the safe topic to hate in Iraq. Because if you criticize some of the Islamics, they just might kill you as with Saddam.

So do you really think that hating Bush is ever going change the quality of your life? Is hating America ever going to make yourself feel better? Is despising those who support America's activities in Iraq, also of more benefit to you than attempting to kill all those thugs you see out there on the streets?

If you want the thugs gone, send Bush a letter telling him to stop listening to his advisers in the State Department. Tell Bush to listen to American Jacksonians. Because when he does, there will be no chaos and violence in Iraq, because the order will have been given to get rid of the Islamic fundamentalists, Al Sadr, Sunni Baathists, and AL Qaeda Sunnis through martial law and extra-Iraq extra-judicial executions.

Is it so hard to believe that some Iraqis might actually feel good will towards America. Who appreciate their allies and hates their enemies, as one should? It is not just Iraq the Model you know who are bootlickers to America. 90% of the Kurds in Iraq, are also strong supporters of America. Do you really want to compare how much Iraqi bloggers have lost compared to the Kurds? Who exactly are traitors to Iraq, those who attack Iraq's allies or those who attack Iraq's enemies?


This post by IKK is a bit more extreme in terms of hating the wrong people.

Iraqi Konfused Kid

Sure, you could just disagree with Treasure of Baghdad. But that's not really the problem, all in all. It is not just simple disagreement.

Not when you have this.

IRAQ THE MODEL is probably one of the few 'superstar' blogs the Iraqi blogosphere has produced, and this is for a few reasons: 1. It was an early blog and most importantly 2. It supports the American propaganda virtually 100% - it fits the picture of what Americans wants Iraqis to be hand in glove, a supporter of all that 'war on terrorism' campaign and if I didn't know better I would say that this guy is hands-on an American soldier who is just as naive as the clueless Iraqis who chanted to Saddam and believed their own made-up lies back in the days.

Understood, I appreciate democracy and freedom of speech, but I can safely say that the viewpoint of the people behind this blog represents about somewhere between 2 to 1% of all Iraqis, I would even go as far as call it an anomaly created by an extra chromosome or something, there are people, especially those who oppose religion and identity, who could get sold up to the American Dream, to be part and parcel of all the ideals America stands for, I am not saying that Arabs are helplessly monstorous that they oppose liberty and democracy and want to be spend all day playing Russian Roulette with swords, but there is such a thing as an identity with your nation, and these guys make me sick with their obvious sucking-up they are doing to be sold out to Americans. It could be that they are just trying to achieve a common goal of a modern, democratic Iraq by sounding like a brainwash, but they play it so industriously well that my intuition tells me that there is something else on the take.
The best I can say about this is that at least the Japanese gave an honorable execution to those who surrendered and therefore betrayed their nation through that surrender and lack of honor in not fighting to the death.

This is what happens, Mr. Bush, when you allow your enemies to propagandize, propagandize, and initiate psychological warfare without any US imposed restraints. What do you expect people to believe when they see the all mighty Americans, sitting around doing nothing while the war they started in Iraq implodes and explodes? You expect them to like us, love us? Nobody likes or loves a loser.

If President Bush didn't have the Marine Corps doing his dirty work, which is killing our enemies, I don't think Bush's talk, talk, talk strategy would have protected America all that much. Bush gets credit for the beginning years. I ain't giving him any credit for the disasters in his second term, that is his own to own. We have come to the limit of how effective basic killing in wartime by the Marine Corps, has on Bush's policies. Now bush is required to give orders, selective orders as to "who" to kill, who to destroy, who to bomb, and who to protect. Without that leadership and guidance, the Marine Corps and the US Army Divisions is not going to make Bush's diplomatic and anti-nation building strategies work.

Iraqi Thoughts "One has to just look at the comments section of ITM and see why they write the way they do.... its a blog written to be read for non-Iraqis, I am proud to say my blog was removed from their links section, a lot of us USED to read ITM, but its bull***t now, lets stop hating on them, Just stop reading it if you want"
Seriously, what the moofu pock is this? Gansta talk, eh? Stop the hating. I would have removed their ass too, from my blog link. Free up some room, you know.

Like most other Iraqi bloggers, this site makes me nauseous, they make me fall alseep anyway by the half of any given post - but, I call on all Iraqi bloggers to campaign against this horrible freak of a blog, maybe back in the day you worked for the glory of Iraq, but now you have turned against it and sold it out for the first pile of greens that were shoved up your way. I don't want you to renounce America, we need them as much as you are afraid that they will leave, but I just want you to say the truth, for God's sake, like what Zeyad did, it didn't hurt, see? He's gone to the US just the same.
He means he wants Iraq the Model to say things that he likes to hear. Presumably the thing he is accusing ITD of doing to kiss up to America. Logic, not something the common man aspires to, I suppose.

They want recognition. They want respect. But they will give none. That's fine. American power and death dealing techniques does not require the support of gangsta rappers or their supporters. We don't need the Konfused Kid who would rather attack those who won't kill him, than to attack those who will.

A$$ - KI$$ER! A$$ - KI$$ER! A$$ - KI$$ER!
Most of Iraq is like this kid. Living under Saddam, Saddam being your mama, pappy, and uncles. Do what he did, or get killed. Now they see America as being the guy who says "do what we say or don't get killed". Ahh, now it is different. Now they can rage on, you know, at the dying of the light or something.

It doesn't matter. Because you don't convince these people through argument, you convince them through action. Get rid of the enemies of Iraq, through American power alone, and their criticisms will be silenced. Not because they are gone or dead, but because all the things they criticize about, kidnappings and lack of water with thug violence, will be gone. Because all the thugs will be swinging from buildings in the cities of Iraq.

I do not have anything against their expression, I too expressed my disapproval, it's like what Voltaire sasy:

I disapprove of your opinion, but I defend to death your right to say it.

I don't want to kill them, I just somebody to talk back for a change, we could have a nice discussion, you know...
Kid just wants somebody to talk back for a change, you know Jack, like back to back.

As Americans, we understand this kind of behavior every time we look at the Left. Pure immaturity. There are immature nations and people, as well as individuals, you know. It need not be a personal issue, but also a national one.

These people and the comments at their blogs, are just venting their rage. Understandable, if not tolerable. You want to know how I would deal with it? I would deal with it by killing so many terrorists and militia men in Iraq, with the use of FAE, snipers, and assassins, that these folk would have no choice but to vent their rage against the losing side. Which would NOT be the US and ITD by the way.

IRAQI SCREEN: "I am sure they are dying for an asylum in USA to be close to their dear Bush. Did they ever read about Haditha masscre, Ishaqi and Falluja?"
KHALID JARRAR: "Being a traitor is not an allowed option, and should not be legitimized by ranting about freedom of speech, I swear reading them is just like reading a white house statements."
NAJMA: "ITM makes most of us angry, yet most of the people who read' em almost worship their opinions"
SALAM ADIL: My main point was that they are in danger of growing up to be like the Baathist apologist that they so despise. Spinning wild stories just to make their supporters feel good.

Salam Adil also wrote a feature about all the Iraqi blog posts about the Lancet survery on his regular GlobalVoices feature, including some posts by fellow bloggers who did not contribute to this discussion

Another thing, and it will mostly be over.

FOOTNOTE BY KID: I am really proud of all that has happened, this is the first time something of this magnitude has happened, I hope this would be the start of a more active Iraqi blogger community, something which a lot of people has been voicing need for since a long time.

The first time, since if they did this before, they would have been gathered up and killed. I'm just saying. It is easier to vent against your fellow compatriots and calling them traitors. That is how Arabs act right. They get up into your personal space and start talking about how the rivers will run with blood, how they will stab you in the back when you aren't looking in the future, and so on? Not American, just a different culture.

Can't do anything about it, shouldn't do anything about it. But it is really, well, even with people on the right who disagree or just don't like each other. We don't call each other traitors or about how we aren't toting Bush's line. Because that is the criticism against IraqTheModel, ITM. That they are toting the Bush line, instead of I suppose, the line that Iraqi patriots want them to tote. Free speech is about people being free to say what they agree with, I suppose. Free speech isn't for "traitors", interestingly enough. You can't do anything about an entire generation that was traumatized and have their own hang ups and prejudices, just as you can't do anything about the Vietnam generation. Either they will get it, or they won't. Nothing to be done about it, except to wait for them to fade out.

Just as there are people in America busy with work and attempting to excel, there are people in Iraq busy in the security forces. You can't expect the general population to "love" America. Not after what they saw of Herbert Bush's broken promises. But the Iraqi security forces have seen the Real America. It would be interesting to hear from them, but we won't, because they either are too busy, too at risk of getting killed if they write, or they don't know enough English. People trying to make a buck and feed their family, why would they know English anyways? That is like poor white folks knowing how to write in Japanese.

One step at a time, people, one step at a time. War is about a contest of wills. A lot of Iraqis are confused, depressed, broken inside. That is why it is very important for Bush to show leadership, to show Iraqis who security should be achieved. If we don't know, how do we expect the Iraqis to know? With our history, status, and power, why are we NOT doing better in Iraq? Why do we fail to meet the expectations of the Iraqis, of the omnipotent and all mighty United States of America? Too many fake liberals talking about the moral high ground perhaps? Or is it Bush's compassionate conservatism and anti-nation building that prevents pro-active actions from being pursued? I know not, I just know that Bush isn't doing anything except letting the military carry the burden in Iraq.

The military will stay the course, President Bush, but I'm not sure about the other allies you need, the American Jacksonians, Iraqis, and common folk. We need reinforcements, spiritual as well as physical.

October 19, 2006

Collation of some strategic posts I did

Japanese themed articles

Eating soup with a fork

Japanese style limits

The enemies of America do not seem to believe that America is weak not because we are so in reality, but because it is a byproduct of sealing our power down several several orders of magnitude. If they miscalculate, they will pay the price. (And so will we)

Piracy in International Waters and the US Navy

An analysis of Chomsky

The Propaganda of Terroists

An Encounter with War Fatigue and Despair in War

October 18, 2006

Neo's Post on Civil War for Iraq

So one thing we can safely say is that the divisions in such wars are murky, and that family ties and long-term interactions don't preclude the explosion of bitter and terrible violence.

But you can use such ties to restrain the war before it goes hot. A lot of Southerners thought the North was bluffing, so they thought that a few skirmishes and everything would be okay. This "illusion" perpetrated during war, due to the fog of war, pulls people down into this pit that they can only get out of with victory or death.

If you could have convinced either side that they were going to LOSe, and lose big or lose more than they would gain, then the civil war would not occur regardless of whatever tensions are going on.

The US has the power, but not the will, to present a convincing case to both Shia and Sunnis that NEITHER will win if they start fighting. A convincing case would be a simple declaration that both sides will be considered by the US as enemies of Iraq, and purged if such a war goes hot. Thereby giving both factions a couple of reasons not to fight each other.

The more Rumsfield talks about "oh, we're just going to stand back and let them fight it out", the more the Al Sadr, Iran Badr Brigades, and Sunni terrorists think that "hey, if we ramp up the sectarian murders, we might get the US out of our way so we can FINALLY take the fight to those no good X, and Ys".

The best way to get more death, is to act like more violence will reward the separate power factions in Iraq.

In addition, some of these civil wars on the list are also proxy international wars, in which foreign powers ally with one segment or other to try to influence matters to the benefit of that foreign power.

Most of the revolutions and guerrila wars in history were engineered and funded by foreign powers intent on getting a slice of the pie.

A bunch of peasants didn't just suddenly start totting military hardware they dug from a mine.

*[Another thing we can quibble about is whether the present violence in Iraq should have been foreseen, and what (if anything) could have been done to nip it in the bud.

We can nip it in the bud right not by getting rid of all those guys in Iraq seeking to carve a piece of territory using intimidation and cruelty. Trying to have a successful revolution without getting rid of the domestic insurgencies, is like the US trying to have a workable government after the Revolutionary War while keeping all those British loyalists in New England instead of shipping them back to England and over to Canada. Not going to work, if you have a bunch of enemies inside your country after a civil war.

in terms of clamping down more harshly on elements such as Sadr, back when he was first consolidating power; the perception of impending anarchy gripped the nation from the first postwar days.

Like I say, since you can't change the past, NONE of that matters. What matters is what they are doing, or NOT doing, right now. And that, is really the problem.

It seems to me to fail on these two counts- for (2), who are the clearly defined ("organized") two groups of combatants?

Sistani vs Al Sadr vs Badr Iran Brigades vs Sunni Al Qaeda vs Sunni Baathists, to name a few in the free for all. And it is a free for all.

You just got through explaining to us how it isn't clear at all.

That is just Neo's style.

People generally talk about a Sunni-Shia civil war, but the government is neither, so how does that pan out.

The Shia Revival, pans it out pretty well, douglas.

October 17, 2006

Underdogs for Baseball

I definitely did my time as a baseball aficionado. From the 70s onward I was that saddest of sacks, the Red Sox fan, spring and summer elation turning to fall dejection with the same regularity as the leaves' transformation from green to orange to brown to fallen.

How can that be, when I'm a native New Yorker, and the Red Sox's nemesis was always the Yankees? It's true that I grew up in New York in the Yankees' classic heyday, but they held no interest for me. I didn't like them for precisely the same reason most people rooted for them, which was that they were perennial winners. To me, that was no fun. There was no drama, no pathos.

I wanted a rags-to-riches story, not a riches-to-greater-riches to ever-more-boring-riches one. And I got it in my twenties when I moved to Boston and found the Red Sox.

It was love at first sight, and I kept my vigil till that fabled fall of 2004, when the impossible happened and the Red Sox won the World Series, handily. All of Boston--and most of New England north of that epic Yankees/Sox dividing line of Hartford--breathed a sigh (or shouted a shout) of blessed relief.

Ever since then, I haven't really followed the game. And I never really followed the National League at all (shh! don't tell Dean!)

So the Mets and the Cards don't mean a whole lot to me, I'm afraid. But I know who I'd be rooting for, if I were rooting. It would be the Mets, because they're the underdogs. And I'm a sucker for underdogs.

A lot of people are suckers for underdogs.

October 16, 2006

Lord of the Rings Sorrow

Very nice song. Reminds me of the theme song to the Tsubasa Chronicle. Light, airy, forgotten and woebegone. An extensive mix, this music does have.

Reply to Neo's post about Federalism

Well, since Trout believes the Republicans and Americans are going to the execution scafford first, they don't have to worry about "what to do after we are gone". They know what is going to happen. Their choice is to make sure they stay in power long enough to get the action while it lasts, before the inevitable doom descends upon the US and the West.

They want to get enough power and resources, to bribe the Islamic Jihad into getting "favorable slave status". They not worried about what happens after the US Marines are gone, they already know what they are going to do.

In the meantime, if Democrats get in power, expect gun confiscations and accussations that Republicans are in league with Islamic Jihadists for attempting to obstruct gun legislation.

Get rid of Al Sadr, Neo, and you won't have to worry about Iran. Get rid of Al Sadr and use nuclear weapons to terrorize the Badr Brigade. I wrote about the various different factions concerning local politics, that I found in the book "The Shia Revival".

It was curious to know that the Badr Brigade, the Shia religious faction with the Iran supplied militia, allied with Iran only because the US left them to hang. Nothing like a war to cement blood bonding, I'd say.

Al Sadr is just your regular socialist. His power is amongst the downtrodden. Execute Al Sadr and send in American units to reconstruct his cities, and his faction won't be a problem. Sistani is already on our side more or less, so all you have left are the Shia who allied with Iran because the US ditched them when Saddam was on their arse.

You'd have to demonstrate, again, that you are more mean and more ruthless than Iran. That you offer more rewards and harsher punishments for any Shia that sides with Iran instead of with the US.

That is, if you want to break the Shia away from Iran. If you are a compassionate conservative like Bush, then playing hardball might not be your cup of tea.

I know what would satisfy troutsky. And Bush can do it, Bush can please all the Europeans, Arabs, Democrats, and Jacksonians all at once. All Bush has to do is to slaughter his enemies as Truman did, shut up all dissent with internment camps as FDR did, get into power for 4 terms like FDR accomplished, and basically be a uniter and not a divider.

If he can't do that, at least he can pile the bodies of our enemies sky high. Demonstrations of power always silence the critics, with shock and awe, if not with respect and fear.

When you are killing everyone that stands in your path, and people are flocking to your banner. Not a lot of people are going to be yelling in your face that you are wrong.

They certainly don't yell in the Islamic Jihad's faces, people like troutsky, and for good reason!

Power commands respect. Demonstrate power to the Democrats, and they will yield as they did after 9/11 when Bush harnessed the power of 300 million Americans through his office. But you got to keep doing it, this isn't a one time deal.

VDH made the comment that when America is winning, Syria and Iran huddles together in fear and silence. But when America is losing, everyone is going after us as if we are a newly cracking carcass for the jackals.

So don't look like you're losing. If Bush can't find enough terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq to kill off and line the streets of Baghdad with, then he can surely execute some of the useless blokes gaining fat at GitMo. It's great PR, and those terroist corpses would be serving a righteous purpose, which is bolstering public support for the war. Or maybe he can slice a few pieces out of Iran and Syria and Pakistan, and get some jihadists to come to town there.

Even a bad offensive plan, like the Iraq invasion, would be better than the "Nothing" that Bush is doing right now. Bush is paying so much attention to the Democrat traitors that he spends all his time worrying about Iraq. Come on, get real, go start a war somewhere else for christ sakes. The more you listen to the Democrats, the more complaints you will hear about how you need to be less multilateral with North Korea.

All these limitations Neo has described, puts chains upon our options. Instead of operating within those limitations, why don't you just break those chains and get out of this rut you are stuck in?

None of that requires 20/20 vision to see that you ain't going anywhere in today's world.

Iraq's a story that hasn't been set into stone yet. It's in an unknown quantum state. You are not supposed to "know" which state something is in, until you look.

You are the one affecting which state it is in, so you control the future. Whatever you do now, makes a certain future more or less real.

People in the future will look back to today, as either the French Revolution or the American Revolution. It depends entirely upon what people do now. It doesn't depend upon people proving themselves right with hindsight. We all know that that doesn't matter. Well, except that one group.

Neither the Sunnis nor the Shia have any absolute rights to anything. So it might be a wise policy to play them off against each other, in order to get what is best for both done. You threaten the Badr Brigade, with arms support to the Sunnis, if the Shia don't cut their ties with Iran. You threaten, in negotiations, the Sunnis by saying you'll allow Al Sadr and the Badr Brigade to purge the Sunnis if the Sunnis continue trying to claim the glory days. The Kurds will be with us regardless, so they are the constant we can count on, even if we lose both Baghdad and the Shia zones.

Sistani knows this type of diplomacy well. I'm sure he has in the past told the US, that if they didn't like Sistani's policies, all they had to do was look at the alternative in Al Sadr. It's a great way to convince people to do what you want.

October 15, 2006

Great Review Material on VDH private papers

This one by Thornton, highlights some of the Marxist deductionary principles which fuel much of the current criticism of the US Imperialism.

While VDH himself, recaps about the over arching global strategy. Not Bush's, but rather the synthesis that VDH himself concludes is at work. Which includes all Americans and allies of America, and their goals.

Here's some of the highlights to whet the appetite for knowledge.

Decades of ideological corruption of scholarship in American universities have crippled us in the war against Islamic jihad. Marxist-inspired culture criticism, made necessary by Marx’s utter failure to accurately describe and predict economic and political history and change, created a reflexive hatred of the democratic, capitalist West among many of its left-leaning intellectuals and scholars.

Viewed through this Marxist-Leninist template, age-old, universal human practices of migration, conquest, and appropriation of other people’s resources are now transformed into the peculiarly Western sins of “imperialism” and “colonialism,” which are then turned into the primal crime of the West against humanity, the wicked source of all our current woes. At the same time, postmodern approaches to history reduce all facts to mere “interpretations,” fables created to camouflage and further the West’s hegemonic aims.

Rather than a search for truth, postmodern history is now an unmasking of these secret motives and the machinations of oppressive power. Finally, noble-savage multiculturalism sentimentalizes and idealizes the non-Western “other” and his culture as superior to the soul-killing, money-grubbing, neurotic civilization of the West that has victimized him.


One of Karsh’s major themes, however, is that Islamic imperialism has also been the result of the more worldly ambitions of rulers and warriors to acquire wealth and power: “The Arab conquerors acted in a typically imperialist fashion from the start, subjugating indigenous populations, colonizing their lands, and expropriating their wealth, resources, and labor.” As Muhammad himself said, “Stick to jihad and you will be in good health and get sufficient means of livelihood.” It is no surprise that the Islamic warrior, driven by visions of earthly booty if he survived and eternal pleasures in paradise if he died, made such a formidable foe.

Karsh’s description of Islam’s history and imperialist ambitions — with all the bloody consequences for the conquered that such ambitions brought in their wake — is a necessary correction to the current popular melodrama of a fanatically imperialist West attacking and oppressing a peaceful, tolerant Islamic civilization that, like Rodney King, just wanted to get along. But the most valuable part of Karsh’s history is his tracing of Islam’s imperialism through present events.

It makes if one recognizes that Muhammed needed a religion to aid his conquest of people's hearts and minds, as well as their territory. You can't replace Persian power structures and Zoroastrianism, if you ain't got anything better to offer. The military victories of Muhammed the Prophet, then reinforced his religious claims to truth. A guy that wins this much and conquers that much territory, MUST be benefiting from divine guidance, right?

If you argue otherwise, but don't have a military that can stop his, then your fate will be the same as the "moderates" in the 21st century that speaks out against the Islamic JIhad.

Here is VDH.

It is often said that the United States has neither a long-term strategy in this larger war against terror nor an immediate one in Iraq. Both are unfair charges, since we seem to have both.

Against the terrorists, our strategy is a six-pronged approach:

1. Beef up security to such a degree at home that it would require far more training and expertise to penetrate our defenses than what was necessary for the September 11 attacks.

2. Arrest, imprison, and kill enough Islamic terrorists in the United States and abroad to make it nearly impossible for them to carry off another September 11-like attack.

3. Take out the worst authoritarian regimes in the Middle East that sponsored terrorism and attacked their neighbors, while pressuring others like a Saudi Arabia and Egypt to cease funding terrorists.

4. Support the creation of democracies in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon to offer Muslims choices other than autocracy or Islamic radicalism, while trying to encourage reform in the Middle East at large.

5. Wage a worldwide war of ideas that frames the struggle as the freedom of the individual, liberal values, and Western economic prosperity against the Dark-Age nihilism of the world of the caliphate and Sharia law.

6. Hope that while our enemies’ world is static, ours is not. In other words, while they endlessly redefine the 7th century, we use reason and science to wean us off dependency on their oil, seek sophisticated missile-defense systems, and hope instant global communications (which also facilitate their televised beheadings) can undermine their entire hierarchical society of imams and patriarchs.

Whatever the recent criticisms of George Bush or the difficulties in Iraq, we haven’t had another attack at home. In the last five years, we have killed and jailed tens of thousands of jihadists and replaced the Taliban and the Hussein regimes with struggling democracies — at a cost of fewer lives than were lost on the first day of this war.

He talks more about the enemy's strategies, which are more important than our own to know about.

On Psychology - Or the Philosophy of Evil and Good

There is no question that Europeans were deeply traumatized by both World War I and World War II in a way that we Americans--who fought in both wars but did not experience destruction on our own soil

I don't think that is why they are the way they are, so I'd have to disagree and say that there is some question. Americans have pride in WWII, Germans don't. It doesn't matter how much destruction there is, so long as you win, a victory is a victory is a victory. Britain for example, are quite proud. But it had nothing to do with not experiencing destruction on their own soil. Britain's problem derives from their sacking of CHurchill after the war and instituting government coerced national unity, in the form of democratic socialism.

Europeans are deeply traumatized by the fact that wars have never brought them prosperity and it has never solved their problems. Until the Americans interfered that is, then they have the Pax Americana to feel resentful about. Americans have had many many wars, and in 90% of them, it has solved our problems. The Revolutionary War solved the question of independence and sovereignty. The Civil War solved the problem of the legality of slavery. The War of 1812 solved the problem of American doubt about national power and status in the world. The Spanish American War. WWI. WWII. Cold War. Gulf War. Korea.

The only wars which we didn't solve anything with, was Vietnam. And even there, it didn't solve anything in our favor. But our beef with Vietnam was over the minute they won, which solved our problem in the whole region. Not in our favor of course, nor in the Vietnamese's favor, but it solved it.

Europe sees American warlikeness and they wonder, "Why are Americans so warlike?". Then they wonder, and yes they did say this in Germany, "Maybe they learned it from us". No, we didn't learn war from the Germans or the Euros. We learned to favor war because wars solve problems, in a way that "debate" and "diplomacy" cannot. Europeans have never solved their social problems with wars. So they don't use war in that manner. The French Revolution? Went Kaput. The English Revolution? Crushed, Oliver Cromwell executed.

If you told France that they would get major moola if they sent people weapons and aircraft, and helped to invade a country, France would support it. If you told France that you need weapons and their help invading a country to solve social problems underlying terrorism, France will say yes but then stab you in the back. War for resources is justified in the European mind, War to solve social and problems of justice are not.

America is the entire opposite. Our wars for resources always sucked and weren't really productive. Our wars for ideology rocked and have brought us much pride and success. Psychologically, it makes sense for Americans to support wars for ideas and Europeans to support wars for resources.

There is a lot of useful perspectives in the American-German carnival on the blogosphere. I've always believed that the best way to learn about Europe was from reading what EUropeans wrote. Mellanie Phillips and Davids Mediencrikit are critical resources.

Europe has become far less religious in recent decades

In the sense that religion is a belief and deals with guilt, anti-Americanism is their religion. It is not that they have become less religious, it is rather that they have converted from the Old Christian religions.

Anti-Americanism gives people the same things Christianity gives them. It gives them a hell and a heaven, a satan and a devil. Those with sins and those without.

What remains as a tool for dealing with guilt is the somewhat secular religion of psychiatry and psychology, and Shrinkwrapped's tale of his patient's treatment reveals some of the limitations of that approach to the problem.

I think the problem with psychological approaches is that it is too intellectual in trying to find root causes and treatments. There are natural tools in the human mind to deal with these things, and psychology instead of using them, actually try to override them. Such things as denial, projection, displacement, no recall, memory block, those things are natural human defenses. Emotional beliefs such as religion, rechannels the mind's mental defenses to get rid of the negative emotions to make people feel better. But it is somewhat irrational in the process. Psychology, in seeking rationality and normal logic, has to discard nature's natural tools. That, without reading Shrink yet, is counter-productive.

I myself have undergone some psychological stress in my life, and even though I could understand it intellectualy and I knew the intellectual solutions and that they would work, that didn't mean emotionally I was changed. Tug of wars between the heart and the mind should not happen, at least if you seek to reconcile some problems.

After having read Shrink's 2nd post, some highlights I might mention.

The gap between what she knew intellectually (that she had no responsibility for what had happened) and what she felt (that she was the descendant of evil) was unbridgeable.

I can personally sympathize with that, since I've experienced it. It is a very weird experience. To understand the problems psychologically, requires that you distance yourself emotionally, which emotions like hate, cruelty, and disgust tends to cloud the issue as Shrink experienced herself in the therapy. And yet the very separation between emotion and thought, renders a person incapable of resolving their own base emotions.

She could not shake the feeling that no matter how much good she did in the world, she came from people capable of the greatest horrors, and could not risk being even in a small way responsible for such evil once again being loosed in the world.

I cannot help but think that a belief in patriotism, and yes nationalism, would have helped her. Not an artificial "intellectual theory" but a heart felt love of her country, of her country's heroes, and of RESPECT for her father's moral integrity in being an anti-Nazi. Respect, love, and admiration for Germany's real heroes, and a deep sadness that the failure of Von Stauffenberg in assassinating Hitler destroyed Germany for all history.

But these things cannot be learned. They can only be felt. And that is the difference between intellect and the heart.

It is hard to describe how deeply she felt this horror and how powerful it was.

I cannot emphasize enough that this woman was the most gentle of souls; the idea that she could hurt another person was enough to make her feel physically ill.

But that is the damn problem in the first place, no disrespect intended. People who have good and compassionate hearts are totally vulnerable to guilt in violence. Gentle people are disturbed and horrified by violence, on a level that ruthless and cruel people are not.

I do not speak with any contempt over being gentle. That is rather impossible. I hated thugs, the military, and anyone who used force when i was growing up. And I never contemplated the use of force to solve anything. Or if I did, I never acted upon it. People change. Gentle people can become torturers. Pacifists can become warmongers. Human behavior is malleable, even if our natures are not.

I cannot emphasize enough that this woman was the most gentle of souls; the idea that she could hurt another person was enough to make her feel physically ill. Yet she could never shake the feeling that at her own core was a horror.

I don't study sado-masochistic sexual fantasies, but from what I've heard, gentle women tend to favor masochistic sexual fantasies. If she had these fantasies before the guilt, then the guilt compounded with her sexual fantasies could be what she fears. This would interfere with her image of herself, it scares her for her to visualize herself as the dominator or as the victim enjoying violence, as the perpetrator of force and evil. And I can imagine that this might produce long term relationship problems.

Children who live with constant hostility and criticism learn to defend against the bad feelings and shame within; and to externalize blame onto others. Projection and paranoia, which are both external assignments of blame, are psychological defenses against shame.

There's another defense against shame, she didn't mention. It is pride. It's an interesting solution. Use one emotion to cancel out the other.

Often this excessive shame is dealt with by humiliating someone perceived as weaker or more worthless than the shamed person (e.g., the family pet, women, Gays, or outside groups serve this function for both individuals and cultures).

Perhaps, for some specific kinds of people. But I cannot help but think that the person who choses pride, will focus on improving himself. Perhaps that is part of the American secret. Americans focus on our pride, not on our shame. The Canadians feel proud of their country, because of their shame in being America's next door neighbors. Canada is actually one of the most patriotic countries in a world wide poll. America and Venezuella seems to top the list. Then there are the French. So why are the French/Canadian pride so different in consequences from American pride? I tend to think it has to do with a lot of other virtues, like honesty, hard work, honor, and loyalty. Same emotion, different results.

My patient resolved her conflicts over aggression, shame, and guilt, by punishing herself, destroying her own future, and making the commitment that she would never be complicit in atrocities again.

Do you see another path? I do. I see one such divergent path. The path that would lead to the destruction of evil itself.

What does it take for a person to decide that violence is evil, but that his duty to fight evil is to punish himsef? How is that different from the person that decides that violence is evil, but that his duty is to control violence in the service of fighting evil?

Not a very broad line to walk. But it is quite easy to imagine.

Their initial response had been denial of the aggression within, buttressed by their almost reflective PC-thought; however, this is not working very well.

It is very scary to see within yourself, and know that you have just as much capacity for violence as those you abhor. Very scary, it takes some courage to not turn away. But if you don't turn away, if you embrace your soul, in both its dark and light aspect as defined by Eastern philosophy, then you might become balanced. There is a serenity, and a calmness, in the eye of the storm. A sense of peace, and I think a sense of peace is what most people in Europe want. But they are not willing to do what is necessary to acquire it, however. In both the philosophical and literal sense.

I believe the "return of the repressed" is already in motion. Tomorrow, I plan to discuss how an unlikely source has confirmed some of my worst fears.

Great, just great. I've always knew our so called allies were worthless sacks of manure, if one were inclined to insult manure handlers that is, but I never thought that they were "crazy". Crazy Europeans vs Crazy Islamics. Just what we need. I can't help but think about WWII and the craziness there. The human race is one bad record, the old records. We keep skipping over and over, but as Neo quoted, not in quite the same manner.

October 10, 2006

Blast to the Past

John Miller, ABC: In America, we have a figure from history from 1897 named Teddy Roosevelt. He was a wealthy man, who grew up in a privileged situation and who fought on the front lines. He put together his own men - hand chose them - and went to battle. You are like the Middle East version of Teddy Roosevelt.

Nauseating, absolutely nauseating. There are good reasons to have an assassination guild.

1998, this was from.

Osama bin Laden: After our victory in Afghanistan and the defeat of the oppressors who had killed millions of Muslims, the legend about the invincibility of the superpowers vanished. Our boys no longer viewed America as a superpower. So, when they left Afghanistan, they went to Somalia and prepared themselves carefully for a long war. They had thought that the Americans were like the Russians, so they trained and prepared. They were stunned when they discovered how low was the morale of the American soldier... America assumed the titles of world leader and master of the new world order. After a few blows, it forgot all about those titles and rushed out of Somalia in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers. America stopped calling itself world leader and master of the new world order, and its politicians realized that those titles were too big for them and that they were unworthy of them.

John Miller, ABC: The American people, by and large, do not know the name bin Laden, but they soon likely will. Do you have a message for the American people?

Osama bin Laden: I say to them that they have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration ...

The American government is leading the country towards hell. ... We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests not the interests of the Jews. If the present injustice continues with the wave of national consciousness, it will inevitably move the battle to American soil...

October 09, 2006

The Shia Revival

I picked up one book called The Shia Revival at a local bookstore. Just curious you know, and while flipping through the pages, I found a literal cornocopeia of information and analytical data that was instantly familiar yet also unknown to me. Familiar, in that I knew of the events described in the book, yet unknown because the revelations, comments, and critical analysis pieces concerning these self-same events were nothing I had ever seen, heard, or thought of before. Quite enlightening, it is as if reading Steven Den Beste for the first time. Everything becomes so clear, you start to think in different ways and manners that you never did before. New paths open for you. But enough of the generalities, let us go to the specifics.

The book outlined three specific factions in the Shia south. The first is Sistani, the Greater Shia moderates, the clerics in Najaf and metropolitan Baghdad areas. The Shia clerics, to be specific. Then there is Al Sadr, not to be confused with the Badr brigade. Al SADR derives his power not from religion, he has not the scholarly requirements for such and you will find testimony to back that up from Iraq the Model. Al Sadr is the socialist party, to correlate it to American politics. His father worked with the downtrodden Shia poor in the South as well as Shia in the slums of Baghdad. His power is one of maintaining destitution, and focusing the rage of the uneducated, the ignorant, the prejudiced, and the poor. All the worst qualities of humanity, combined. Al Sadr uses Anti-Americanism to focus the rage of his social network, as well as gain Sunni Baathist help. It would not be illogical for Al Sadr to provide the Sunni Baathist and Al Qaeda sunni terrorists with inside intel on Shia defenses, in order to gain support amongst Sunnis, and thereby enlarge his political power. Al Sadr is an enemy to Iraq, an enemy to the US, and an enemy of humanity. The very best fate that he should receive is a hanging, in a public square. But that is not the solution. The solution is hanging him and then replacing him with American prestige and power, honor and strength. The honey and the blade, in other words.

Sistani is interesting in that he went to great pains to reduce Shia reprisals as well as give Fatwas telling all Shia, men and women, to vote even if the husbands of women had told them not to vote. Sistani made it their "religious duty" to do so. Quite a conflict, won't you say. Which is higher, the duty of a woman to be obedient to her husband in Islamic culture, or the duty of Muslims to their clerics and Islamic commands?

Sistani wanted the Shia to vote because by doing so, they show their dominance and numbers. Thereby building a foundation for Shia recognition and power. It is nothing sinister, after all, the Shia just want to get in on the goods before it disappears. All of the Shia are united in this goal, against Sunnis and any others who would challenge them. Remember, Arabs think this way. Me against my brother, me and my brother against our neighbors, me and my brother with our neighbors against the foreigner. Regardless of how much the Shia may fight amongst themselves, and they do a lot of that, they will band together to fight the Sunnis, the terrorists, the Americans even, as well as whoever gets in their way. I mean it in only a general sense, not in a specific. Which means, don't bother telling me that there are individual Shias or factions that like Sunnis or even Americans. It's all been factored into the greater equation already. The same applies to Syria and Iran. The Sunnis in Baghdad hate Iran. Yet Syria Baathist Sunni (enclave) will ally with Iran, the shia crazy dudes, to fight the US. It is quite logical based upon how Arabs think. In fact, it is quite logical based upon just common basic humanity. All humans behave in this manner when death stares them in the face. And boy would I like to see what Syria and Iran would look like when they stare absolute annihilation based death in the face, but ah I digress into wishes.

I mentioned a third faction. The book called it the SCIRI faction, or the Badr Brigade as I term it. Historically, it is an interesting tale. Because what created the Badr Brigade, was not Iran, but George Bush's father. When the Shia rebellion was crushed in Hilla, they had no allies other than their Iranian brothers of the common faith. So they formed long lasting ties of blood, IN BATTLE. Remember what I said about ties formed in battle. They are almost unshatterable. And this applies to the US fighting with Iraqis by our side (Iraqi death commandos), as well as to anyone else fighting with Iraqis. When the Democrats talk about how the Iraqi Shias are allied with Iran and going to have an Iranian dominated Iraq, it is a subtle propaganda ploy in order to confuse and befuddle you, as well as to demoralize your will to fight in this conflict. Not supporting the Shias in the first place brought on their alliance with Iran, so if you do as the Democrats demand and not support Iraqi shias more, well let us just say if you understand causality, that the conclusion would be obvious. I won't go into the details because this isn't about Democrat propaganda, but about the truth, so suffice it to say that by using logical deduction, you will find the truth 95 times out of a hundred. The last 5% is owned by the Demon Murphy, nobody can say with certainty that A is going to happen 100% of the time, because it never does, you know. Not with "him" around.

The Badr Brigade, given their alliance with iran, attracts most of the religious fanatics. The taliban guys who want to ban everything. You hear about it from Iraqi bloggers who live in Basra. The British are doing nothing. Either because they are incompetent, not trusted by the US High Command, were not given orders, or are afraid to do something because of political correctness issues, or just because they fear being executed by the British government if something bad happens and they kill a Badr murderer and thug. The Arabs despise people with power, but with not the will to use it. In fact, I'm pretty much the same way. The British stand around and watch as students and women, natural supporters of any liberal revolution, are executed, terrorized, and beaten, and the British do NOTHING. On a political level, and not a personal level, that is such a waste to me. This has nothing to do with honoring the sacrifice of the British. And everything to do with pragmatic analysis concerning what policy to take or not take. Even Patton had to objectively and callously decide which unit gets chosen to be risked for annihilation in order to attain the greater goal. You are not worthy to lead, if you are unable to objectively consider the benefits of people under your command, how they are doing, and to what purpose they are best suited for. The British, should not be in Basra and the south, not as occupation and security forces anyway. The truism that if you want to get a job done well, call the Americans, is still true. Not even the British or the Canadians are the equal of the United States Marine Corps. It is quite an objective statement, I assure you. There have been times that a Marine unit was told to hold a position, and they did, but ended up with 99% casualties. There was only one, count it, ONE, combat effective at the end of that battle. That is the real deal. I may be wrong, in that Canada has stories like this as well, or the current British in recent history. I am after all, not very well acquainted with British or Canadian military history. That may be because they don't have anything after WWII, but you never know.

All the Marine angels of death and mercy, as well as the Army commandos, are fighting the Sunnis. None are available to check our base of operations, in the south. God, that is like so not logistically secure. But it isn't about the British, it is about the Badr Brigade. They have close ties with Hizbollah. In fact, Al Sadr has close ties with Hizbollah, if only because Al Sadr is a useful tool for people to use as a strawman and barking dog. Even Sistani used him, to help his negotiations with the Americans. All Sistani had to say was, "hey if you don't like my policies, just consider the alternative *points to Sadr*". A very effective diplomatic ploy, something the State Department must have forgotten when they were teaching basic diplomacy. The Badr Brigade, thus, is the army of Iran inside Baghdad. When the SCIRI gained seats, they infiltrated the government with their paid lackies and goon squads. They are the ones executing Sunnis and initiating revenge killings. It is not Sistani.

Now, the way the Sunnis view things, is almost diametrically opposite. The Sunnis accuse Badr and Sistani and anyone else with ties with Iran, as being shills of Iran. Basically, the Sunnis believe that if they kill enough people, they will get America to leave and cease supporting the Shia. When that happens, then they will have a chance to win back their power. After all, intimidating the Shia is what every Sunni majority has done and succeded, do you not know? Iraq is the ONLY Arab Shia nation. Iran is Persian, not Arab. With such a success track intimidating the Shia, and having the Shia back down from confrontations, why would not the Sunnis see Saddam's massacre techniques as being the way to go? Like a dog, it will do what it has been trained to do. What it knows that it will be rewarded for.

The Sunnis are the ones that believe in a greater Iraq, meaning a unified Iraq, with a strong central government. The "central" being Baghdad, and the Sunnis of course. It is very logical, in a way, which is why the book is such a treasure. It all makes SENSE. The Sunnis believe that the Shia can't run the country without the Sunni. They partially right, since the Sunnis had the majority of the bureacratic institutions, especially since their area contains Baghdad, the seat of power. The Baghdad area has a lot of cosmopolitan people not loyal to "tribes". This means less corruption and clan politics. Which makes better government.

The reason why the Sunnis accuse the Shia of being in league with Iran, is because they view the Iraq-Iran war with a jaundiced eye. They saw it as a Sunni vs Shia conflict, in which the Shia south of Iraq ain't real "Iraqis", and therefore it is really Sunni vs all Shia action. They have fitted the facts with their logic. The Sunnis DO NOT want Iran to divide up Iraq. So when Badr Brigade asks for a "federation" (confederation in American terms), with autonomous Shia areas in the South, the Sunnis are crying a river of blood and virulence in response. This explains even the Sunni boycott of the elections. Since the Sunnis believed that Iranians were in league with Shia Iraqis, and that the Shia were not fit to rule nor was their population all that much greater than the Sunnis in Iraq, the Sunnis obviously thought that Iran would bolster the Shia cause by sending in "fake Iraqi shias" across the border to pad the election results. So obviously the Sunnis would boycott, on the basis that by not voting, the total vote result would be under the 60% or even 50% mark, because after all, the Shia aren't that large a proportion of Iraq's population right?

You have to remember, Sunnis and Shias don't pay much attention to facts or scientific data. These are Arabs we are talking about, and there is no way to think of them in any other way and not be called prejudiced. Rumours are the Arab's bread and butter. It is their culture, I can't do anything about it. If they believe that Allah sent giant poisonous spiders to Fallujah to smite the infidel US Marines, I can't make them disbelieve it. (Al Qaeda cleric supporter, said that btw)

To the Sunnis, when the Americans say that the Shia are like 60% of the population, the Sunnis are going "you are bullshitting me, there is no way, Saddam killed too many of the Shia for there too be that many in Iraq.

So, Sunnis accuse Shias of being pawns of Iran, in order to galvanize Iraqi support for a unified Iraq. Shia accuse Sunnis of supporting Baathism, return to Saddam days, and terrorism, in order to acquire political support. Same game, different sides.

The book also mentions some notable political leaders like Ibrahim al-jaffari and the first prime Minister of Iraq. Since their names are hard to recall and the comments hard to remember, I'll skip that section of the book.

This book must be chunk full of revelations that I have paraphrased and redescriped. The great majority, perhaps as high as 90% of the things I have written, were directly sourced from the book. And I only read about 20 pages. From a book with at least 200. Imagine what else is in there, if this was in the middle of the book!

I can't remember anything else of note worthy interest to say, except that the author described Iraq as nearing and even being in a state of civil war. With the things he describes, it is a lot easier to believe such a charge. I was not convinced of the label civil war, simply because people didn't know jack about internal Iraqi politics, and were just making assertions left and right without any reasonable explanations for why they are right. The book clearly describes the rift between Iraqis. Of whichever faction you may imagine. It explains the corruption in the South, the thuggery and the stealing and the nepotism. And it explains how Baghdad residents are more cosmopolitan, tolerant, and etc. I would have liked to hear the author's views on Kurdistan, because Kurdistan is the wild card in the three way free for all that is Iraq. Three ways locally. Include Syria, Iran, and America, and that is six ways. Include Saudi Arabia and... well you get the picture.

A lot of Americans are arrogant and ignorant, enough to at least believe that if we left, the terrorism and terrorists would stop. Are the Shia just automatically going to lie down and submit to Al Qaeda and the Sunni baathists if we leave? I think not. This ain't about America, people. Nobody kills their brother, sister, and children because of "America". We are not the central element in everybody's lives, regardless of how much the fake liberal paladins wish it to be with their "moral high ground" philosophy.

Bookworm has doubts about the future of democracy in Iraq, given Arab culture and the way people in that region thought. Everyone has doubts, it is natural, and even healthy as it forces you to reevaluate your current actions in order to optimize them. In that light, I would like to say that I think the best course of action the US should do, the most optimum action to forestall civil war or end it in furtherence of a good nation, is for Bush to execute Al Sadr. Disarm the militias of Al Sadr and either kill them, strip them of property, or send them to Iran. After that has been done, send another division or two to the Baghdad slums and the city of Sadr. Purge Al Sadr's network, like you purge suicide cells in the US, using intel and cloak and dagger techniques. Replace Al Sadr's network with your own. Then tell the Shia, that if they don't get with the program and get rid of Iran, they will have the United States to deal with, as an enemy. Such an ultimatum backed by lethal action perpetrated against Al Sadr, an enemy of both SCIRI the Badr Brigade as well as Sistani, conveys a very effective threat and demonstration of power. It forces Sistani to choose sides. It forces Badr Brigade to consider their allegiance to Iran. it would be much harder for the Badr Brigade to play a double game where we protect them, while they serve Iran's interests in sabotaging US actions and plans in Iraq.

After the US does this, we go to the Sunnis and tell them that if they keep killing people who we don't want to be killed, we will support more fully the Shia parties. We will give them free reign to purge the Sunnis, as we purged Al Sadr. This will help convince the Sunnis to stop fighting, it will help convince them that the US is a serious mofo and should not be ignored nor frightened out of Iraq. It also gives Sunnis a bit of a hint that the US can be on their side (with the elimination of a Shia faction called Sadr), instead of just on the Shia side. So when the Sunnis see a benefit to an alliance with the uS, they will stop killing Shias sooner and cooperate, safe in the knowledge that the US is helping them. (because that is the goal, ally with the Sunnis against the Shia. Ally with the Shia against the Sunnis. Ally with the kurds against everyone)

After we made the good deals with the Sunnis, we should go to the Shia, and tell them that we are openly impowering and arming Sunni police commando squads, aka death squads, that are loyal to the central government. If Badr continues to play the double game of pitting US vs Iran and Iran vs the US, we will treat them as the enemies they are, and command the Sunni Police Commandos to take them out, permanently. Sistani will be pressured immensely by this, because he will not have expected the US to support the Sunnis against the Shia, and without US support, the Shia cannot transmute Iraq into the image of peace and Shia glory that Sistani envisions. Without US support, both sides will have a blood bath that will never end, Sistani knows this. He will be with us, if only because without us, Sistani will never get what he wants. We will use his support to gain the loyalty of the moderate Shias, turning Moderate Shias against SCIRI, the Badr Brigade arm of Iran. Therefore we increase our own influence in Iraq, while decreasing the influence of our enemies. Two birds with one stone throw.

The basic philosophy is simple. Use America's power as a leverage and threat, in negotiations, to get the Shia to do what is good and to get the Sunnis to do what is good. The Kurds already know what is good, they need no interference from us. To convince the Sunnis that they need to get with the plan, we give them hints of support and ally with the Shia. To convince the Shia to stop corruption, we support and ally with the Sunnis.

These are the specifics and the general goal that we should pursue, given the new information I have received.

Personally, I think it makes a lot more sense than the cries of "civil war", America is causing terrorism in Iraq, and Iraqis need to STEP UP, and the other grossly distorted rhetoric you hear in the American media and even Bush's office. Bush did not say anything that I have said, literally, almost nothing. He is the President, does he not have access to greater resources than me? Does he not have access to the leaders of Iraq personally? So how come Bush doesn't share this knowledge? Unless he doesn't have it? If he doesn't have it, aren't we up the shit creek without a paddle, hrm?

That's why I say that things will get really interesting once Bush is out of office. Sure, things can get worse, but they can also get infinitely better. It will be a roll of the dice, and let us count that Lady Luck will favor the United States of America whenever we had two choices, and had to pick one. Certainly she has in the past, with Washington, Truman, Teddy Roosevelt, and Bush instead of Gore in 2000.

Let us pray to the Greatest Power in the universe, that Lady Luck will continue her favor of the great and just United States. For the good of the world, and for the good of humanity.