Sake Light

New Location for blog - Wordpress

2006-12-06T19:04:00.000-05:00

Wordpress has some interesting features bundled together, so I'm moving over there.

EDIT

Well, our friend Loki decided to pay us a visit, to wish us well on our new location.

So I'll return the favor.

woot woot

Comment below written by: Barbara
You cannot win a PC war. It's definitely past time to kick a little ass. What are we afraid of? That there will be more countries out there who hate America? Hmmm... since that's already at critical mass, WTF? I would rather them hate us but know we mean what we say than to laugh at us as we tuck our tail between our legs as we cut and run. Let our military do what they have been trained to do - protect American against this radical Islamic threat!! Let's put Froggy in charge!!

The Jihad by Oliver North

2006-12-03T16:15:00.000-05:00

A very tightly sprung yarn. With intricately bounded timelines. It tells the story of what motivated the Islamic JIhad, and what crafted these beliefs. It is a different story than what you've heard before, about the Koran and war influencing the Islamic Jihad. Because this talks about recent history influencing the Arabs. Instead of the Koran, Oliver North talks about how Israeli military victories like the Six Day War proved to the Arabs that something else must be used to achieve victory. They looked at Israel and thought to themselves, "these people are religious, it must give them strength, we will get religious as well and defeat them". Arafat's PLO liberation front decided on guns and religion, because obviously tanks didn't work.

Then the Munich hostage takings. Germany captured 3 of the terrorists but gave those terroists up in return for a hijacked Lutanza airplane. The message was clear to the Arabs. Terrorism works, taking hostages work. Fighting conventional wars with Israel? That was going to kick the Arab's ass obviously.

The Iranian Revolution? Further proof, that Americans Could Do Nothing against the Divine Fury of Allah and the Islamic Jihad. Six American Special Ops operators were killed in a crash in a desert storm. Further proof that the Arabs need do nothing against the conventional power of the West, Allah was on their side. Afghanistan war right after Munich? Further proof that Al Qaeda could destroy the infidels on their territory.

Beirut Bombing, proof that car bombs worked and if you kill enough Americans we will leave. Navy Diver executed on a hijacked plane, dumped on the tarmack, body returned in a casket to the US. Terrorist involved in that, released from Germany (again) in 2005.

Germany, Israel, Russia, and the US. All defeated by terrorism, the will of allah, and NONE by conventional armies. The proof was in the pudding. THe Islamic Jihad now had their mandate, their tradition, their esprit de corps.

What you need to do now is to erase all their successes by crushing defeats. Absolute total destruction, ruthlessness beyond cruelty, and iron fist policies all the way. Anything less, well, that would be Iraq and Israel's history, now wouldn't it.

Ex-Secretary Rumsfeld

2006-12-03T12:15:00.000-05:00

He talks about reverse imbedding and more imbedding inside the Iraqi forces. Good idea. Why he didn't do this before, I don't know, but it is a good idea. If i can't have my plan, which is to remove the Iraqi security forces from Iraqi political command, then this is a right step in the right direction. If Bush doesn't adhere to this advice, well, then at least we know that he is as dense as his advisers. I've ragged on Bush about getting bad advice, but this from Rummy ain't bad. Funny, if Rummy was still in power, would he not have implemented his own preferences? So what will Baker do as SecDef?

Interesting, fog of war time.

Tink's Rant

2006-12-03T11:59:00.000-05:00

Tink's rant was so good, that I just had to preserve it here for future reference.

Link goes to the original black five thread and contains my response.

Comment below written by: Tink

"So, where are the feminists while we're doing this fight? Same places they've always been - sitting somewhere safe yapping about stuff that doesn't matter while good men and women die to protect them."

Warning, I'm gonna rant and ramble.

They were yelling loud and clear in the late 90's..

Personal story here. I was involved with a group that researched content for a major ISP. During research on "Women's Rights" in 97 was when I first learned about the Taliban - the stonings, the total lack of medical care because women couldn't be seen or touched by a male not a member of their family - but women were no longer allowed to be doctors. Their husbands dead, the women weren't allowed to work, weren't allowed out of their homes without a male relative escort - yet they no longer had male relatives, so they either starved or became ghostly beggars. They weren't allowed to have an education..

If any of the "rules" were broken, they were beaten or worse, assassinated in the soccer stadium, with their children forced to watch.

I could go on and on and on..

This group of women I worked with was FURIOUS that "we" (The US) weren't doing anything. So we wrote letters, we "raised awareness" - we posted our research on the content screens of this major ISP, we joined forces with some actors wife (I can't remember who anymore - sorry, brain cramp)to send supplies and support in through aid agencies.

Then came 9/11 and a few days later my husbands Guard Unit was activated..

I started to get email and messages from these same women who I was still working with - women who knew my husband was on orders and we didn't know what was going to happen. Those emails had little notes about how it wasn't the "right time" to go to war.

Women who knew good and well what the Taliban had done to their "sisters" (as they called them) over the last few years...

It disgusted me, but everyone had a right to their opinion..right? But Oh Dopey me couldn't understand why these women who were so furious that "we weren't doing something", we're all of a sudden so against everything we had talked about over the years.

Soooo, I continued to work with these women and I began to read daily news from all over the world, and Centcom, and press briefings, and found newspapers published by units in country. I dug for any and all information I could find - I wanted the info straight from the horses mouth, not some else's ideas of what that info was..

Those women? They got their friggin' "news" from "The Daily Misleader", published daily by Move-On.org. Seriously.

In 2004, when Hubs unit mobilized to Afghanistan - these women basically stopped talking to me about anything of consequence. All these people who I had supported over the years would only talk to me about How's the weather? . All those women, who back in the 90's were begging for the US to take action to oust the Taliban. They sure supported taking that country by force in the late 90's, we had talked about it hundreds of times.

But yeah, they were against it - now.

After the Afghan election in 2004 - I was so damned excited - In that same province in the news story above, a place where the womens polling place was smeared in human feces and they and their families had been threatened with death or dismemberment if they voted? Yeah, the women voters OUTNUMBERED the men.. Things had gone very smoothly, there was no violence in the polling places..

I was so proud of those people for fighting back..

And those women I worked with? All I heard was "yeah, buts" Basically, things weren't perfect yet and the US is bad, and Bush this and Bush that.

They didn't give a damn about those women anymore, it was all about Bush.

When Hook first started his shoe drive, I let them know..all these women who "cared" so much. The response? I don't want to be involved with military projects.

A guy collecting shoes for kids, but to them, it was a "military project"

Yanno, our guys were the first permanant US presence in that area, they built their FOB from scratch. In 4 months there had been HUGE progress. There wre people there who were willing to fight for their homes and families, and with a permanant US presence, they finally felt they had a chance.

Yet all those women cared about was that it wasn't perfect yet. More than 2 decades of war, and we hadn't fixed it in a couple of months. I was getting my info from troops right there on the ground, from the guys doing the actual work...and they would tell me it wasn't happening because that's not what they read in the daily misleader yanno...

That's when I submitted my resignation.

The "wrong" president was in office, they no longer gave a damn about anything.

All of those "good friends" of mine, people I worked with for 8 years, I never hear from them anymore.

(end of rambling rant)

Posted by: Tink | Nov 30, 2006 3:10:32 PM

Comment below written by: Ymarsakar

Yet all those women cared about was that it wasn't perfect yet.

For narcissists and self-fish people, Tink, it was always about themselves. Never about anyone else. But people do not exist as people to narcissists, simply as tools of expression, desire, and self-esteem for the narcissist.

All of those "good friends" of mine, people I worked with for 8 years, I never hear from them anymore.

Welcome back from the cult of personality, Tink. Few make it out, though those that do, are stronger for it.

Posted by: Ymarsakar | Nov 30, 2006 9:38:59 PM

Comment below written by: Tink

"In a nut shell, your saying the feminists no longer care about their Afghan “sisters” because W is the one who “freed” them, so to speak?"

I'm saying, this particular group of women sacrificed their beliefs for politics.

(Silly me, I had always thought you based your politics ON your beliefs)

They sacrificed the Afghan women for their politics.

They sacrificed friends for their politics.

And trust me, it sucks to say that about people you care about.

Posted by: Tink | Nov 30, 2006 11:01:06 PM
Comment below written by: Tink
it was always about themselves. Never about anyone else.

Ym, I never thought about it in that way. That's something I'm going to have to roll around in my head for a bit.

Such as these, are more concerned with the prevention of American error, than they are with the prevention of totalitarian INTENT.

Rich, I think you hit the nail on the head...it's frustrating. Very frustrating.

I read about people like Mr Halim, I think about the others that my hubs told me so much about, and it tears my heart out. There are some good people out there who deserve to make decisions about their own lives, who deserve to raise their children, who deserve peace..

It makes me want to take people like my (apparently) former friends, and shake them by the shoulders. What the hell has to happen to make them open their eyes and actually SEE what's at stake..instead of just pointing and saying "told ya we were doing it wrong"

I dunno, I'm rambling again...so I'll just say goodnight..

Posted by: Tink | Nov 30, 2006 11:23:10 PM
Comment below written by: Ymarsakar
Your rambling is quite enjoyable.

You share your frustrations and pinpoint what you see as the source and problem. But you don't do it in a way that says "it is ALL about Me, Me, Me" and you aren't bitter about it to the extent that it corrodes my ears.

I like reading what you have written because you obviously honestly care and value integrity far more than selfishness and convenience. I respect that.

To add to Rich's excellent summarization, I'll just say that it also includes why the Left loves talking about the "moral high ground" and "moral purity" and "don't become the terroists". You've heard that rhetoric before, I believe. In fact, most blackfive readers should have heard that rhetoric if only about GitMo.

These people on the Left, the fake liberals I call them, don't want to get their hands dirty. Why should they, it is not the innocents and the downtrodden that are important, it is them, their comfort, their purity, and their convenience that is really important. They must have the moral high ground, because even a hint of guilt just kills them, just kills them. Too uncomfortable by far, getting their hands dirty.

Moral purity, the same as sexual purity that honor killings are supposed to get rid of. They just can't stand the violation of their honor, of their status, of their reputation in the eyes of Allah. It ain't about their children, wives, or whatever. It is about them and how much better it can make them feel to kill and hang rape victims.

They just can't stand the idea that anyone can require THEM, to actually sacrifice and get their hands dirty, to be called bad names or be thought of as less than pure and perfect. In a choice between saving the innocent by slaughtering the evil, or sitting it out in a nice comfy chair watching Oprra, I think you'll know which one they will choose.

They always talk about, "oh no, you can't execute terroists, we would be as bad as them". What they really mean is. "I've spent millions of dollars elevating my social consciousness above the peons, I'm not going to risk it now for some village idiots in Afghanistan that the slubs in GitMo have been killing. Let them kill each other, I have a manicure to go to."

Fake liberals. They talk about human dignity and liberty, but what they were really interested in was how to elevate their own ambitions and alleviate their own guilt. They believe that America is nigh invulnerable. That they can throw the Marine Corps at the problem if it ever came to their shores, or maybe they'll just take a private jet and go to Europe for a year or two while things calm down. They believe they are invulnerable, that every war is a "choice", an "elected war". Just like protecting innocents is an "elected choice" to the fake liberals. They get to choose who to protect and fight, why can't Bush? They think.

Posted by: Ymarsakar | Nov 30, 2006 11:46:14 PM

Media Matters in Vietnam

2006-11-29T03:08:00.000-05:00

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media for they will steal your honor." - Bobby McBride, Crew Chief, 128th Assault Helicopter Company, RVN 1969-1970

...you're a big time media type guy and all........i was hoping you could thank the media for completely giving up and abandoning everybody who is in and those of us who are going to the suckage......makes us feel like we have a real purpose and all.....just thought they'ld be more inclined to listen to you and all...

This was a response I wrote to this subject.

Dishonor is based upon what your honor code really is. If your honor code sanctions the media, then dishonor obviously ain't gonna cut it.

The Marines know exactly why they should fear the media. They knew it in Fallujah. They knew it in Haditha. And they know it every freaking time they see CNN cameras draw IEDs and jihadist attacks on themselves, footage bought by Marine lives, used against the mission the Marines are fighting for.

To protect the American people, one of the core rules of honor amongst the Marine Corps. To uphold the traditions of the Corps, to honor the memories of the fallen and those who have gone before. To maintain the tradition of duty and loyalty that the Marines of WWII bought with their sweat and blood. All that, cannot be taken from you by the enemy, not even in death. But the media, they can take your honor away from you, because they can prevent you from honoring the loss of your brothers in arms. They can prevent you from fullfilling your mission to protect the American people. They can prevent you from maintaining the honor of the Corps by broadcasting fake atrocities that they claim the US Marines committed. An illusion that cannot be destroyed by the firepower of a Marine fireteam.

Honor is a hard subject to pin down. Because different cultures have different honor codes, different people have different variations on how they maintain their honor code.

The military was helpless against the media in Vietnam. You fear what you are unable to fight. No matter the courage, no matter the valor or bravery or how their comrades beat unbeatable odds in Vietnam, the media stole all of that. All of the honor, all of the successes, all of the sacrifice. Gone. As if it never was, yet the bodies are still dead aren't they.

Leyte Gulf. Wake Island. Saipan. People died there. But they are remembered for their honor and for doing their duty, remembered with pride and gratitude. What are the Vietnam generation and veterans remembered for? Are they honored in the same fashion as WWII veterans? By some yes. But mostly America remembers Vietnam as an embarassment, as an American defeat, when we were humbled.

Such a sad state of affairs. It wasn't the enemy killing our troops that took their honor from them. Dead is dead. But there's a difference between how people remember your death based upon what the media reported and between how the media caused you to lose. It is a breaking of a promise. You are there to protect the media back home, they should be there to protect you and help you in your mission. Your duty requires you to protect the media, but your honor degrades inch by inch every time you buy a journalist's life with one of yours, and the journalist provides help to the enemy in turn to kill your buddies. You cannot ignore your duty and at the same time maintain your honor. And yet you cannot do your duty either while the media is there feeding upon your protection.

For this war, imbed journalists aren't too bad. But their editors, they leech out whatever worth there really is. At the end, the media still takes your honor, regardless. Didn't blackfive start this blog because he sought to honor the memory of his friend, who died while defending a journalist? What do you really call someone that you have to protect, yet by protecting that person, that person will help the barbarians destroy all that you value and love? Journalist seems a bit inaccurate.

I can easily understand why the Vietnam veterans said that quote.

Dr. Sanity's Christmas cartoon

2006-11-28T20:09:00.000-05:00

Check it out, for some laughs.

Some interesting moments from Planescape Torment

2006-11-25T21:42:00.000-05:00

Sorcerer's Palace has up a few screenshots of the dialogue in this crpg. Titled Funny NPC Dialogue by Frog. These things aren't really spoilers, because they don't have anything to do with the main plot line.

While replaying this game, I had come to realize that its ability to create a rich atmosphere was so complete and well envisioned that I even had sympathy for the undead. One of the storylines of the game plotline. In most rpgs or the Baldur's Gate series, undead are there for you to kill and there to get in your way. They aren't people. This is a more serious topic than the very funny dialogue shown in the screen shots here about Annah's dress and here about Candy Love.

However, it just adds to the richness of the atmosphere. Humans tend to have this mechanism by which we demonize and dehumanize certain groups of people as objects and sub-human, therefore we don't feel empathy or compassion if they should die. How the Arabs inculcate this in their children, concerning Jews, is a good example. But video game violence is similar in principle, if not effect. When you are just slaughtering a bunch of pixels, that is all they are to you, some game characters. If you start seeing the characters on screen as people, then your societal conditioning and human instincts kick in. In life, this is done by face to face meetings, to put a face on the occupation or friends killed on 9/11. In games, that doesn't work too well even with precise graphics. In games, words and storylines, the character development used in novels, must be used in order to convey this idea of humanity to the reader and player. When you read words about a person, you are thinking of him as a person, even though he is a fictional character in a fictional world. The game world is the same way, yet so many games try to convey human emotions through graphics. Which is the wrong way to go I believe. The right way is how Planescape Torment did it. Check out the screenshots in the title link, for examples.

PS

I found this review talking about Planescape Torment, with spoiler warnings. It also had a comment section right after it, which did have spoilers. Mostly, though, they were talking about the Sensate portion of the game, not covered in the screenshots.

I thought it was pretty nostalgic. But I wouldn't recommend people who have not played Planescape Torment to read this. One of the commenters made the point that Planescape Torment like a novel, grabbed you emotionally so that at the end, you didn't want it to end, or you wanted the story to go on. I felt the same. But alas, to all things there is an end, all that live must die. In an ironic sort of way, playing the game and learning to love the characters and moments in it, prepared for me the shock at the end. Both emotionally and intellectually.

I don't recommend reading the Torment review if you have not finished the Torment game. So I'll just write some more concerning why Torment is excellent bar none.

The Sensorium experience is pretty good. I had forgotten it until now. But it was quite emotional, both for the game character and for me who was playing as the game character. Phileosophos used to play, or maybe still plays, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. And he mentioned that Crpgs lacked something that AD and D paper, dice, and face to face gaming had. I didn't quite get what he was talking about, but I think with Torment I do. In computer rpgs like Baldur's Gate or Icewind Dale, the story is about the game mechanics and the spells and the fighting action. In Torment, it is about individual creativity, choices, expression, and character development. So it is indeed more like a novel than a game. For example. When you play Baldur's Gate II, your sister's story is weaker than your protagonist's story. And your protagonist's story is only told through dreams, not character dialogue. Little Give and take, conversations, discussions. When reading blogs, one of the best things about it is the discussions, the learning. When reading novels, the best thing about it is learning about the characters and seeing them develop and become wiser. In a game like BGII, I found that the best thing was leveling my characters up so they could beat every monster in the game. Or using arcane spell contingencies for my mage, in order to destroy my enemies using creative spell strategies. But it was not about the character interactions between the main character who was a Bhaal Spawn. The dialogue continued to mention that he was the Bhaal Spawn, but there was no surprise about this. What did it mean, how did it affect your soul? None of this was discussed in BGII. So unlike Torment. In fact, one of the best mods for BGII is the Imoen Romance mod. Which adds in quite a lot of backstory and character to Imoen, the sister of the protagonist.

At the end, Chris Avellone made a point that I came to recognize after I had played his game and never even read any interview with the guy.

Read this interview.

I'd say game stories can be a little formulaic at times and a little unpolished, but then I would point up at the sky and say, "Holy s***, look at that!" And when they do, I would punch them in the gut, and while they were gasping for breath, I would lean down and go, "You are wrong. There are several games with compelling stories, stories that achieve greater strength because it's a story you can interact with. Thus, the experience is even more personal than reading a novel, where you are basically watching the characters go about their adventures without any participation from you except flicking your eyes across the page." At this point, the person would be about to get up, so I would kick them in the shins and then run.

Interesting. And the same point I made. Which was, the computer experience allowed you to get a more interactive experience, higher than a novel's. A novel can grip you with emotional ties to the characters, so that you NEED to read the sequel. Well, a game can do the same, except better. Because you are the main character, are you not in this Role Playing Game? It brings the term role playing, to its logical and designed conclusion.

The interview link, is not just with Chris. It has other very very nice video game designers and CEOs. Like KOTOR II with Chris Avellone, like Dreamfall and the Longest Journey. Hideo Kojima of Metal Gear series. Strongly recommended for game afficionados.

Some highlights to whet the thirst.

Q:What specifically about games makes them interesting to you as a storytelling medium? That is, why are you writing stories for games instead of for movies or books?

Chris Avellone: Because video game developers will actually give you a chance. The ability to get your foot in the door as far as story in video games is a lot higher than movies or games, since it's actually harder to find a decent writer who wants to work in video games--a lot harder than finding programmers and artists, in my opinion, since being a writer seems to require an odd aesthetic sense that doesn't always translate well into developing games. It requires heavy attention to details, math, logic trees, and a whole mess of other elements.

I find writing for games interesting because I think games are the next untapped ground for storytelling. It's an interactive entertainment experience, so instead of passively watching a movie or reading a novel, you are actually interacting with the story, which I think is the next stage of entertainment evolution. There's been a trend of games becoming more like movies and delivering a cinematic experience and drama, and I think that trend will continue. When working on Knights of the Old Republic II, I felt as if we were scripting a movie more than a game at points, and the sheer amount of cinematic direction we (and LucasArts) had for our cutscenes, blocking out character movements and scenery, and then directing the voice actors was staggering.

As I read Chris's responses, the designer and writer of the Planescape Torment story and game, I tend to realize that his forte and strength is his writing ability. The other designers do not come up to his level in sheer expression and creativity. You have writers that write with a similar level of drama, S.M. Stirling, Eric Flint, or David Weber. But they are not programmers and video game designers at the same time, either. It seems the more skills you bundle up into a person, the more creative that person gets if given a chance.

Ragnar Tørnquist: Technology needn't get in the way of storytelling unless we focus too much on showing off our cool new shaders and particle effects and not enough on establishing an emotional connection with the player. Technology can definitely facilitate for better storytelling. The best visual stories are just that--visual. There's that whole "show, don't tell" rule which has often fallen by the wayside because of technology; The Longest Journey, which I wrote, was definitely an example of that. Mostly everything had to be communicated through dialogues. The more we can show, and thus allow players to figure out for themselves, the better. And nowhere is that more apparent than with human characters. Things like facial expressions and body language enable us to communicate the story in a massively different fashion, making it much more immediate and personal than what's been possible before.

It needs to be more than a gimmick, however. We need technology that fuels the narrative and the gameplay, and not the other way around. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. We're still at a gee-whiz stage where every new technological innovation is tossed in there, because gamers will love it. And they do! Hell, I love big explosions as much as the next guy. But we have to look at the technology as a tool, as a means to an end, and not an end in itself.

The Dialectic - Discourse on Human Beings

2006-11-25T13:38:00.000-05:00

I view it as the pendulum system, a simple system. However, its behavior becomes dynamic when you vary the level of initial force, speed, and height. So if Hegel is refering to opposites and how they interact, then it seems to me, it is simply the truism that if you apply the right force in the right direction, you can make a pendulum not only swing to the right, but so far right you hit the left of the pendulum. Therefore one opposite simply becomes the opposite of itself, or the opposite of the opposite of itself.

VDH called it back biting or was it bite back effect. Where you say and act in one way, when in fact the opposite is true and everyone knows it. Venezuella and gestapo police Fox talking about America and our Berlin walls for example.

So what are they trying to do, are they trying to make America into mirror images of themselves? Or are they trying to make themselves into mirror images of America? Rather, it seems the dialectic process of dialogue becomes simply a method to achieve a goal, that goal independent of spectrums or labels.

The dynamic, that being dictators being the underdogs and America being the top dog, is the meta concept that these dictators using dialogue and the State Depos using dialogue, are trying to overturn. If they apply enough force, then they can overthrow the top dog and make themselves into the leaders and power players. The Shah was said to be more brutal and anti-freedom, compared to the pro-freedom Mullahs. Well. That dialectic came out all right, I think. They succeded in the goal that the dialectic sought.

Another practical application of the oratory dialectic, rather than the philosophical theory, is that of Israel. The meta concept is that Israel and Palestine keeps fighting and that they need to stop. The dialectic for the Palis is that Israelis are the terroists and when Israelis kill, more terroists are born. They want the US to stop supporting Israel.

Well, an opposite dialectic that you could use to counter the dynamic paraxism of the Palis is this. Demand that Israel committ themselves to Total War, a war to the knife and finish, or the US will cut off all military, financial, and diplomatic aid to the state of Israel and begin funding the Palestinian territories with US weapons and money. It's like Amanie saying he wants nuclear power, it is a smoke screen, a bite back effect. By saying the opposite of what he wants, he thinks he can affect a realistic change towards what he really wants. All these dictators talk about the anti-freedom and weakness of the US, in the attempt to say the opposite of the real in order to change the reality. After all, they don't criticize us because they really want us to be more free or what not. They criticize us because they want us to be less free and powerful. How do they do this by saying we should be more free and/or powerful? Well, about the same we help the Israelis by threatening to support Palestinian terroists against them and cutting off the aid. It creates an effect. This effect destabilizes the meta concept, and when the meta-concept is destabilized, then the reality changes. These tools always have more than one use, dual use, or manifold uses.

There are ideas and then there are ideas over the ideas. The ideas over the ideas, are the meta-concept. It connects the ideas and rhetoric of a philosophy, into a coherent and consistent whole. So if you listen to the Arabs speak to the West and then listen to them speaking to their jihad folks, you hear different ideas, styles of oration, and rhetoric. It does not mean it is a different philosophy, but the same meta-concept simply expressed through various tentacles of thought and words.

The reason why the US doesn't say to Israel what Israel needs to hear, is because the US doesn't understand how to manipulate paradox into crafting reality. The most glib and bureacratic of our government, knows only how to speak in tongues for their own self-aggrandizement and power. When they encounter an ideology that doesn't believe in personal power so much as a doomsday Final Judgement with a Final Reward in Heaven, their doublespeak is infinitely easier to counter than the jihad's doublespeak.

The dialectic is used by many people for many different reasons, regardless of what they call it. In point of fact, the dialectic is no longer even the dialectic, because it isn't a bunch of words written by a philosopher. But the actual mechanical and physical blueprint that human beings have crafted and built. It is what it is because humans are what we are. The principles by which the dialectic work are the same as the principles that humans obey.

Realpolitek from Bush Senior

2006-11-24T20:55:00.001-05:00

Hattip to Anon, well one anon, at Neo's comment site for this link.

The realists have it all wrong. This policy was tried for decades on end and it resulted in scenarios where the only prominent opposition to a secular dictator came in the form of even worse religiously fanatical masses. Look for a moment at Egypt, where the Muslim Brotherhood and likeminded Salafists are the main resistance to Mubarak's rule. Look at the Jordanian kingship, where its people tended to sympathize with Abu al Zarqawi before he started blowing them up. Look at Kuwait - a nation that was liberated by the United States and subsequently ethnically cleansed all Palestinian nomads - where its people polled the highest anti-American sentiment in the region. Look at the Saudi royal family, which brainwash and indoctrinate their youth in systematic fashion in order to get them hating our liberalism just a little bit more than they hate their lack of significance.

Not only must we not talk to our enemies - just ask Sharansky how much he and his fellow dungeon dissidents preferred Reagan's unapologetic and open moralism to Nixon's detente - but we must become increasingly suspicious of our once-cherished Arab allies. Dwight Eisenhower once remarked that if one could not solve a problem, he would be wise to enlarge it. The solution to our current quandary in the Mideast is not a reversal and return to the old order, but to rile up a few more hornet nests. We are engaged in an audacious counterinsurgency across hostile Sunni municipalities with hundreds of thousands of indigenous Iraqi allies at our side. If we were to accept any of the ridiculous Vietnam comparisons, at least let us acknowledge that we have not only toppled the adversarial government (which was not done then), but we have also, wisely, skipped the half-decade as loner and have moved on to contemporary Vietnamization.

Keeping the historical analogies alive, if this is in fact the decades-long struggle we are told it is, and victory, as only a determined few define it, rests not only with the capture of specific terrorists or with the continued prevention of domestic attack, but with the transformation of an undemocratic, self-righteously puritanical, and intolerantly hierarchical part of the planet, then let us not embrace a new detente. George Bush Sr., the stone-cold pragmatist, should creep out anyone who champions the promotion of human freedom. Like his associates, the so-called "wise men" from Powell to Baker, Bush the elder served the United States with credit and as he saw fit, in service and in government. But as he saw fit - as Baker, Gates, and that gang see fit - is wrong.

We must never forget their keeping Hussein in power, or their reinstalling of the Kuwaiti thugocracy, or their assurances to the Iraqi people they would receive American assistance in the event of an uprising - and then their ensuing butchery when the aid they believed we would provide never showed up. We must never forget their golfing with loon tyrants and crass despots for the sake of dictatorial constancy. We should not forget Scowcroft apologizing for Wahhabism, or his lunching with the slaughterers of Tiananmen to "avoid isolating China." We must never forget their nonchalance as the Berlin Wall fell, or their attempts to preserve the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and continued existence of the Soviet Union. We should not overlook their aversion to change - democratic change, above all.

Response to Neo's Thanksgiving Podcast

2006-11-23T18:05:00.000-05:00

In your podcast, Neo, you said that it was about values that makes Americans not fire on women and children. But the thing is, Neo, that American value is called honor. So to what extent will those with honor behave honorably against those without honor?

I think you miss out on the distinction that not firing on women and children at all is a popular culture trait, not an American value system. Values come from our ancestors, our ancestors didn't worry about killing women and children in Japan.

Civilians who are not in the fight, should be saved and America has saved them. But how do you save people who want to die and who think that you won't kill them so they try and get themselves killed by you?

Not quite, Neo, not quite the abomination as you see it. There is no conflict of honor. Women fight, they are soldiers, and they die. We already did it in Iraq. Our soldiers have shot women and children, armed and unarmed. Our soldiers have also shot women in Somalia when they picked up weapons. The question is, are you going to stop this once and for all, or are you going to allow it to continue? The more you behave as if you are wounded by these actions, the more of these actions the enemy will force you into. It's a jungle. If you show weakness in one leg, the predator will try to make you use that leg more and more until it breaks down.

By the way. Who are you going to blow up when the terroists detonate an IED in a crowd of children? Yes, if you see some leader, you can kill him. But what happens when you don't know who ordered the human shielding? Ziggy's idea is applicable to Israel, but not to us. To apply Ziggy's idea, you would have to blow up Tehran and Syria. But that isn't just one bomb and it'll go away.

Creative, Neo, is defined by me as taking the enemy's tactics and improving them. As such, you cannot be creative if you do not improve upon the enemy's tactics. Leaving aside the specifics of how to improve the enemy's tactics of death, as you've already heard some of my ideas on that subject, let's go to the other subject. How do you convince the terroists NOT to use human shields? How. You are the psychologist, you tell me how. You have the full power of the US nation at your disposal, tell me how you would creatively convince the terroists and their supporters not to use human shields or to blow up children.

I'm going with Grim's gambit. On the Virtues of killing Children. Which at its base, says you stop people from using a tactic by making that tactic unproductive. Ziggy hits upon this with his idea of making the terror masters pay. You have a similar line of thought with your assertion on creative tactics. There's two ways to me, that convinces the enemy. You either do it bottom up or top down. Bottom up means killing the human shields. Which I covered here. Link Top down, convincing the leaders, which is actually harder than convincing the followers. Because leaders of terroist orgainzations don't flinch. Fanaticism empowers them.

When you make your opponent understand that these shields aren't going to do anything to us, you break through the barrier and the limitation. You said on the podcast, that this is a win-win scenario to the terroists. While true in the sense that this is what the terroist propagandists want to achieve, it is not true in the sense that it is absolute and uniform. No plan survives contact with the enemy, why should the terroist human shield plans be exempt from this truism?

They put the barrier down and try to trap us. If we go one way, we get quashed or the other way and we get drowned. They want to trap us within this dilemma, so that we can't move around and our mobility is cut. When our mobility is cut, they loose the jackals to tear our flesh off.

But if you ignore the presence of human shields, and you ignore the media attention, and you KEEP doing it as the media pressure increases and increases, what you will be doing is breaking through your own limitations..

You've heard doctors say to soldiers that they won't recover from these wounds and so forth. And yet they did it. How? Will? God? Miracle? Doctors were being stupid?

As I see it. There are popular conceptions, the perceptions people have, which are not really limitations set by God or nature. These conceptions are limitations set by PEOPLE. It is the popular culture and conception that America will bow down to media pressure, that creates that very limitation. It is a barrier, and if you just break through this barrier over and over, then soon it will be as air to you.

The terroists can't use your weaknesses against you, if you no longer have those weaknesses. Yes, you can go "around" the human shields with technology, but that is simply a recognition that you are weak, that you NEED a crutch. You NEED technology because your heart is unable to do it without technology. It is true to terroists and it is true to me. Anyone that needs a weapon to be lethal, is no warrior.

Technology has not convinced terroists that terrorism is a bad idea. Technology also didn't convince the Nazis and Japanse militarists that their day and age was over.

The popular culture now a days say that it is wrong to prevent terroists from using human shields, it says that we are helpless and should do nothing except talk or walk around the wall. I say go through the wall. Sooner or later people will stop putting walls in front of you after you break them with no visible effort.

The only thing that is being compromised is the popular misconception that Americans never get our hands dirty and never should. The only way to uphold American values is to transcend popular culture and the perception of Americans in popular society as the bomb first nation that doesn't want to get our hands dirty.

Also, Ziggy's idea of bombing has a problem. Not philosophically or technically, but if you look back at Japan, we did not bomb the Imperial Palace for a reason. How do you decide whether this will actually work, because what if you can't find the right targets? And if you are willing to blow up the politicians as well as anyone in that building, then what is the moral difference between killing human shields and not killing them compared to this. Is it cleaner because human beings are not themselves at the scene pulling the trigger? I think not.

To your point about breaking us. It takes more than the deaths of WWII all together, to break America.

And of course, they'll just use human shields to protect the politicians. Babies, cameras on the babies. If you don't have the will, Neo. No bombs, no technology, and no gimmick will ever give you victory over an enemy. Because the enemy is seeking to overthrow your plans as well, the enemy wants to win. Only by proving that you want to win it MORE than the enemy, will he ever even consider the idea of giving up.

The enemy knows that internal angst you feel. This pull and draw between this on the one hand, and the other thing on the other hand. Whatever, it is irregardless of the topics. Any two topics can create a dichotomy. And while this is useful in a free society as for debate, it is not useful in war. Which is why the military isn't run by committe and votes, you know. The peace mentality is very different from the war mentality, Neo. That is why destroying human shields and making them useless to the enemy does not conflict with American values.

War in the end, isn't really about technology or morality or tactics or strategy. If it was, we wouldn't be in one. Because our tactics, strategy, logistics, technology, and morality are all superior to our enemies. It's about humans. A psychologist's paradise. It is all about humans. What humans want, what they are willing to kill or die for, what they believe in, and so forth.

There is only so much thinking you can do for a person, until you need to actually do something about that person. A person will not change his mind, after all, because you talked to them or you killed them or you won one battle out of one war. If it is hard for a person to change his mind in peacetime, how hard do you think it is to change the mind of an enemy in war? Especially this enemy. One who indoctrinates their children in jihad, to kill and die for a myth that isn't even real.

If something is hard, then I think it means more effort must be harnessed in order to apply force and pressure to that problem. If somebody just gave up cause their job was hard, how the heck would human civilization get off the stone age pattern?

It is hard for people who value human life to destroy human life. But if you don't get past this problem, on a human not technological level, then not only will the terroists kill more people, but they will force you to kill more people in defending yourself. Because it isn't just going to end with one human shield or two, Neo. They will actively, and they already have, STAGE atrocities in which they kill their OWN people in order to hurt YOU. This is the logical conclusion of not killing their human shields and children, not breaking the barrier when you had a chance. There is only a slim margin where you have the "choice" to kill or not to do so. The terroists are in the process of taking even this limited choice away from you. (nukes) I've heard on the podcast that the time is going to be up for the terroists. But time is running out for you guys as well, I believe.

The Marines hold fireside cheats, by real fires, to debrief their soldiers. Because that is how you combat PTSD, by talking it out with the people you fought along with. All the fear, rage, anger, frustration, and emotions when put into words, have a therapeutic effect. But only if soldiers talk with each other. It doesn't work with therapists or outsiders.

It is true that if soldiers are ordered to kill civilians or women and children, that this will damage their souls. But that is the price of duty, Neo. Some people give their lives for their country, others give their souls. It is why death is lighter than a feather, duty heavier than mountains. However, it is also true that soldiers will obey, because they are trained to obey, and it is also true that they will not suffer from combat shock as much as the Vietnam era generation. Because we have improved our medical and counseling process. Which the media does not report because the media is deaf and dumb.

I enjoyed the podcast, especially when ziggy said in a sedate and almost comatose tone that "he was ready to go". There is something quite funny about how you open up your podcast, Neo. I would say old school, except podcasting is anything but old school.

Comanche Warriors and Honor

2006-11-22T17:15:00.001-05:00

Was watching a very good history channel program on the Comanches. A tribe of native americans in Texas. Bred on war, on the fight, the spirit of freedom and openess, as well as the fierce determination to defend their territory. They were the uncontested champions of war, no other tribe could challenge their dominance. Not the Apaches to the west, nor the tribe to the North and East.

I won't bother describing the exact details the program showed, I will just list the facts and plot line, and then give my impressions.

You know how it started. Comanches saw mustang herds left over by Spanish conquistadors (amazingly enough) and used horse power to train themselves as expert hunters, raiders, warriors, herders, etc. They eventually met the white man settlers that were coming into Texas. And from that, history was made for better or worse.

The Comanches were a war like people. They prided themselves on their ability to fight, to be warriors, to protect and to provide. Protecting their "band", meant defeating anyone that challenged them on their land. So when the white boys came to Texas, they saw that as a challenge, and therefore they treated them as any other tribe of native Americans would be treated.

They raided some farmsteads and single family holds, and captured the family of one settler after killing the men via a fake parley for trade. One girl captured was named Cynthia, and the Comanches took these womenfolk and children captive because they knew how high a price the white man would pay for them. What does that remind you of, need I ask?

But irregardless, Texas was annexed by the US and settlers poured into it. One leader of one band, a band being composed of a comanche group lead by an independent chief with no allegiance to any other comanche group, sought peace deals with the US military commander in Texas.

They brought along one captive to trade in for favorable terms, hoping to use the additional captives for better deals by holding them back. The Colonel in charge demanded that all white captives be released. After talking to the girl that they brought with them, and after she had been released, they had heard from her and seen in her the brutality with which she was treated. She was a slave after all. Slaves were treated no better than horses, in fact worse than horses, because horses were respected. She was only a menial worker that knew not the language or the customs, did not know how to fight, and therefore was not a warrior. So the Indian women punished her when the girl would not obey commands. She is a captive, they gave her no reason to work hard. They burned off her nose, as punishment. The Comanche men treated her as an object to be raped for their pleasure. She was not a warrior, not a Comanche. Humans don't tend to treat foreigners as human unless they have a good reason. You've seen this in the Nazi and Arab treatment of Jews, but they could not have done what they did, if the basic trait wasn't in humanity to begin with. She didn't speak the language of the Comanches, she wasn't a man and therefore in a warrior bred society had second place, and she also was a captive and not part of the band, therefore having slave status below second place status. The Comanches thought it was just natural punishment for anyone that encroached upon their lands. The white men thought otherwise.

The military commander when he heard this, was quite incensed. He demanded that all captives be released and that the Comanches move away from central Texas. The tribal leader could not agree because he did not represent all Comanche Tribes. He also didn't want to agree to the release of all white captives, because he wanted a better deal. He did not know that the military officer was getting enraged to the point that if you did not give into his demands, he would escalate matters. And he did, the colonel demanded that they release the captives or they would be arrested. The Comanches saw this as an insult and said that they would fight before being captured. The interpreter gave the ultimatum or second clarficiation to the ultimatum and then ran for the door, because he saw what was going to happen .What was going to happen was that the US soldiers would start shooting at the comanches and the comanches would start hacking at the white men.

This is what is known as blood feud. And it began probably the first time the comanches attacked a settler. As it progressed through and past the American Civil War, people forgot who started it all, and they didn't really care. All the federal troops cared about was ending the war, making the comanches surrender, unconditionally preferably. All the comanches cared after the Ami Civ War was to live free and as warriors. Kind of hard to live free and as warriors when the Americans are killing the comanches left and right.

Yes, comanche leaders did try to make peace deals, and they also went to Washington DC. One of their prime intellectual leaders, the ones interested in the survival and welfare of their people, said that "these people have so much, what would it hurt them to give up some land". That was the wrong question, and the comanches (and the Americans as well) did not understand.

It was always about honor. Blood and honor. Do you understand this concept? To understand this concept is to understand why the blood feud between Americans and native Americans started. To understand this concept is to also understand why they continued to fight.

The tribal custom of native American scalpings, taking hostages for ransom, attacking settlers on farmsteads, raiding white settlements for captives and slaves. These things are not honorable by American standards, especially by American FRONTIERSman standards. Chivalry was alive and big back then. You wanted to fight, that's okay, but leave the women and children alone. The comanches not only violated this principle but they kept on doing it because they just didn't get it, and the language/cultural barrier prevented any further understanding. There weren't people like me back then that understood cultures. You think the native americans living on buffalo hide and hunting could understand what the white man frontiersman was like, or vice a versa? Those two groups were too busy surviving and trying to make a living, to committ any serious energy to intellectual studies. A benefit, I say, of civilization for me, but not for them.

It wasn't the comanches alone either. But every native american tribe from sea to shining sea. They were not civilized, and yet they were not Noble Savages either.

This is the stuff from which tragedies are made from. But history is irrevocable and almost inevitable. Meaning, even if disease had not weakened the comanches, the simple economic facts of life would have done them in. If not in this century, then the next or the next one after that. The settlers had huge immigrant populations to draw from, advanced technology which got more and more advanced as time went on. The comanches way of life was being steadily and quickly outpaced. Their buffalo herds were being decimated and annihilated by hunters and trappers using Sharpes .50 caliber rifles on Scottish bypod sticks.

I say tragedy, not in general, but in the specific. You know that girl Cynthia I mentioned above? Well, she was not repatriated. So when a US Texas Ranger company/battalion (Texas Rangers founded to protect against comanche warrior raids) found a comanche camp and annihilated it to the last man and child, they spared this blond woman. She had been held captive for 25 years, starting from childhood. She was Cynthia Parker, of the Parker clan.

She had a son, named Qana, as well as a comanche husband. The US Rangers took her and returned her to the Parker clan. But of course, Cynthia had made a life for herself amongst the Comanche. They were all that she had probably remembered and known. Her friends, people she saw as her family. To be thrust back into the alien hold of a vaguely remembered society, from which she felt separate and strange. No wonder she starved herself to death.

And her son? He lived. Qana renamed himself Qana Parker, and came to lead all of the Comanche bands and warriors. The son of a native american and a white female captive, leading the comanche against federal troops from the white nation. I don't think Qana ever forgave the white man for destroying his home and family.

Fate is strange and fickle. Stranger still is that these native american warriors, who prided themselves on their ability to fight and hunt and be warriors without peer, had to surrender or be annihilated in the end. And Qana Parker did surrender, after US cavalry leader found his camp, destroyed his food supplies and shot his horse herds. Qana fought a long war, a guerrila war, like his fellow comanches. Focusing on night raids, stealth, the silent and quick kill. They were only beaten by the same tactics. Remember this. The white man did not beat the comanches through superior firepower, but through the tactics of the comanches themselves, by having Apache scouts and other native american scouts who knew the lay of the land. Remember this, for it is important. To forget, is to suffer the pain of defeat.

I say fate is strange, because the commanches even though they surrendered the life of the warrior to life in a enclosed reservation and farm for a living (they would rather die than farm but even still, their leaders decided that living and farming was better. Remind you of the Japanese perhaps? Death before surrendering, then surrendering?), continued to fight on. A commanche company was at Utah beach on D-Day. They are in the American military forces, i.e. Iraq and Gulf War 1.

The warrior blood of the comanches were not exterminated, but incorporated within the greater United States union. And this is why America is strong, not because of a bunch of white men with bombs and superior guns destroying all opposition. Because nature decided that only the strong shall survive and be deserving of leadership. We may only obey nature's dictates, although we may fight to our last breath against it. The weak perish and the strong survive. Not all the time, but all the time for your people. And it is also why we are in Iraq. How do we exterminate terrorism? We learn from the terroists, and we get terroists to kill terroists. Or rather, Arabs allied with the US, to kill Arabs allied with our enemies.

When facing a dishonorable enemy, to defeat him, you must learn from him. To be inflexible, is to be dead in war.

We name our helicopters the Comanche, the Apache. Why? Because humanity is stronger as a team than as disparate individuals fighting over the crumbs of life. It took generations of warfare for the native americans to realize this. When we think of guerrila warfare, we tend to think that the US isn't good in, that we can't beat it, that it is superior. It is not superior. Not if you know of history in the macroscopic scale.

The Comanches and the Apaches, if they truly understood their enemies, would have realized this. The way of buffalo hunting and what not, was over. Times were changing, globalization, agriculture, technology. Either you flow with the times, or you shall be destroyed by the stream of progress. The Arabs are fighting this as well, you know. Progress.

The solution for the native americans was simple, if not easy to see or contemplate. Accept integration into American society, with the reservations. However, hold onto your warrior culture and freedom by joining the US military and fighting as a coherent force in America's wars. They had a chance in the Ami Civil War. To fight and bleed with the Union or the Confederacy. Americans respect honorable opponents, like Lee or Grant. In the long term, honorable opponents make for an honorable peace (Japan). They had to make themselves an asset to America. If they were ever going to get what they wanted, land or freedom or whatever, they had to have ALLIES in America, Texas, and various other places. They could talk all they want, but without American allies to smooth the way for them politically and culturally, they were not going to get anywhere in peace. The Arabs have learned this well, which is why they manipulate American divisions very adeptly. From CAIR to ACLU, the Arabs have many American allies in America. Something the native americans never realized in large numbers.

Even after countless atrocities by the comanche, the US still accepted their surrender. They appointed Qana Parker as the chief of all comanche bands. And it was him, that lead the comanches from a nomadic hunter life to a farming life on reservations.

Understand this. You may think you have one up on America. You may think you have the upper hand, with the many hostages you have taken and the many scalps you have carved from American heads. But understand this as you die, ever pathetic fools. American power is legion, because we are the compressed strength and history of many many peoples and cultures. Our nature is manifold, our strength therefore is diverse and unquantifiable. Our core pillars yet untapped. We have defeated the mightiest warriors and soldiers on this earth, and integrated their skills, their souls, their honor and valor, into our own. From Sun Tzu to the Prussian general Von Clausewitz. You will have to bring harsher methods than beheading to destroy us.

We do not exterminate our enemies or even our percieved enemies as Germany and the Arabs did and do with Jews. We integrate them into our fold, and make ourselves stronger for it. Resistance is futile, because only Honor and Blood matters in the End. For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, be he ne'er so vile.

Some more thoughts on the Draft

2006-11-20T20:58:00.000-05:00

The Founding Fathers disliked a large standing army. That is what a draft is, people. That is what Rangel wants. A large standing army that isn't required to fight in America's defense. Does anyone really think that Rangel and Co are demanding the draft so we can ship 5 million Americans to fight North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria?

Give me a break. The politicians will never declare Total War unless we make them, or our enemies kill enough of them anyways.

If you have a large standing army and NO WARS for it to fight in, what do you think will happen when the Left subverts the military? If you want to trust the corrupt, power hungry, and totalitarian bent of the Left with a bigger army, then by all means, go ahead, but don't blame me when they take you away for sensitivity re-education.

I'm thinking in the hundred year span, the 500 year span, not this piddly little "next 30 years" Long War thing. That aint' long, people.

Would I support a full draft if we were at Total War? yes. But we're not at Total War. Until we are, no draft, no way.

***

#

I’m for military draft of illegal and legal immigrants as a way to short cut the citizen process and is also a sure fire way to teach English as well as skill sets needed for higher income jobs. In addition to America benefiting instead of just you know, social welfare sucking off the government teat. Anyways.

People like Rangel don’t see the military as a way to better one self, which is why if you did have a draft, you would see people like Rangel in the politicial circles try to undermine and destroy the military when it tries to do good works. like JROTC in San Fran, like Annapolis with the women discipline problems. You think the Left is causing problems, wait until they get more power via government drafts and can decide who to ax and who to ship out.

If you read CDR Salamander, you already know the problems that can result from a volunteer force yet in peace time. The peace rot known to all those who seek to be prepared for war, is a very real and unavoidable thing.

The draft works in this brutal way. All those 4 year term guys who want to get out, they get shipped to some battlefield with no logistics, no training, and no competent leadership to do the dieing until some competent leadership and skills develop. It’s how they did it in WWII as well as the 2nd Punic Wars with citizen soldiers. Citizen soldiers by definition, do not spend 10 to 30 years perfecting the art of warfare and mayhem.

Citizen soldiers are no match for a professional force. Which is why they need combat experience, but the only way to get combat experience is to throw them into the breach and let them die until someone smart takes over due to the casualties.

Rangel thinks that with a draft, nobody will be sending the military anywhere because Rangel thinks the military is just there as a boondockle like social welfare. It has no “purpose” there, there you know, to Rangel.

However, it was this kind of peace rot thinking that got the WWII guys and the WWII dough boys creamed. Compare now with those times. Those times we had to have good leadership because the government thought that there would be no need for an army. So the soldiers weren’t prepared, it was the generals like Patton and Pershing that got things up and running so that the troops stood a chance.

WIth today’s increasingly political and media savy enemy, along with 24 hour micromanagement from top to bottom on the battlefield, the ability of a general to free form think is now severely curtailed. So you cannot depend upon the generals to win your wars for you anymore. Good example would be OIF 1. If you just do whatever the generals want you to do, you are going to get this country into trouble. Politicians must set political goals, they cannot just tell people that whatever they come up with is what they will go with. Where’s the goals, the generals don’t decide political policy, what is the Goal? Martial law in Iraq after OIF? What. Nevermind, different subject.

So, with advanced technology and media, we have to depend upon the individual soldiers instead of the generals and politicians now. (as if depending upon politicians ever got you anything in the first place) And to get the most bang for our buck, we need professional soldiers, who know how to use technology, who can interface with Iraqis and avoid atrocities and do the legal mumbo jumbo as the ACLU guns for them without the protection of either the President or the Generals.

I don’t trust the government bureacracy. They aren’t looking out for individuals. Bureacrats look out for the status quo, who they can kiss up to for favors and career options, and so forth. Putting the lives of Americans at home at the heels of those who aren’t interested in patriotism or duty, is a bad idea. And this won’t change if you are in the military or not. The military has the same bureacracy, the only difference is, the people IN the bureacracy are volunteers who volunteered for their own reasons. As thus, their reasons for being there allows them more competence and less corruption than DC. The health of a system is determined by the people that run that system. If you got good people running a bad system, good things will happen, i.e. Marine Corps in Fallujah or some other hell hole on this planet.

Uncle Jimbo at blackfive advocated that we should have a military draft, a peacecorps draft, and a Americorps draft. Interesting, but not exactly bullet proof as a plan.

Look. I’m a believer in desperate situations call for desperate actions. Iraq right now is desperate, therefore I can justify doing a lot of things there, that you wouldn’t normally do elsewhere. But here in America. Where are the suicide bombers? Where is the DESPERATION that is needed before we can convince people to fight? I don’t see it, I don’t see the need.

Comment by Ymarsakar | November 20, 2006
#

I’m a big believer in military necessity. I don’t believe in doing anything until I see a Need to do it. Getting a draft cause people “wish” to see more patriotism and will in America and “wish” to get a bigger army is ridiculous on its face. You don’t face a brutal and ruthless enemy in the first war of the 21st century with WISHES, you know.

Comment by Ymarsakar | November 20, 2006

The Mirror Dance

2006-11-20T15:07:00.000-05:00

The government stinks—that’s the overwhelming impression that is undermining the public's support for the government and its institutions.
People are tired of criticizing and there's frustration about the government's ability to take serious measures to contain the conflict or improve performance.

Frankly speaking, the ordinary citizen lost faith in his government—worse than that would be the prospect of living with it for another four years and that sounds like a very bad idea if incompetence remains at the current level, or gets worse.

If that sounds like an American, then you are half-right. Click on the title-link to discovery the truth.

Israel is kind of dumb

2006-11-20T03:20:00.000-05:00

Israel warned the Palis that they were going to get bombed, and instead of running away, they the Palis crowded around to human shield the Hamas guys. Then Israel pulled the plug on the strike and said they had to review. What's there to review, kill the human shields. If you want them to stop using these tactics, you MUST not allow these tactics to bear fruit for the enemy.

Grim basically handled the same topic. Once again, proving to the world, that Americans have both the honesty and intellectual fortitude to do everything from decadent peace to total war better than anyone else on this Earth. And it proves that political leaders, of whatever stripe, are spineless cowards interested in not victory, but face and appearance.

This isn't controversial to me, this is obvious.

You want to get stuck in the situation Israel is in? Then by all means, act like a retarded sissy towards your enemies. Apologize when their human shields are killed. Avoid killing their human shields. Encourage more human shielding by rewarding their immoral tactics. Encourage more hostage taking by freeing thousands of palestinians for one or two Israelis. Go ahead, be like Israel, but understand this. Israel's philosophy is backed up by two pillars. The United States logistics support and the Israeli military. Without those two pillars, Israeli political elitism would die a very sudden and painful death.

This is also what happens when you elect the Left, to your platform. Don't expect, well, anything really effective.

White Guilt

2006-11-19T09:23:00.000-05:00

White guilt morally and culturally disarms the West. It makes the First World apologetic. And this, of course, only inflames the narcissism of the ineffectual. In the vacuum of power created by guilt, a world-wide class of guilt hustlers has emerged. America and the West must cease this three-decade-long indulgence in guilt, moral equivalency, and apologia. None of this redeems the West or uplifts the Third World.

In the place of this there should be only a profound commitment to fairness. Here, something like fanaticism is not out of place. After this, America and the West should unapologetically pursue their self-interest, let others take the lead in their own development, and allow the greatness of Western civilization to speak for itself.

Russian counter-insurgency

2006-11-18T08:56:00.000-05:00

I found an interesting document from the rand think tank concerning Russia. Interesting strategic reading on counter-insurgency warfare by nations other than the US.

The lack of an urban training focus was not a mistake. Rather, it reflected
another conclusion military leaders had drawn from the first
war in Chechnya. The blood their troops had shed in Grozny convinced
Russian planners that the best approach to urban combat was
to avoid it altogether. Soldiers and officers should prepare to prevent
an urban fight, not to win it. Therefore, training for urban combat
was deemed a waste of time and money.

The Russians did it that way. American Marines did it the other way. Which do you think came out the better for it?

CHECHNYA BETWEEN THE TWO BATTLES FOR GROZNY:
FOREIGN INVOLVEMENT AND TACTICS
According to Russian sources, the Chechen resistance was no less
prepared in 1999 than it had been in 1994. According to one Russian
report, Chechen leaders established a network of training centers
employing some 100 foreign instructors as well as experienced
Chechen fighters. One such camp was run by Khattab, an Islamic
revolutionary originally from Saudi Arabia or Jordan (sources differ)
who had emerged as a key Chechen commander in the first war.

Well, learning from the Russians isn't just about copying their techniques or avoiding their failures. It is more like, understanding why the Russians failed and therefore understanding how we can succede.

The Russian press reported that Usama Bin Laden supported the
Chechen rebels by sending mercenaries from Afghanistan, Yemen,
and elsewhere to fight in Chechnya.18 Pakistani groups, including
Hizb-ul’-Mujeheddin and Kharakat-ul’-Mujeheddin, Al’ Badr,
Lashkar-e-Taiba, and Sepakhe Sakhaba Pakistan, the International
Islamic Front, and Usama Bin Laden’s Al’ Qaida also reportedly
trained and provided soldiers.19 According to press reports, the
Taliban in Afghanistan also sent men to fight alongside theC hechens. It is even possible that Iraq sent specialists to help
prepare defenses and build fortifications in Karabahi-Chabanmahi
(in the Buynaksk region of Dagestan).21

Isn't that interesting.

tance.24 At the time, a number of Russian and Western specialists
suggested that this approach, particularly the aerial attacks, emulated
NATO air operations over Serbia and Kosovo during Operation
Allied Force in 1999.25 Although several Russian military officers
made this argument, it is an unlikely explanation for Russian tactics.
True, the two actions shared a belief that air operations could coerce
enemy submission and limit the need for ground action. However,
this belief was not original to either NATO or the 1990s.26 In fact,
Russian artillery bombardments of Grozny looked far more like the
use of artillery in Russia’s World War II campaigns than like a NATO
air war. It is therefore more plausible that the Russians were not
modeling their operations on NATO’s, but rather employing an
approach from their own history.27

I don't have the time to read it all, but you might.

Angels in the Night

2006-11-18T08:34:00.000-05:00

What can I say, it is beautiful.

Major Eric Egland

2006-11-17T22:36:00.000-05:00

I was asked by Major Eric Egland to pass this excellent hope for victory, out amongst those I know. You may or may not have read it already on blackfive.com

But if you have not, then read it, because it gives hope for victory.

The response to this project has been overwhelming. Grass-roots American wisdom is amazing.
Also, here is the article link again: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/930jbmte.asp
Here is another thing you can do. Please forward the to other innovators and to your congressman and senators to encourage them to read and heed, and encourage those in your personal network to do the same.
Also, please contact your favorite radio and television programs and encourage them to cover this grass-roots phenomenon.
There is a window right now where we might actually get this heard, so we have to take viral, grass-roots action.
Thank you!
God Bless,
Eric
Maj. Eric Egland (Reserve)
530 205 5582

Hamiltonian Economic Freedom

2006-11-17T14:59:00.000-05:00

But they neglected to mention his most meaning work – the turning of the tide away from a failed Keynsian economic model, and his proving quite plainly that a military draft was completely unnecessary.

As the United States went, so did much of the western world after the proof presented itself.

In every way, his life work was the advancement of human freedom. He noted that there indeed IS a strong relationship between capitalism and freedom, saying quite plainly that
If this seems facile to some, remember that in the world of academia, one still has to struggle with explaining the most basic things from square one to advocate ideas. Quite plainly that means having to incessantly fun a gauntlet of basic questions peppering every moment’s work shot out by advocates of obviously failed economic ideas such as advocates of Keynes, miscellaneous Marxists, and those generally distrustful of people doing what they want with their own lives.

Keynes believed that government intervention could avert depressions. Friedman, quite rightly, was a sceptic. One can easily see countless examples of government intervention not only not being able to avert or end depressions though intervention, but that intervention can cause them as we see with protectionism, and extend them, such as was the case with the Great Depression of the 1930’s in the United States.

He noted quite frequently that the relationship between freedom and capitalism was proving itself out on a steady course for the better for all of humanity. Over the course of the past 50 years, the number of people living under command political systems and command economies was dwindling as free economy spread. Regardless of the occasional aberration where a free economy was allowed to function in an environment where political freedom was limited, (such as was the case of Yugoslavia under Communism, and today with the likes of Burma, China, and shortly with Libya, Syria, and countless others) that an evolution toward political freedom took place, almost always without bloodshed.

Plenty more there to read, you know. And a great background info for those who have heard of the people talking about Keynsian economics and taxes, and just didn't care enough to do the research to find out how full of the crap the pro-taxation guys really are.

Moral Purity

2006-11-16T21:37:00.000-05:00

Rich has something else up. I recommend Synova's comment at BF, here.

Comment below written by: Synova
America is the source of all bad stuff. If we didn't teach "ignorant foreign kids to kill, maim, murder" they would never figure out how.

/sarcasm

I honestly don't know what it is... and *great* comment, Rich... I don't know if it happened when we rejected the concept of Original Sin and started teaching that children were good and pure unless taught to be otherwise, and then started treating (or continued?) to treat other nations and peoples like children?

Or maybe it's multi-culturalism and it's roots which absolutely demand that we *never* criticise another culture, particularly one that we can view as primative or less developed? (An interesting paradox, to simutaneously qualify a culture as those things while refusing to "judge" that culture in any way.)

I mean seriously... was it STAR TREK? This generation growing up believing that the "Prime Directive" is anything other than immorality codified? Or maybe it was all the things in our culture that made the Prime Directive seem obvious, and fine, and good? The Prime Directive demanded no judgement, no valuing, no intervention... and we watched that and we thought it was *good*. It was *good* not to save people. It was *good* not to try, for fear of unintended consequences.

Posted by: Synova | Nov 16, 2006 12:30:57 PM

Perma link in the date stamp.

The entire Star Trek Prime Directive thing, is telling. Because I also wrote about this same subject, except I called it Moral Purity of the Left. That Puritan belief that keeping your hands clean must take precedence over actual pragmatic concerns and hard work.

However, this post reflects a thought I have been chewing on for some time: have we, as I suggest above, swept things under the rug that we should be keeping in mind as we act today? Have we become too warm and fuzzy in our assurance that we have already "progressed" beyond such barbarism, and therefore believe we have no need to dirty our hands with further consideration of it?

Other people seem to be concerned about the same subject as well.

What are my views on this? I wrote about this awhile ago, so you can get the goods here.

Anon is not so anon anymore

2006-11-16T20:51:00.000-05:00

Some troll from Bookworm's roomt or most probably, spank and neoconned from Neo-Neocon decided to pay me a Public Service visit.

You can find his comments littered around here and there. But as I said to Tim, here is the goods on Anon.

Domain Name

(Unknown)

IP Address

128.164.32.# (The George Washington University)

ISP

The George Washington University

Location

Continent	:	North America
Country	:	United States (Facts)
State	:	District of Columbia
City	:	Washington
Lat/Long	:	38.9376, -77.0928 (Map)

Language

English (United States)
en-us

Operating System

Microsoft WinXP

Browser

Firefox
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.0.3) Gecko/20060426 Firefox/1.5.0.3

Javascript

version 1.5

Monitor

Resolution	:	1024 x 768
Color Depth	:	32 bits

Time of Visit

Nov 15 2006 9:40:14 am

Last Page View

Nov 15 2006 9:40:41 am

Visit Length

27 seconds

Page Views

Referring URL

Visit Entry Page

http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/

Visit Exit Page

http://ymarsakar.blogspot.com/

Out Click

Time Zone

UTC-5:00

Visitor's Time

Nov 15 2006 9:40:14 am

Visit Number

4,712

That is not probably as embarassing as this. A log of his activities for November the 16 on this blog.

128.164.32.#

5:41:43 pm

0:00

128.164.32.#

2:53:13 pm

0:00

128.164.32.#

11:02:19 am

0:00

128.164.32.#

9:13:40 am

0:00

What do you got, Anon, a bot checking my blog to see if your comment appeared for you to jack off to it yet? Spanks' Washington DC Defense desk job must be getting boring or something.

Reasons Why You Are an Ignorant Fuck, Part 278 in a Continuing Series:

True, I don't have 200+ reasons why Anon is an ignorant pocker, but I do have say, 10 reasons why he is a troll and an idiot.

Zabrina on the Future of Iraq and US policy

2006-11-16T20:28:00.000-05:00

I posted this comment there, which I will copy over here for my own reasons.

Who do you think is right? Do you think an American withdrawal will be a victory for Islam, or do you think an American withdrawal will not only conserve our reserves, preserve or halt the degradation in the quality of our armed forces just in time, and help to divide and demoralize the camp of Islam and Jihad?

It is too late to withdraw, you have to get it stuck in, cause they have already stuck it in us. You will never get any allies by behaving dishonorably and throwing all the Iraqis who supported the US, down the drain with the rest of their countryfolk. We will not deserve it.

I admit there is something persuasive (perhaps the comfort of wishful thinking) about this realpolitik argument, even though I doubt any such Demonstration Project will ever get through the thick skulls of many infidels, who have managed to ignore many previous global demonstration projects.

Demonstrate what? The Islamic Jihad will demonstrate that they ENJOY killing millions if not billions of their people. You think DEATH causes them any worry? ha.

I fear the ramifications for the future if we reneg yet again on our pledges to help the Iraqi people attain self-determination

I do not advocate the path of Honor because I fear the consequences, I advocate the path of Honor because it is honorable.

But if indeed we are in a war, how many American lives do we owe Iraq in general and our friends there specifically before the equation turns unfruitful for our own country? This is the crux of the problem, and perhaps unknowable.

As I see it, war isn't an equation. War is a quantum effect. You know of what I speak? Schrodinger's Cat. The observed reality, is what you made it to be by observing it, by committing an action that collapsed the wavefronts of possibility. Even if current mathematics do describe quantum wave front properties, few on blogs will know enough of it to discuss it in detail. I sure don't.

Is this a valid or a mistaken belief?

Valid more or less.

But is our war in Iraq to help make possible a free society going to succeed, and is it really draining a swamp or not?

It can be anything you want it to be. All of the above or none of the above.

(too bad we couldn't have had it earlier)

You get to go to war with the Democrat Party that you have, not the Democrat Party that you would wish for ; )

Are we doing it right? Are we doing it as intelligently as possible, as wholeheartedly as possible? Are we doing it for reasons that are true?

Some may say yes, some may say no. They are just opinions, chaff to the wind. What really matters is what will actually happen.

And Ralph Peters at U.S.A. Today writes a very defeatist editorial saying we have already lost in Iraq and says, as Fitzgerald advocates, that we should pull out.

CDR Salamander really pulled Peters' plug when he blogged about that one.

I, too, would like to see an Iraqi referendum on whether they want American troops in their country to stay or go. I think most Amercans would like to know the results of that election.

I support it as well.

Rich Casebolt

2006-11-14T13:40:00.000-05:00

Comment over at blackfive that I thought was worth saving here.

Comment below written by: Rich Casebolt

Skyview ...

I honestly think you can peg the Republican loss to one statement alone: Cheney's assertion that a vote for the Democrats sends the message to the terrorists that America doesn't have the stomach for the fight. It's an overt and explicit insult to any American giving thoughtful consideration to who to vote for.

In the light of what the Democratic leaders have been saying since 2003 ... and the statements of several terrorist/totalitarian leaders ... Cheney's statement is also awfully close to the truth.

I don't think, however, that he insulted that many people. I think that the questions you list:

Voters swung blue this cycle because they were not reassured about some elemental questions regarding the war: Weren't we supposed to have won by now? How long is this going to last? What is it going to take to win?

were more of a factor, along with ... why Iraq?

These questions also make a statement ... regarding our judgment as citizens.

We seem to think that the justifcation for war must be based upon specific evidence of specific acts (documented in a manner reminiscent of CSI) ... and that our response must be limited to resolving those specific acts ... else we risk waging an unjustified war.

The rational justification for this war, however, is far, far simpler than that ... even simpler than WMD ... but the American people are uncomfortable with accepting that justification -- for "we the people" have also been conditioned over the last 50 years or so to make the prevention of American mistakes our highest priority ...

... even over the prevention of enemy intent.

OTOH, the specifics-based justification above is what was the driving force behind Desert Storm ... and the limits associated with those specifics is what left Saddam in power afterwards.

Desert Storm ... which can now be shown to have ended prematurely, due to media and diplomatic pressure against our government ... also reinforced the conventional wisdom that only wars that can be quickly and "neatly" won are worth fighting.

That leaves the American people looking for two choices ... win quickly ... or just leave; after all, it probably wasn't that big of a threat to us, anyway.

However, what if the right choice ... is another choice altogether?

What if we can't win quickly ... or we can, but it means the deaths of millions in all-out, indiscriminate, nation-on-nation warfare ...

... yet the threat, while limited in its reach today, can leverage technology and freedom-of-movement to expand its reach to the point it severely disrupts civilization itself -- with the plausible potential of growing into an existential threat against our civilization?

Do we have the wisdom to discern the course that resolves what I have described in the last two paragraphs ... without unleashing a full-blown World War?

WWII-style sacrifice is not what is needed now; in fact, it would be counterproductive to the war effort.

The answer lies in the application of two items:

One, precision-guided ruthlessness ... where the difference between actions that lead us to watch your back, and actions that lead us to end your life, is very narrow and sharp. The Administration has not made this difference sharp enough ... to its discredit.

Two ... RESOLVE.

We need to quit asking "how long" ... accept the truth about the "how" ... and accurately discern the "why", by spending less time in self-flagellation and more time examining the need to flog this clearly-evident enemy.

Or, we will lose, not just this war, but some ... perhaps, a lot ... of our ability to live free and pursue happiness.

How "American" is that?

Tim Larkin Self-Defense

2006-11-14T00:37:00.001-05:00

A copy of a newsletter, which I think is important because it segues into the Terror War topic. The overall theme was covered by Blackfive, specifically, Grim at BF. Read this message, however, first.

"What Is The Ultimate Motivation In A Life-Or-Death Fight?"

******************************************************

"We must be eager to kill, to inflict on the enemy --
the hated enemy -- wounds, death, and destruction. If
we die killing, well and good, but if we fight hard
enough, viciously enough, we will kill and live. Live
to return home to our family and our girl as
conquering heroes -- men of Mars"

-- General George Patton

******************************************************

By this time you probably detect a theme in my
newsletters about the focus you need when faced by a
real life-or-death confrontation.

It's simply this: when faced with a life-or-death
violent confrontation where using violence is your
only option:

1. Don't hesitate.
2. Find your target and strike your target.
3. Keep striking targets until you have destroyed
the other guy.

Many clients come to me from other 'self-defense'
training where they are forced to deal with simulated
attacks. I'll pass on the quality of that training
approach and instead focus on the 'motivation' these
systems use to keep the client from freezing under
attack.

These 'motivators' revolve around fighting for your
life, fighting to go home to loved ones, fighting to
protect loved ones, or some variation of those themes.

But if you take a good look at those reasons they all
fall short for one critical reason: They are NOT what
truly gets the job done to focus yourself like a laser
in order to destroy the other guy. At best, they are
byproducts of the "ultimate motivation".

So what IS the ultimate motivation in a life-and-
death struggle?

-----------------------------------------------

AN ABSOLUTE FOCUS ON INFLICTIING AS MUCH DAMAGE
AS POSSIBLE TO THE OTHER GUY!

-----------------------------------------------

Pretty simple.

What allows you to go home to your loved ones, to
protect them or yourself during a violent attack is --
hurting the other guy.

Imagine this scenario: A mugger puts a knife to your
throat.

Now, two totally different responses...

The person motivated to 'protect' himself/herself
grabs the wrist and tries to wrest control of the
knife.

The person motivated to hurt his/her other guy shifts
their torso, penetrates forward and delivers a closed
fist punch to the other guy's Adam's apple.

Two totally different responses, with totally
different results...

The former runs the risk of losing control of the
knife and getting seriously injured or killed.

The latter, by focusing on hurting the other guy,
neutralizes the knife by punching the Adam's apple and
starts to shut down the other guy's Central Nervous
System.

The byproduct of the latter action is he/she gets to
go home, protect the vulnerable loved one with them,
or whatever other motivation they thought was the
reason they hurt the other guy in the first place.

The General Patton quote is pretty rough, but the
context was motivating his troops for war... literally
the same as what you're facing in a true life-or-
death struggle. He wanted each and every one of them
to come home, and he knew the best chance they had was
if they focused on inflicting as much damage as
possible to their enemy.

You'll notice... he didn't urge them to think of
their loved ones as a motivation to fight.

He told them that if they fought to inflict as much
damage as possible on the enemy, they'd return home to
them.

Take a second to re-read that quote. I think you'll
probably see it in a much different content.

Until next time,

Tim Larkin
Creator of Target-Focus(TM) Training
www.targetfocustraining.com

Now, we get to Grim's piece concerning the terror war, and you will see commonalities and similarities concerning how to win a fight, whether war or something else. Grim talks about the virtues of killing children, so you might want to take a look if you missed out on the action.

A few other posts concerning strategy can be found here, for background reading.

Here's a neat link on Arab culture explained. One of those gems you find by accident mostly.

If you know me and my positions, you already know what conclusion I have drawn. So I won't bother re-iterating unnecessary things. Well, not now, at least.

Rage against the Light for the Media is the darkness

2006-11-13T09:21:00.000-05:00

Hattip to LGF.

Hattip to Junkyard Blogs

Two very good posts about the media phenomenon on the Left, were very informative and entertaining, so I'll post them here. If only for reference sakes.

Patterico has up an example of how the media uses psychological warfare and propaganda against the American people.

On Friday, the L.A. Times had an article about the video titled Video, arrest report at odds. The deck headline reads: “An LAPD officer says he punched William Cardenas twice. A tape that aired on YouTube shows at least six blows.” The article begins:

The LAPD officers under investigation for allegedly using excessive force while arresting a suspect in Hollywood this summer appeared to have downplayed in their arrest report how many times they hit the man.

The report, obtained by The Times on Friday, says that Officer Patrick Farrell punched William Cardenas twice because he resisted arrest. The video of the Aug. 11 arrest shows Farrell striking him at least six times in the face.

First of all, no, it doesn’t. It shows Farrell striking him five times in the face.

I have watched it literally dozens of times now, and to me, it looks like the officer punches the suspect only five times.

The first time you try to count, it looks like six. There is an initial group of punches where the officer’s fist comes down four times. With two subsequent single punches, that appears to make six.

But look at that first group of “four” punches again. Yes, the officer’s arm comes down four times in rapid succession. But pay close attention to the officer’s right hand when his fist comes down for the fourth time. The hand doesn’t hit the suspect’s face; rather, it grabs the suspect’s wrist.

From my repeated viewings of the video, it appears that there are only three punches in the initial set — which, added to the two that come later, make a total of five.

So I can’t agree with the L.A. Times that it’s a hugely damning detail that the officer who wrote the report — who is, by the way, not the same officer who administered the blows — got the number of punches wrong. After all, the folks at the L.A. Times also got the number of punches wrong, and they had the benefit of having the video available to watch as many times as they liked. To reinforce the point, let’s go to the first question I asked above. Did you all answer “five”? Any of you who didn’t — you’re all liars. After all, it’s on video.

This video from hot air also puts the talking points of the Left and our enemies into context, although I repeat myself.

There is also this bit from protein wisdom concerning oversight over the Old, Old Gray Lady. Must read for those New York Times aficionados. Did I spell that right? I think I did. (Just checked, and yes it is right, so intuitive spelling wins again for me. Did the same thing with the word "preclusion" over at neo. Spell it first then check!)

Cindy Sheehan 1000 years

2006-11-13T09:00:00.000-05:00

Some things are not of this world.

Cindy said [she] not only wants to see George Bush impeached but she wants to see him tried for Crimes Against Humanity. She states is so determined to see this done she says she will live for 1000 years. She went further by saying that even if she were involved in a fiery plane crash she would walk out alive just to see this done.

Kristinn yelled out to her as she was leaving the stage that the Iraqis have a memorial to the victims of terrorism saying “Freedom Isn’t Free.” Cindy got back on the stage to say of course freedom is free, if it wasn’t it would be called expensivedom.

Psychopaths

2006-11-12T23:16:00.000-05:00

Saw this from Sally at Neo's site.
Something that actually made sense concerning Columbine, and it only took about a few minutes to read.

It begins to explain Harris' unbelievably callous behavior: his ability to shoot his classmates, then stop to taunt them while they writhed in pain, then finish them off. Because psychopaths are guided by such a different thought process than non-psychopathic humans, we tend to find their behavior inexplicable. But they're actually much easier to predict than the rest of us once you understand them. Psychopaths follow much stricter behavior patterns than the rest of us because they are unfettered by conscience, living solely for their own aggrandizement. (The difference is so striking that Fuselier trains hostage negotiators to identify psychopaths during a standoff, and immediately reverse tactics if they think they're facing one. It's like flipping a switch between two alternate brain-mechanisms.)

None of his victims means anything to the psychopath. He recognizes other people only as means to obtain what he desires. Not only does he feel no guilt for destroying their lives, he doesn't grasp what they feel. The truly hard-core psychopath doesn't quite comprehend emotions like love or hate or fear, because he has never experienced them directly.

"Because of their inability to appreciate the feelings of others, some psychopaths are capable of behavior that normal people find not only horrific but baffling," Hare writes. "For example, they can torture and mutilate their victims with about the same sense of concern that we feel when we carve a turkey for Thanksgiving dinner."

The diagnosis transformed their understanding of the partnership. Despite earlier reports about Harris and Klebold being equal partners, the psychiatrists now believe firmly that Harris was the mastermind and driving force. The partnership did enable Harris to stray from typical psychopathic behavior in one way. He restrained himself. Usually psychopathic killers crave the stimulation of violence. That is why they are often serial killers—murdering regularly to feed their addiction. But Harris managed to stay (mostly) out of trouble for the year that he and Klebold planned the attack. Ochberg theorizes that the two killers complemented each other. Cool, calculating Harris calmed down Klebold when he got hot-tempered. At the same time, Klebold's fits of rage served as the stimulation Harris needed.

The Strategy for Iraq and Japan

2006-11-12T15:15:00.000-05:00

Cross posting some comments from Neo's comment page. Not because I have a big head full of pride, but because I wish to preserve my thoughts for the future. Saves time for me when thinking about the future of Iraq and the strategy for victory.

Y: The problem is the same with Imperial Japan. How do you convince a bunch of freaking fanatics, that dieing for their belief system is not the way to go.

First point, the Japanese weren't killing and dying for a belief system. They saw themselves as dying for their nation, and for their emporer. The willingness to die for ideology and the willingness to die for one's nation are two different things, and they provide two different means of defeat.

Iran, Syria, Al Sadr, Sunni Baathists, Al Qaeda. ... When they decide what to do or whom to kill, they calculate their own chances of survival into it, if not personal survival, then the survival of their ideology. So even though individual Japanese really didn't care to surrender, the Japanese nation WOULD surrender. Because they weren't fighting so they could die, they were fighting so that Japan could survive ...

Actually, AFTER the atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, about half the decision makers in Japan tried to force the nation to fight to extinction. That was very much within their ideology. They lost the argument, Japan surrendered, and most of that half committed suicide.

The key difference between the insurgents in Iraq and the WWII Japanese is that the Japanese fought for the state, and the emporer as the embodiment of the state. When the state itself, in the form of the emporer, surrendered, the Japanese accepted defeat and (upon orders from the emporer) wholeheartedly assisted the Allied occupiers. On the other hand, the insurgents are invested in a transnational ideology. There is no one who can surrender for them, no one who holds that kind of sway over the insurgents. Therefore, defeating them will take a different strategy than defeating the WWII Japanese and will more likely resemble the British fight with the IRA.
a guy in pajamas | Homepage | 11.12.06 - 1:13 am | #

Ymar, I can see another ME beneficiary of US success in Iraq: Independent Kurdistan. They have exactly the type of culture you adore, that is warrior culture. And they have struggled for survival for centures with very formidable enemies, as Osman Empire, Persian Empire, modern Turkey and Suddam's Iraq. There are 30 mln of them, and in key strategic region, with terrain ideally fit for guerilla warfare; that is why they escaped annihilation. I also agree that Iraq is different from Palestine or Iran, as election shown: death cultists is a minority here. I do not advocate using proxies, only "Iraqization" of battle, and I object to imposing EU-style "humanitarian" norms on Iraqi authorities. If they see appropriate to hang terrorists in public, let them do it.
Sergey | 11.12.06 - 4:48 am | #

I'm for the Kurds as well, I didn't mention them because my position already favors them heavily.

I object to the EU as well, but I wouldn't try to come up with a compromise with people who don't like torture by saying other people can do it for us. I am not convinced it would work to convince people, that would otherwise be pro EU style, and I am also not convinced it would be done well by others. America does everything well, that is why depending upon UN peacekeepers are such a disaster.

First point, the Japanese weren't killing and dying for a belief system. They saw themselves as dying for their nation, and for their emporer.

One and the same. Their Emperor was their belief system, it was the fundamental premise of their Bushido code, loyalty to the feudal lord.

The willingness to die for ideology and the willingness to die for one's nation are two different things,

One's nation can be one's ideology, talk to most US Marines and hear them talk about how much they believe in America and their fellow brothers in arms. Are they not willing to die in defense of America? Are they not willing to kill for America?

There are some differences, but it doesn't affect the strategy for defeating the enemy that much. People willing to risk death and people willing to kill, are dealt with in the same fashion, regardless of who they are or what they are fighting for.

You seem to be saying Islamic Radicalism is so extreme and so vital that it is different from any other apathetic belief system held by the West. I disagree.

and they provide two different means of defeat.

Since that is the heart of your disagreement, I'll concentrate on that.

The key difference between the insurgents in Iraq and the WWII Japanese is that the Japanese fought for the state, and the emporer as the embodiment of the state.

That is a true difference, however it is not relevant to the strategy. You are still crafting and designing your attacks to demoralize and cripple the center of gravity, of the enemy. To defeat their will to fight.

When you say that you cannot use the same strategy with Japan, towards terroists. Why not? Why should I not try and demoralize the terroists as the Emperor was demoralized? Why should I not try and break the will to fight of the enemy as Japan's will to fight was broken? Why should I not use nuclear weapons to inflict psychological damage upon the enemy out of all proportion to that which can be accomplished via conventional methods?

The basic strategy is the same. If you are refering to the tactical differences. Meaning, we avoided bombing the Palace in Tokyo, should we avoid bombing mosques as well? No, in that frame of reference, the tactics should be different. But the strategy should remain the same. The goals, the things you are trying to accomplish, and the way you are going to do it, is strategy. Tactics is what happens when the plan actually starts meeting the frict
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 11.12.06 - 2:53 pm | #

friction of war.

You could adapt the tactics all you want, like Bush has done (although not so much concerning mosques), but without the correct strategy, you aren't even going to get anywhere. The same applies for logistics. If you have the right tactics and the right strategy, but without the right logistics, you are going to lose.

There is no one who can surrender for them, no one who holds that kind of sway over the insurgents.

Was the strategy to get Emperor Hirohito to surrender? Perhaps. Is the strategy in Iraq to get Sunni Baathists and insurgents to surrender? Most likely.

So what exactly are you talking about there being two strategies?

How would your tactics be changed if you know that an enemy does not have a controlling force that once demoralized, will surrender the force? Simply adjust the tactics in order to target the center of gravity of the terroists. If the center of gravity isn't in their leaders, then where is it? Everything has a center of gravity, just find it. That doesn't really mean there are two different strategies.
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 11.12.06 - 2:54 pm | #

As I see it, the Islamic Jihad believes in a heavenly power, called Allah, that is on their side. The leaders of the Islamic JIhad, both Iranian and Saudi Arabian branches, believe in this mythology, this core premise.

The Japanese people, also, believed in a Divine Power that was on their side, called the Emperor. All victory is accrued and credited to the Emperor, because the Emperor protects Japan from all enemies. Who protects the Middle East Muslims from the Great Satan? Allah does.

So. the objective is the same. Make them stop believing in their divine figure. How you actually go about it in war time, is a tactical concern, but all tactics are dictated by the overall strategy. There can be no other way to run a war.

We got Japan to stop believing in the infallibility of the Emperor, by getting the Emperor. And we will get Muslims to stop believing in the divinity of Allah and the great power of Allah, by demonstrating that Allah has no power, no mercy, and no compassion towards Americans nor Muslims. You do so via tactics. Find some way to get people to stop believing in Allah the great protector.

What's the thing that really demoralizes Christians? It is when they see their God, do nothing while all kinds of evil (like abortion to them) gets done and God does nothing.

Ah. So, if we can demonstrate that the Middle East is powerless to stop the Great Satan (evil) from doing whatever we want, we convert the Muslims to our cause. Disillusioned Muslims, Muslims who are still practicers of Islam, but they will not believe, and without that belief, they are harmless. Belief is what powers jihad and fanaticism, without that belief, without that will to fight in the absolute surety that God is on their side, well, let's just say that it is going to put a huge nail in their plans of world domination.

Most Muslims do not believe in Allah enough to blow themselves up for heaven in the jihad or whatever. However, when Muslims see how pathetically weak America the Great Satan acts, while America gets Israel to do the dirty work of whatever, what do you think Muslims would believe of America? That Allah is on America's side, the pathetic weak America, or Allah is on the side of the Palestinians and Arabs?

God is on the side with the most firepower, as I believe it has been said.

It is not necessary to convert Muslims to Christians, when I say make them stop believing in Allah. It is only necessary to make our enemies believe that Allah is on America's side, and favors America, not the cause of the jihadists. Once you accomplish that, all else becomes moot.

You see, the same strategy for Japan. Get the Emperor, that divine source of power and strength, on our side, and all else will come to fruition. It is a bit trickier with Islam because their God is not materially on this earth, but that never stopped American ingenuity. While Allah is not on this earth, his followers are, and therefore his followers can be influenced, ma
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 11.12.06 - 3:05 pm | #

While Allah is not on this earth, his followers are, and therefore his followers can be influenced, manipulated, and convinced to stop fighting.x
Ymarsakar | Homepage | 11.12.06 - 3:08 pm | #

Predictions

2006-11-09T20:14:00.000-05:00

I'm going out on a limb, in order to lowball things, with these predictions.

Bush won't use any vetoes in his last years. And the Democrats will do the Lyndon strategy, act weak diplomatically while sending in more troops in order to throw some red meat to the war lobby.

Look on the Bright Side

2006-11-08T18:28:00.000-05:00

Here is what the Democrats have to deal with now, and Bush will LONG gone before it fully develops.

Wretchard's famous 3 conjectures, and related posts, talked about the current window of time as equivalent to "the golden hour" during which a trauma patient can still be saved and death averted. This announcement tells us, very clearly and in no uncertain terms, that The Golden Hour has just about passed us by. Welcome to a future in which the use of nuclear weapons in war approaches certainty, followed by the inevitable responses. Welcome, in other words, to Fibonacci's propagating nuclear spiral of a multi-proliferation future. One that features nuclear weapons in the hands of death-cult barbarians, the vast majority of whom grew up in an atmosphere glorifying suicide-martyrdom as mankind's greatest moral achievement.

Well, at least someone gets to use nukes. We sure as heck don't apply.

Oh ya, the Winds link also informed me of a "sequel" to Simmon's Time Traveler. In it, are some very interesting datum, like this.

While Europe Slept…and Slept…and Slept…and Slept:

Bruce Bawer ( While Europe Slept: How Radical Islam is Destroying the West from Within) seems to be an unlikely candidate for the labels of "racist" and "bigot" and "fascist" that so many enjoy applying to anyone who warns of the threat of militant Islam.

Bawer is gay and the author of such books as Stealing Jesus: How Fundamentalism Betrays Christianity and A Place at the Table: The Gay Individual in American Society and was best known in the United States before publishing While Europe Slept for his outspoken opposition to the likes of James Dobson and his Focus on the Family evangelical political organization.

Previously a lifelong New Yorker (and happy to be so), in 1998 Bawer and his partner packed up and moved to Amsterdam. Almost everything about their adopted country appealed to the two—the human scale of the skylines, the near absence of cars, the Dutch language, the love of books and culture, the European tradition of tolerance so emphasized in the major cities such as Amsterdam, and even the Dutch devotion to gezelligheid (small, daily pleasures)—but even in tolerant Dutch society Bawer and his partner became aware of the tradition of verzuiling, "pillarization," the division of society into religious and ethnic groups, each with its own schools, unions, political parties, newspapers, and even TV channels.

Bawer also became aware of the growing tension in Amsterdam and other European cities between the many groups living comfortably there under the umbrella of tolerance and much of the Muslim immigrant community, which seemed to benefit from, but show little or none of, the tolerance of the larger society around them.

In 1999, Bawer and his Norwegian-born partner moved to Oslo where they were soon legally married. Thanks to Norway’s "family unification" laws, Bawer had a right to residency and even five free months of language lessons (he’s good at languages and feels an obligation to speak the language of whatever country he’s visiting, much less residing in.) In their years together in Europe since 1998, as the dustjacket rather breathlessly explains—

"Across the continent—in Amsterdam, Oslo, Copenhagen, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, and Stockholm—he encountered large, rapidly expanding Muslim enclaves in which women were oppressed and abused, homosexuals persecuted and killed, ‘infidels’ threatened and vilified, Jews demonized and attacked, barbaric traditions (such as honor killing and forced marriage) widely practiced, and freedom of speech and religion firmly repudiated.

"The European political and media establishment turned a blind eye to all this, selling out women, Jews, gays, and democratic principles generally—even criminalizing free speech—in order to pacify the radical Islamists and preserve the illusion of multicultural harmony. The few heroic figures who dared to criticize Muslim extremists and speak up for true liberal values were systematically slandered as fascist bigots. Witnessing the disgraceful reaction of Europe’s elites to 9/11, to the terrorist attacks on Madrid, Beslan, and London, and to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bawer concluded that Europe was heading inexorably down a path to cultural suicide."

What you may decide after reading Bawer’s book—decide about these extraordinary claims and about Bruce Bawer himself—may be quite different, but both Bawer’s personal anecdotes about gay-bashing from Muslims and his excerpts from various European media reactions and dialogues, especially those following terrorist attacks or the very public murders of Theo van Gogh, Pim Fortuyn, and others, should be of interest.

Early in the book, Bawer underlined the essential difference between the peculiar American form of fantasy-ideology religious fundamentalism he’d long fought, and the more pervasive and lethal Muslim variety he was encountering in Europe—

"The main reason I’d been glad to leave America was Protestant fundamentalism. But Europe, I eventually saw, was falling prey to an even more alarming fundamentalism whose leaders made their American Protestant counterparts look like amateurs. Falwell was an unsavory creep, but he didn’t issue fatwas. James Dobson’s parenting advice was appalling, but he wasn’t telling people to murder their daughters. American liberals had been fighting the Religious Right for decades; Western Europeans had yet to even acknowledge that they had a Religious Right. How could they ignore it? Certainly as a gay man, I couldn’t close my eyes to this grim reality. Pat Robertson just wanted to deny me marriage; the imams wanted to drop a wall on me. I wasn’t fond of the hypocritical conservative-Christian line about hating the sin and loving the sinner, but it was preferable to the forthright fundamentalist Muslim view that homosexuals merited death."

One can argue the cause and motivation for various observations in Bawer’s book, but the observations themselves can not easily be disputed—especially the fact so obvious to anyone who lives in a major European city today or who travels there, of elite, expensive central cities occupied by the natives of that country, but that city center often surrounded by rings of increasingly alien immigrant ghettos, most frequently Muslim immigrant ghettos in which neither the language of the host nation nor the laws nor the cultural mores nor the cultural traditions of that country are honored.

Here is the Link to the Full Message.

Iraq Review From Salamander

2006-11-03T14:21:00.000-05:00

*Some good stuff there, check it out*

And his is a Gibbonesque tale of horror. There is the endless Shiite-Sunni fighting. There is a massacre of the Assyrians, which is celebrated rapturously in downtown Baghdad. Children are gunned down from airplanes. Tribal wars flare and families are destroyed. A Sunni writer insults the Shiites and the subsequent rioters murder students and policemen. A former prime minister is found on the street by a mob, killed, and his body is reduced to pulp as cars run him over in joyous retribution.

I'm a big believer in martial law and kill on sight orders, as a way to maintain order and law. Maybe because I've been reading too many books that feature the environment as one of lawlessness where ain't nobody going to help you except yourself and your family. This added in with real events, sort of makes it obvious to me, what should be.

In lawlessness, it ain't time to play, people. It's time to put down the fist.

Kedourie described “a country riven by obscure and malevolent factions, unsettled by the war and its aftermath.” He observed, “The collapse of the old order had awakened vast cupidities and revived venomous hatreds.”

one of the reasons why I now support a longer war, 6 months minimum to 12 months, for OIF 1 and initial invasion period. Why didn't I support this back in 2002? Because I knew ZERO about military history, so all I could do was trust in the President and the generals. But, I'm a little bit more educated now.

If you go with the Afghanistan Spec Ops model, which I did not make up retro-actively via hindsight, then you could basically get the Shias to expend their rage against Saddam. And you can also get some Shia-Sunni-Kurdish alliances going on, by cementing loyalties through blood, which is all that will stick in the MidEast. This way, any Al Sadr guys could be found out, and "disappeared" pretty early on. Had an accident with a mortar piece, dontcha know.

Look at Karzai, is he insulting and being anti-American cause he fears being called a puppet? Oh they call him a puppet, but his power base is solid, and it is solid because SpecOps guys helped him fight and win battle glories. That's how you maintain power in the Middle East, demonstrate your ability to win and CRUSH your foes, as Karzai did when he took kabul with SpecOps help.

The Special Forces operators did brilliantly, not their fault somebody didn't want to give their CIA coordinator some Ranger units. It had better not have been because the Army was jealous that the Special Forces guys were going at it in Afghanistan...

But anyways, if you had a Real war in Iraq, lasting MINIMUM 6 months, then they could have gotten the killing out of their veins. Then they could just exile whoever was left over, like we did with the British loyalists after Revolutionary War. Everyone wins, except the losers of course.

Then, you could deal with WMDs WITHOUT having to deal with the chaos in Iraq, at the same time, boo hoo.

But nooooo, the Army guys wanted to do it the Army Way.... and I guess Bush knew only a little bit more than I, so was not confident enough to overrule the generals' plan. And so... here we are.

At one point, the British high commissioner, Sir Henry Dobbs, argued that if Britain threatened to withdraw its troops, Iraqis would behave more responsibly. It didn’t work. Iraqis figured the Brits were bugging out. They concluded it was profitless to cultivate British friendship. Everything the British said became irrelevant.

Haha, could have told you guys not to do that, even if I wasn't born until the 1980s. Man, the British were... totally wacked out. That is why America beat them, we are just better, at everything really.

There is, he wrote, no third option.

With enough power and will, you can create a third option.

The most perceptive reports describe not so much a civil war as a complete social disintegration.

Social disintegration cause the enemies are arrested and not made examples of, and the British or whomever is in control of Basrah, just lets the Shia militias do whatever they want. This ain't the fracking Japanese we are talking about, they didn't surrender, and they sure as heck didn't get annihilated fighting Americans.

Perhaps a competent occupation could have preserved it as a coherent entity, but now the Iraqi national identity is looking like a suicidal self-delusion.

Bush already told everyone he disliked nation building. The Democrats kept pushing him to give Iraq more sovereignty, nice loyal opposition we have there, eh?

I always favored a military dictatorship, with the dictator being a US Marine General, but that was just me. Even when I was ignorant, I still saw the US military as the best hope for controlling the situation.

Again, America isn't exactly an experienced Empire, we are going to make mistakes, just because.

Alter troop rotations so that 30,000 more troops are policing Baghdad.

Again, if the troops aren't given orders to execute and make examples out of the enemy, it don't matter how many boots you have. You can only wear TWO of them at any one time. So are you going to wear policeman shoes or army boots? Or are you going to try for the "new fashion". One army boot, with one policeman shoe, and start running after the enemy?

It will be time to effectively end Iraq, with a remaining fig-leaf central government or not. It will be time to radically diffuse authority down to the only communities that are viable — the clan, tribe or sect.

I favor a Kurdish Empire. Yes, I have no shame.

And the goals will remain the same: to nurture civilized democratic societies that reject extremism and terror.

Can't do that if you are a sissy, no matter how many of you are there. The Kurds are many things, sissies are not one of them.

U.S. Strategic Center of Gravity: Unified Support for the War. Oops.

I think people forgot that this is more like chess than some 2 minute fight on the streets. Look at the end game, and logistics, rather than the immediate tactical benefits. When I was ignorant of military stratagems, all that stuff they talked on tv about "tactical surprise if we go in at the South and keep the 4th Id on water" sounded pretty good to me.

Salamander on Ralph Peters

2006-11-03T12:03:00.000-05:00

If the Arab world and Iran embark on an orgy of bloodshed, the harsh truth is that we may be the
beneficiaries.

But first Syria and Iran are going to ally, to kill the US, because it now appears the US is weaker than either faction, and therefore both factions have a better chance of survival by uniting and crushing us, the weak third leg, first. The triumverate is stable because if all 3 are equal in power, then the first guy that attacks one of the legs, is going to get himself fatigued. That way, the third party can decide when to join in the fight, and on which side. Obviously the Arabs are not going to fight amongst themselves until they get rid of the occupation Americans, who are enemies of all humanity.

Yes, Arabs fight amongst themselves, their families, and so forth. But has Ralph ever heard of the saying me and my brother against my neighbor, me and my brother with my neighbor, against the foreign invader?

You think the foreign invade riff is going to disappear when the US gets out? This is the 21st century we are in, Ralph, not the 19th.

Iraq still deserves one last chance as long as we don't confuse deadly stubbornness and perseverance. If, at this late hour, Iraqis in decisive numbers prove willing to fight for their own freedom and a constitutional government,

Are you totally riffing the DU here or something?

Since when did the military think that large numbers of untrained civilian members could equal the ferocity of a decisively disciplined unit composed of a team working towards a mission and goal?

Ralph is acting more like a populist, and less like a military genius. Try and decide which one you want to be. Do you want to be a people's revolutionary, classical liberal, or do you want to be a military expediency kind of guy for the army.

The perspectives are totally different, regardless of individual goals.

If people want more uncorrupt and disciplined Iraqi forces. Then they need to implement, top down overrides from Bush to Maliki, what is known as frag orders and Sun Tzu discipline. Meaning, anybody that steals, gets executed, via court martial, in 24 hours. Those who disobey direct orders, presenting cowardice in the face of enemy, should be killed by firing squad if not their own unit punished by Roman decimation.

If you don't want to do that, if you just want to sit on your arse complaining that the Iraqis don't know jack about military tactics and getting "decisive numbers willing to fight", then you can't complain worth Rather, Ralph. If you ain't willing to do the deed, and kill those who need killing, then you can't be talking about how you got any credibility complaining about someone else's unwillingness. Bush or Maliki's.

If you want people willing to fight, then you'd better execute those death squads that are holding the family of the police and I G hostage, in public. If you want people to volunteer, then you'd better be willing to not only die for their sake, but slaughter as many people as it takes to ensure their safety and their family's safety. This "don't kill Sadr, it'll make him a martyr" might be Bush's fault since it was his decision to make, but Ralph here complaining about stuff isn't any better.

If Ralph wants to win, then he better analyze the game plan, come up with alternatives, and then be willing to stick his neck ontop of the block in saying "go with my solution, if you do, we win, but if you lose and you do, I'll be willing to be court martialed for it".

The violence staining Baghdad's streets with gore isn't only a symptom of the Iraqi government's incompetence, but of the comprehensive inability of the Arab world to progress in any sphere of organized human endeavor. We are witnessing the collapse of a civilization. All those who rooted for Iraq to fail are going to be chastened by what follows.

Ralph had the perfect chance to blame Bush's no micromanagemnet, no nation building, strategy right here and right now. He also had the perfect chance to start blaming the senior officer and flag corps for failing to be hardcore and ruthless in forcing Bush to look at some hardcore tactics and actions.

But instead, he talks about the violence staining Baghdad's streets as if it is the Iraqi government's fault. There is a saying in China. If you save a man's life, then you are responsible for that man's life. I read it as, if you have power over another, then if things are pocked up, you are the one to blame. The buck stops here, at the superior officer's desk. He is the one that gives the orders, he is the one that takes the rewards, and he is the one that should accept the blame. For a military guy, who knows discipline and the chain of rank, he sure tends to ignore the responsibilities of America and the President.

On Tuesday, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki obeyed Muqtada al-Sadr's command to withdraw U.S. troops from Baghdad's Sadr City. He halted a vital U.S. military operation. It was the third time in less than a month that al-Maliki had sided with the anti-American cleric against our forces.

What the fook did you expect? The abused woman isn't going to go with the sissy liberal, against the hardcore mofo called her husband, unless you can demonstrate that you are able to protect her from the hardcore mofos. The fact that BUSH, not Maliki, authorized the continual life and existence of Al Sadr, meant that AlSadr now has a POLITICAL BASE from which to influence the Prime Minister. Maliki didn't get into power by a large margin, but by like one vote, if I recall. Without Al Sadr, where would he be? Maliki is simply going with the party that brung him. And if you want to blame anyone, you can blame America for being sissy enough to think that acting weak will get anyone on our side.

Ralph has no problems blaming the President for a bunch of crack that the President could not change and should not have changed. But when it is time to hold Bush accountable for listening to some idiotic advisers of his, oh now it is the Iraqi's fault.

President Bush insists that we have no conflicts with the al-Maliki government. The president isn't telling the truth — or he himself doesn't support our military's efforts.

Bush is telling the exact pocking Truth, just like he told the truth that he was waiting for the Governor of Louis. to authorize troops. Bush is UNABLE to be a bully, he is UNABLE to intimidate and override even idiots like Tenet and Plame. See, this is the kind of criticism that gets nowhere because it isn't based upon the truth. Bush not telling the truth? To Bush, he has to agree with maliki, that is why he freaking gave Iraqi sovereignty in the first place. If he didn't believe that Iraqis should rule themselves, he wouldn't have done that until the Iraq was over and done with.

If you think the Iraqis shouldn't rule themselves, that Pax Americana should do it for them via martial law, then that's okay. Then you can criticize Bush's actions all you want, for giving Iraqis' too much autonomy. But the path the President chose has consequences. He is relying upon the Iraqi shock troops to take the casualties and to execute the enemy, in ways that Bush is unwilling to authorize openly and cleanly.

In order to do so with any chance of success, Bush is counting on politics to smooth the way, to get a political organization up that will take care of Sadr and the cuckoo Baathists. Bush isn't a military genius, and he isn't very ruthless politically. So obviously when Sadr got up a socialist network and got seats in the government, he was probably taken by surprise, and when Sadr started doing power plays, Bush couldn't execute him now, can he, now that Bush has given Iraqis sovereignty. Bush's position is quite consistent, he is not telling any lies.

I only wish the administration had done it competently.

Ralph won't even talk about what competency "IS". Is competency declaring martial law and executing anyone who attacks Americans and the government? Is competency overriding Maliki, holding a gun to his head, and declaring Al Sadr dead on arrival? Is competency, when Bush listens to everything Ralph says and wants? What exactly IS competency here? I've already declared my view of competency. Competency is when Bush unleashes the limits on our military, and have them execute all and any enemies to Iraq and to America. Baathists, Iranian agents, Syrian agents, Saudi Arabian suicide bombers, Al Sadr loyalists, Badr brigade militias, it Don't Matter. Kill them all.

When you kill them all, then the government can be established without corruption. Do you really think America's revolutionary government would have been okay, had there been like 50% British loyalists in the country and IN the government? Do you really think America would have survived after winning the Revolutionary, had America not exiled the British loyalists to Canada and Britain?

You have to GET RID of the internal enemies first, before any "competent government" structure may arrive. If Bush isn't willing to do it, then yes, that shows a lack of ruthlessness and will. If Maliki isn't willing to do, it doesn't show a lack of will. What it shows is a LACK OF POWER. That is different. Bush has the power but not the will. But Maliki does not have the power, regardless of whether he wants to kill Sadr or not.

The country's prime minister has thrown in his lot with al-Sadr, our mortal enemy. He has his eye on the future, and he's betting that we won't last.

And this is Mailiki's fault because.... America is a child and we can't help ourselves? The buck stops at America's desk. Bush was the one who gave sovereignty to the Iraqis. If you want to blame the faults in iraq on someone, blame it on Bush, but don't try to blame everyone. If you want to blame Maliki, then you can't blame Bush at the same time. Vice a versa as well.

The valor of our enemies never surpassed that of our troops, but it far exceeded the fair-weather courage of the Bush administration.

The fair weather courage? You're the one crying and moaning about "oh shat, we gonna be dead soon". Bush is stubborn as hell. When I say Bush doesn't have the will, I'm talking about the Imperial Will to dominate and annihilate his enemies, like Plame and Sadr. If you want to talk about the will to stay in the fight, then hell, Bush has it more than Ralph.

They're the ones who can't leave and who can't win.

Since Al Qaeda is ruthless, unlike Bush, they will win. Didn't just ralph say that Bush lacked the will or something? Didn't Ralph just say that our enemies' will exceeds our own? So how the hell is he going to say that if we leave, they aren't going to win?

Now Sala, some fake liberal idiot said this in the comments section of Ralph's piece.

The Pottery Barn rules still applies: YOU BROKE IT YOU OWN IT. You cannot foist your mistakes on other people. You must own them to the bitter end. That means that you must own all of the consequences of your mistakes and do your best to correct them which includes accepting full responsibility.

The Left gives you all the excuse America needs for a reign of terror, as a way to get rid of the enemies to Iraqi liberty and as a way to enforce peace through the gun and sword. The iron fist.

Take the excuse. There is no reason Bush refuses to do so, other than the fact that Bush's principles prevent him from going hardcore in Iraq. He thinks too much of the Constitution and self-autonomy of others. Bush won't even use his Constitutional powers of veto and sending in the national guard, here in US. You think lots of Iraqis dieing in Iraqi is going to make Bush cut the orders to the military to purge iraq of all domestic and foreign enemies?

The bitter end to me, is when we hang up every Baathist and Al Sadr militia guy, along with those Iranian dudes, along the streets of Baghdad and then ignite their bodies while the national cameras are roving. That includes the guys in the prisons by the way.

I'm not the one complaining and moaning about Bush's mistakes here, there, whatever. Whatever Bush's mistakes, there are solutions right now. Either Ralph doesn't care about talking about those solutions, or he won't support them. If he won't support them, fine, but then why is he complaining.

Bush won't support my methods. But Bush is not complaining, so that is okay. If you want to complain about things you don't like, then you are't allowed to refuse solutions unless you have a better one.

Then, last month, as Iraq's prime minister seconded al-Sadr's demand that our troops free a death-squad mastermind they had captured, I knew a fateful page had turned. A week later, al-Maliki forbade additional U.S. military raids in Sadr City, the radical mullah's Baghdad stronghold. On Tuesday, al-Maliki insisted that our troops remove roadblocks set up to help find a kidnapped U.S. soldier. Iraq's prime minister has made his choice. We're not it. It's time to face reality. Only Iraqis can save Iraq now — and they appear intent on destroying it. Après nous, le deluge.

Ralph will blame Bush. Then when Maliki doesn't do something he likes, he blames Maliki. Does the whole causality chain principle even affect Ralph Peters? I mean, really. He is not a civilian. He knows from whom power accrues, power accrues from the MOST powerful, on down. From the President, to the SecDef, to the Generals, to the junior officers, to the NCOs and privates. From the most powerful, to the least powerful.

Who the hell do you think is the most powerful nation on this planet? And who do you think is the youngest and most unstable nation on this planet? From where should power flow?

If a General isn't paying attention and then says "oh, sure Captain, do whatever you want, you are golden". Is it the fault of the captain when he screws up and massacres a town, or is it the fault of the General for not micromanaging?

Bush knows there are bad apples in Iraq. Bush won't get rid of them. Ralph likes blaming Bush. But it seems Ralph likes blaming anyone that is closest to him, more than he likes blaming Bush. He is not consistent.

Even the Left with their talking points are more consistent than that.

Self Defense

2006-10-31T18:31:00.000-05:00

//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.

http://mattfurey.com/weapons.html

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.

One Reason Why Lawyers are Disliked

2006-10-29T23:24:00.000-05:00

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

2006-10-29T23:05:00.000-05:00

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

Army Video

2006-10-29T22:42:00.000-05:00

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

From Instapundit.

The Chrysanthemum and the Sword

2006-10-29T15:52:00.000-05:00

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.

Link

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

JihadWatch

2006-10-21T15:23:00.000-04:00

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.

Treason Doth Never Prosper

2006-10-20T18:59:00.000-04:00

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

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.

TREASON DOTH NEVER PROSPER

IF IT PROSPERS, NONE DARE CALL IT TREASON.

Public opinion in Iraq

2006-10-20T16:57:00.000-04:00

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.

PROPRAGANDA! PROPRAGANDA! PROPRAGANDA!
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...

Collation of some strategic posts I did

2006-10-19T21:41:00.000-04:00

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

Neo's Post on Civil War for Iraq

2006-10-18T23:18:00.000-04:00

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.

Underdogs for Baseball

2006-10-17T14:39:00.000-04:00

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.

Lord of the Rings Sorrow

2006-10-16T14:52:00.000-04:00

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

2006-10-16T03:15:00.000-04:00

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.

Great Review Material on VDH private papers

2006-10-15T17:57:00.000-04:00

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.

And

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

2006-10-15T16:35:00.000-04:00

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.

Blast to the Past

2006-10-10T14:20:00.000-04:00

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...

The Shia Revival

2006-10-09T12:03:00.000-04:00

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.

Arab Culture Explained

2006-10-08T16:30:00.000-04:00

Was reading a very enlightening article on Arab culture. Most of it, I already postulated and derived from various sources, but it is good as a summary and an example of a coherent argument that totals most of the points together in a very clear and concise manner. Found the link at Dean's

This is expressed in the inshallah philosophy, “If God wills it.” A Palestinian friend of mine explained to me that even the weather forecaster will qualify his prediction, “It will rain tomorrow. Inshallah.” Or, “I will meet you tomorrow, inshallah.” (But God understands that I am a very unreliable person.)

I personally first heard of the phrase inshallah from a military blog. I cannot quite recall which one it was, it might have been Major K's Strength and Honor, or it may have been 365 Days and a Wakeup Call as well as Red five's. But irregardless, it did a good job of describing how Iraqis had little personal initiative, that whenever something bad happened in an Iraqi unit, instead of complaining to higher officers or correcting it they just do the God willing dance and let it go. One Iraqi unit with an American unit went over to the American FOB to ask for water. They went over from their base, to our base, to ask for water. Does that mean their base doesn't have water? No, it meant that they could not ask their fellow brothers for something when it was God's will that they get or not. Quite fatalistic. They could ask us, presumably because we were not Muslims and not part of their culture, and therefore their obligations to us were not the same as their societal duties and roles were to other Muslims.

That is both a good thing and a bad thing.

INSHALLAH-
The Arabic expression meaning 'If Allah wills'
[this is usually said when referring to a situation in the future e.g. inshAllah I will go to the grocery shop tomorrow etc]

Found that at this page, with a list of Arab sayings.

However as soon as people were assured that they could keep a reasonable amount of what they worked for, people reverted to their true cultural patterns, worked plenty hard and started to take care of their tools and the public spaces.

What better way than to motivate someone than fighting by their side in a life and death struggle with the ultimate Satans of their mythology? You see, pacifism is quite wrong when it says force solves nothing or little. Force solves a lot of things, intelligent use of force can solve everything. This is the physical universe after all, bound by physical laws, and we are mere mortal beings confined on this physical plane. What power moves the matter on this plane, may also move us, if perhaps indirectly.

Thus is the basic philosophical strategem behind Iraq, sound, even if Bush's explanations are dull and perhaps inaccurate. While you cannot get people to do things unless they are motivated by their own beliefs and their own selves, you can help the process along by pushing them into situations of life and death where they are forced to exceed their genkai. The Arab's genkai is called inshallah, once that is broken, everything else becomes simply a matter of clean up.

With us, contractual and moral obligations tend to be equal and reciprocal. They don’t see it that way. The obligations of the superior to the inferior do not equal those of the inferior to the superior.

In feudal societies, clan societies, honor societies, Japanese heirarchal societies, as well as caste systems, the duty and moral obligations one person of one status owes to another person of another status is very very complex. But it does have a reasoning and a logic of its own, but it is very different depending upon many variables. The Japanese would committ ritual hara kiri as a way to purify themselves of guilt and sin; of dishonor and not fullfilling their duty. To Fall on their Sword. Women, of course, were not under this Bushido Code, they did not have to kill themselves. However, in India, women did have to kill themselves as part of the suttee custom. So you see, honor obligations are very complex from society to society, as well as within a society.

Some things may apply to men, but not to women. As with Arabs and the Bushido Code. Other times, things that happens to the men must also happen to the women, as India once did.

This all matters, of course, because once you know your enemy, you will know how to destroy them. You will also come to understand your own part in this little tapestry of fates and destinies as well. To know thyself is to know thy enemy, because your enemy is just as you, just as mortal and human. To know thy enemy is to also know yourself, to know how you might have ended up, the mirror image of the dance in the mirror.

Try to see it from their point of view – how else do you expect them to act when you have the overwhelming force? You expect them to meet you on equal terms when the situation is so unequal? What other tactics are available but prevarication and delay followed by a sneak attack?

How else do we expect them to act? We expect them to act with honor. Because if they do not act with honor to those of our warriors who have acted with honor towards them, we will wash their sins away with nuclear fire. When they understand that, when they truely understand, they will have seen us with eyes unclouded. The Japanese have already learned this lesson when they mistreated American prisoners because they "surrendered" and thus in Japanese eyes, dishonored themselves. We showed Japan what true dishonor was. True dishonor was dieing and taking everyone you love with you. Dieing in combat is no special thing, living to fight another day for your country, or preserving your skills and knowledge so as to allow your country to fight longer and harder, that is true honor. That is the true fullfillment of obligations and duty to your family and your country. Remember the Marianas Turkey Shoot over Leyete Gulf? The Japanese kept their experienced pilots at the front lines, they did not rotate them back to the home front to teach the next generation of fighter pilots. So they had a bunch of green recruits who not even the benefit of the wisdom of veterans. Of course it was a turkey shoot. Up against American pilots with tens and hundreds of hours in the air? No contest. Was it honorable for the Japanese to meet the enemy, again and again, as their individual pilots did? The Japanese thought so.

In reality, however, they dishonored themselves by continuing to seek glory in battle instead of returning to the home front to teach. Teaching might not be considered part of defending the Emperor's Honor, but of course America showed Japan the error of their ways. However, Japan had to suffer much devastation and ruin before they realized that they had a choice between combating us with their full but inadequate powers, or surrendering and acting as honorable opponents now fallen. They were rewarded for such dutiful and righteous actions, Emperor Hirohito was rewarded by the sight of his people, renewed, and no longer hungry or destitute.

Japan also thought that a sneak attack would cripple America. The Arabs continue to think so because Bush did not nuclearize Fallujah, or has he done any other propaganda or psychological operation that I have detailed and recommended before through my writings and positions.

Bush tries to convince Arabs with compassion. That is not the way. You convince people by demonstrations of power and ruthlessness. Mercy comes when you tell them how many more people you might have killed that you spared, and how many more people will die if they keep complaining and fighting. Mercy does not come when you release every hostage you have, as a show of "compassion", (Israelis did that) because that is called weakness and you won't have any leverage in the future.

If The US Marine Corps did not serve Bush or Bush could not use the US Marine Corps, his policies would have failed dramatically and diastrously. But because Bush does have the loyalty and use of the US Marine Corps, his misguided rhetoric and tactics are just barely being saved by the loyalty and expertise of the US military, air sea and ground. It is only the pure naked power and demonstration of that power, by the US military, that gave Bush any chance for his democratic policy of succeding. Bush perhaps does not understand this truism, and it is a very bad flaw in the fortification he has constructed out of Iraq. If Bush inadequately understands the enemy and how to defeat them, then it does not matter how good of a person he is at heart or how good his intentions are, he will not do America any long lasting good. I do not really believe Bush wants to be like his father, so I can only assume he has fallen prey to what many previous rulers have. The fallacy of listening to your idiotic and useless advisers, one too many times.

Folks, what we call “terrorism” is quite close to the historically normal way of warfare among these people.

Kidnapping is a cultural philosophy amongst them. Far better than having open clan warfare, no? So shouldn't do what the Romans do Rome? Take hostages? We already have hostages, with the prisoners at GitMo. How about we start threatening them and using them as leverage as the Arabs? Bush doesn't do this because... he is a compassionate conservative. You do not win wars with Japan or the Arabs by being compassionate. Mercy and compassion are for those who can afford it, for those who have already won and are enjoying the spoils of victory. We are not victorious yet, Bush should not declare any so such victory lest he get backstabbed again by new events.

An Arab will scream at you, get into your personal space and sometimes kick dirt on your shoe – and they react with utter surprise when an American up and decks him. “What did I do?” To say the least, this makes negotiations difficult.

The Japanese would never do that, although they do get into public fights for some weird reason. Dueling I guess is still recognized there. But the Japanese are far more... orderly than the Arabs, you know what I'm saying. They'll have a fight, but deep down their culture is based upon order, obligations, and duty to family and ancestors. The distrust is not there, probably because Japan is a very tight knit culture, based upon an isolated island, where Arabs had endless clanwarfare over limited desert resources like water. The only thing that cost more than trust in the desert, is probably water.

This involves some seriously weird stuff about other people being responsible for their misery because they ill-wished them. I’ve read in the English-language press of the Kingdom serious admonitions against using Black Magic to win an advantage in a dispute with a neighbor. The columnist did not deny the efficacy of Black Magic, he just said it’s forbidden to use it. On one occasion I was trying to explain the concept of "myth" to them and I used the example of the djinn. I wasn't getting through to them at all and was concerned that I had mangled the pronunciation of the word when it dawned on me that the reason they didn't understand what I was getting at, was that they had no doubt that the djinn were real.

Don't be so downhearted when you read this. All hope is not lost. This kind of guillibility makes communication hard, yes, but it also makes them easier to manipulate. The easier they are to manipulate, the less of them must die before victory can be achieved. For example, if they are that superstitious, why do we not coat our weapons in pig's blood and oil and say that we are practicing American black magic to sway God's favor?

Know thy enemy and know thy self is not just some fake liberal banner saying, I remind you. Action is required, not just "talk".

To compete, or even just survive in the world they must become more like us and less like themselves – and they know this.

And yet the opposite paradox is also true. To defeat them in battle, we must become more like them, more deceptive and more mythology based in terms of our ideas and conceptions of battle stratagem. They can't survive so long as we are fighting each other. So one of us must win. And if they are to become like us to survive, then they must first be defeated by us, the Americans. If you get defeated by Europeans, it is ALL over for you, just a friendly reminder.

I related this paradox when I wrote about the Peloponessian War. For Sparta to defeat Athens, they must become better at ship fighting than the Athenian Navy. For Athens to defeat Sparta, the Athenian hoplites must best the elite Spartan hoplites in open field combat.

The terroists may win against the US, if they defeat us on the open field of battle.

We will win against the terrorists, when we can defeat them on their chosen field of battle, the streets of cities, depopulated terrains, as well as the mind and hearts of individual humans. We may only do so by mastering the methods of "guerrila warfare", "propaganda", as well as "psychological warfare". Bush is a master of none of these three, and he wouldn't approve of using any of them even if he did have mastery in one. Although the Democrats have some useful qualities in the last 2, but of course the Democrats are not fighting for America's best interests.

Do not mistake the power and grace of America. For you do not truely understand our enemies, those who we have defeaten, if you believe us weak and atrophied.

Honor for the samurai was dearer than life and in many cases, self destruction was regarded not simply as right, but as the only right course. Disgrace and defeat were atoned by committing hara-kiri or seppuku. Upon the death of a daimyo loyal followers might show their grief and affection for their master by it. Other reasons a samurai committed seppuku were: to show contempt for an enemy; to protest against injustice, as a means to get their lord to reconsider an unwise or unworthy action and as a means to save others.

The ritual for disenbowlment was to be performed calmly and without flinching. If condemned to death, it was held to be a privilege to execute the sentence on one's own body rather than to be a disgrace and die at the hands of the public headsman.

Make no mistake, the Japanese were the real deal when they were our enemies. They did not play around. They did not kid. They did not play mind games or make up stuff that they didn't believe in. Yes, their war propaganda did exist and was atrocious, but that was an indication of Japanese militaristic fallacy, rather than a lack of the CORE strength in Japan. You do not defeat such an enemy as the Japanese by being weak or compassionate. Compare the Democrats of today's atheistic and apathetic faiths, with the Japanese true believers. As if it is any comparison.

A nation does not lose such strength, such power and grace, in 50 years or even a hundred years.

Make no mistake, the honor of America was the same as the honor of Japan. When Japan broke that code of conduct with us, they went down a path from which there were only two conclusions. Either they surrender to us which their traditions told them was the height of dishonor, the breaking of a feudal vow to your lord. Or they become extinct as a people.

Such is the choice of those who seek to trample upon the honor of the American nation by gross malfeasance and sneak attacks. It will do you no good, to play games like hostage taking and IEDs. They are immaterial. Nobody would want to face the American nation at itsfull might, unrestricted of any genkai limitations. The more you behave with dishonor, the more you make it a certainty that only one of two roads will be your reward.

The Japanese honor system was the same as ours. They made a grievious mistake when their racial arrogance brought them to believe that everyone should act in a manner that they deemed righteous and virtuous. The Japanese of the WWII generation, the military officers, did not believe that there was any other BETTER way to behave, so as to do one's duty and honor one's Emperor, nation, and family. Interestingly, language translations probably had a lot to do with those cultural misunderstandings.

Other reasons a samurai committed seppuku were: to show contempt for an enemy; to protest against injustice, as a means to get their lord to reconsider an unwise or unworthy action and as a means to save others.

They are the same as us, do you not see. Regardless of the cultural differences, they were the same as us. If the Arabs believe that we are so much different... they will find out eventually how wrong they are when their mistakes kill everything that they have ever cared for.

The Arabs are pale shadows, compared to the Japanese true believers. Do not even suggest that they will be a worthy opponent once the limitations on US power are lifted and unsealed. The Japanese know a lot about seals, their mythology is replete with them. America has a saying as well. Do not open Pandora's Box, because you won't be able to close it and contain what is in it once released.

An analysis of this man's position on suicide bombers

2006-10-03T01:59:00.000-04:00

This guy has some conclusions that are very very wrong, if you analyse how he came about those conclusions. He believes 50% of suicide bombers are secular, as opposed to religious fanatics. Interesting to say the least.

Michael Totten interviewed by Glenn

2006-10-02T00:56:00.000-04:00

Very interesting, for people interested in cosmopolitan ideals.

Further analysis of Islam vs Other religions

2006-10-01T22:43:00.000-04:00

For one thing, Muhammed brought his religion into existence during the age of Empires. Uniting the Arabs, taking control of Persia, and out dominating Zoroastrian as the primary religion of the day and area. It also pitted Muhammed's Empire against the Syrian holdings of the Christian Eastern Roman polity.

This is contrasted with the Jewish and Christian religions, which were setup during a time of stability and city-states. Christianity did not come into power because of conquests. one of the most notable incidents was that the Pope of Rome went to Atilla to sue for peace, and then Atilla died after refusing the Pope. The full might of the Western Roman Empire could not defeat Atilla, only slow him down. Yet this one man, the Pope of Rome, magically and divinely killed the Scourge of God. The fall of the Western Roman Empire created a power vacuum that was filled by the Christian Catholic Church, the dominant belief system. They filled the niches of power of Rome, not by conquest or unification, but by defense and diplomatic reasoning. They were the shield to protect the people against the barbarian scourges and raids.

Moses, when he left Egypt with his clan in tow, also lived in a time of city-states. He was not building an Empire, the religion he followed was useful in explaining many of his actions, but even then he did not use it to attempt to build an empire. Merely to carve out a small place for his people.

Both the Christian and Jewish origins are totally different from Mohammed's origins. Mohammed forcefully united the Arabs and took control of Persia, which is a huge area not just geographically, but tribally as well. In order to force the Arabs to work together, he had to use some brutal and ruthless tactics. In those times, religion, the military, and government were not separate. Since Muhammed had a lot to say about what went into the Koran and what was Islam, he founded it after all, the facts of his life has a lot to do with influencing the religion that was to come.

Using historical analogies of Christian vs Islamic treatment of Jews is not really telling anything. For one thing, because it is what happens now that matters, not what happened in the past. A person can tolerate persecution in the past, if it has stopped in today's time. That is not true for Islam. On a time scale, Islam is not all that much younger than Christianity and Judaism. If Christianity has changed, then the logical question is, why has Islam not changed?

The second thing is that religions took power and were created for a reason. All the dogma, the disciples, and the disciplines were there for a reason, their existence mattered if only because they had a purpose and a goal. What was the purpose of the Catholic Church? To preserve the Roman Empire and its citizens from the barbarians and pagans. The purpose of Judaism? Carve out a place to live. The purpose of Islam? Empire building and unification of disparate lands and peoples.

There are two ways of looking at things as they are. The inductive approach, otherwise known as scientific scholarship concerning divinely inspired holy books like the Koran. Or the deductive approach. Just because people who use the deductive approach come up with different conclusions than those who seek the empirical path concerning divinely inspired prophets and works, does not mean anything that is unscholarly is automatically wrong. You don't need things spelled out by a lawyer, to know what is true or untrue, what is right or wrong. Deductive reason should be enough, and if it isn't, then there is always scholarship to rely upon.

Second comment

Maybe the reason why Islam still treats people the way Christians did in the past, is because Christians changed their ways through debating what is or is not true concerning their religion.

You do not "debate" with what their own faith teaches.

The lack of debate has after all, prevented Islam from reforming. So long as what it teaches is what it teaches, and people can't argue either way or non-Muslims can't argue with Muslims about it, then things will keep being the way they are. There's no reason for people to change what their faith teaches, when they are the ones that decide.

A religion that takes nothing from other religions, peoples, and cultures, is a religion soon to become fanatic, inflexible, and downright horrible.

They don't have to be liars to be mistaken. While calling them liars is wrong, saying that they are mistaken is not necessarily calling them liars. If the law is not on their side, if Islamic law is not on their side, it does not matter whether they are right or wrong. Those who are right, but without power, are infinitely inferior to those who are wrong, but with power. In terms of what is true or not, without power, they cannot make things true, regardless of how ideally correct they are in theory. Truth has to do with reality, if they cannot effect a real solution, then their right ideas become the wrong reality.

It would only be tu quoque, if the Inquisition was accepted as an integral part of Christianity. In dealing with reform, one must destroy integral parts of one's own religion before the reform takes. Immuno-suppression in other words.

The truth is that if someone calls an argument tu quoque, as with the things Bernstein said, then it has to mean that they are arguing against the bad of Islam by presenting the bad of Christianity. Bernstein says neither is bad, neither is integral. Tu quoque would be the accussation that you are saying both is bad, and that the bad of Christianity makes the bad of Islam understandable. If the problem with jihadwatch is that they are saying it is tu quoque, then that would make bernstein's arguments, irrevelant. Since Bernstein doesn't believe the bad is integral to Christianity, while JihadWatch is perfectly willingly to accept the bad in Christianity if only because Christians removed the bad while Islam has not.

My own take on internecine warfare on the "Right"

2006-10-01T06:39:00.000-04:00

First comment

Ymarsakar (www):

It was wrong on the premise that Malkin doesn't respect our Muslim allies, and it was wrong on the premise that Malkin is required to do something about all those right wing trolls who talk about dumping Iraq for America. Malkin cannot seriously do anything about those who are interested in iraqi civil strife or a 3 state solution or anything like that. She has no influence on that side of the Republicans, the "pro-war" tent if you will. People like Ralph Peters and skippy, what is she going to do with them? If Dean has a problem with people who disrespect our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, then he should stick up for them specifically and attack their attackers, instead of calling upon LGF and Malkin to do the attacking.

I'm a neutral party in this conflict. I'm not on Ralph Peter's side, and I'm not entirely on JihadWatch's side, and I am definitely not on the Left's side of let's give Iraq to the wolves.

So in a way, I can perceive why LGF and Malkin saw your post, Dean. They saw it as an accussation against them that they were heartless and immoral for not sticking up to our allies. Since Malkin does believe she sticks up for moderate Muslims and good Muslims, your lack of specifics Dean, seemed to her as a broad based broadside. Just out there, with no specific target. Your reply to that one guy, further contributed to a sense that you were ranting and enraged, not being reasonable or open minded. This of course, would not prevent LGF and Malkin from responding as to why they support Iraqis or why they don't attack those who attack Iraqis as being lazy layabouts. However, it would discourage them from doing so if they believe they are not finding an open forum.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Matoko-Chan. The only Muslim allies I recognize are those in Iraq and Afghanistan, more or less. If a person hasn't proved his loyalty and friendship to me, I'm not exactly going to turn my back on him and his family of jihadists, now am I.

As for Dean's argument. Logically, it was consistent inside of its premises. Meaning, there IS a problem with people, Americans, who sacrifice Iraqi allies for some perceived gain. Let's say Ralph Peters who wanted to get out, 3 state solution, get the Iraqis fighting and we do our own thing. That's not exactly loyalty to our allies, you know. However, those people who scorn our allies and are willing to sacrifice them, are not LGF and Malkin in my view. If Dean believes otherwise of JihadWatch and Co, then he definitely does need to bring up specific examples and his interpretations of those examples. While Dean gets some points for not trying to be pedantic with a list of stuff that he rants on and on about concerning LGF or Malkin. We are after all, not in a conversation, but an exchange of letters. With such an exchange, precision matters a lot more than length. In a conversation, if someone started presenting me 50 specific points that they found wrong with me, at the same time, then it might be a little bit rude. But on the internet, it is just good policy to present a list of grievances as the Founding Fathers did.

OK, but would you agree that if I had given a lengthy list of citations, it would have seemed like an indictment? Because I was not wanting to level an indictment. I thought it would be a discussion, not an angry point/counterpoint.

if you want a discussion dean, you need to use private email. If you want a debate, in the public, that is another thing entirely. They attack you precisely because they perceive you as having attacked them. It is a classical diplomatic scenario for those who study military history and diplomacy.

Second Comment

I disagree almost entirely with Dean's characterizations of JihadWatch and Malkin, even with his examples. Specifics increase precision, but it doesn't make you right. I had trouble with Dean's conclusions even before he added in the updates. There are 1 premise, 1 conclusion, and a premise based upon that conclusion. The one premise is that there are people who treat all Muslims as the enemy and therefore detract from America's chances of survival by shitting on Karzai as a puppet and so forth. That is true, as a premise, because Democrats, the Left, and etc do do that in any and all circumstances. This includes people on the right, btw. And not just the David Duke anti-semites either.

The conclusion, however, is pretty inaccurate. In that Dean concludes that this then means Malkin and Co are guilty of the premise outlined in the first place. They are not, and even if you changed the logic structure, it doesn't make the conclusion any more correct. Therefore the second premise, which is that the things JihadWatch and Malkin write and title, are condescending or so and forth concerning Muslims, is incorrect. Why? Because it all goes back to the original premise of Dean's. Is Malkin and Jihad Watch part of the same faction as skippy and Ralph Peters, do they believe sacrificing allies in the Middle East for pragmatic benefits to America is a good long term solution?

Since they do not, then obviously, Dean's logic breaks based upon deduction, not induction. Since it is deduction, this is independent of any evidence Dean may present or Malkin refute. Why does this matter? Because as I see it, Dean started with deduction first, when he did not include specifics. He wasn't going about it scientifically, point/counter-point after all. So when Malkin and LGF say that Dean is painting them with strawman brushes, they are refering to the premise that Dean used to formulate the keystone of his argument.

So that would have to be my conclusion, concerning whether I think Dean's arguments are correct or not. On both Malkin and Co, as well as his original argument.

I just wanted to ask the question: shouldn't we do a better job of recognizing and embracing our Muslim friends who hate terrorism and radicalism? Who serve in our armed forces, and/or fight alongside our armed forces in the fight to capture or kill terrorists?

basic premise correct.

Listing such things would read like an indictment, and I was trying not to do that.

Sometimes things happen regardless of how you intended it. Self-fullfilling prophecy. Attempting to make it less an indictment, actually made it more of one, given how people perceive things. Human psychology, really has little to do with facts.

This very statement--that Islam is incompatible with democracy--is why I fight so hard with many of my friends on the Right: accepting that statement means we have to declare war on the entire Muslim world if we're to hope for human freedom to survive.

you know, Dean. If you had mentioned that you are fighting with Ralph Peters, instead of saying the "right", you would have been able to enlist Malkin's help instead of her enmity. Just saying.

I think that many of America's rightists--including, sadly, Michelle Malkin--have done a piss-poor job of making such vital distinctions.

if you look at your original post, here Dean. You will see that after listing some general critiques of the "right" concerning bad behavior in characterizing Muslims, the first person you mention specifically on the right, is Michelle Malkin. Why would she not take this as an indictment against her? You said you had problems with friends on the right, concerning how they treated Muslims, and then you mention her. So she has to ask herself, is this about an open letter from Dean asking her for help to fight against American ally disrespecting Ralph Peters, or is this an accussation from Dean that Malkin has a problem he doesn't like? Tricky, Tricky.

Indeed, I would like to publicly challenge Michelle Malkin: you've said you've stopped using terms like "Islamo-fascist" and "Islamic radicals" because they don't make sense. Oh really? Then how is it, Michelle, that you guys at Hot Air and Michellemalkin.com still approvingly highlight statements by America's Iraqi and Afghan allies, like Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki? They are Muslims. Born and bred Muslims. They're Muslims right now. They will almost certainly die Muslim. So why do you treat them like enemies and liars?

After that kind of rhetoric Dean, it is quite obvious that it would be taken as an "indictment". First you make a point about them not using such words because it doesn't make sense, without explaining what they meant, and then you say that they support allies like Karzai, presumably hypocritically. That's not exactly a call for help from Malkin and Co, Dean. Surely, you recognize that. Why does Malkin and Co treat them like enemies and liars when Michellemalkin.com still approvingly highlights statements by America's Iraqi and Afghan allies? Irrespective of the facts, that makes no sense logically. Why would they approvingly highlight Karzai's statements while treating Karzai as a liar? No sense dude.

This is our Muslim ally, damn it. Should you not acknowledge him as such??

okay, okay, it's almost over. Meta-secondary conclusion, as a reminder. First premise of dean, that Muslim allies are the Good, is correct. Conclusion of first premise, and second premise based upon first conclusion, however, is pretty wrong. The conclusion or the premise that Malkin treats our allies like enemies, or that Malkin and Co are disrespecting our allies, is incorrect. It is that incorrectness that LGF and Malkin have seen and are attacking, Dean Esmay.

Liberals vs conservatives and liberals vs liberals

2006-10-01T05:42:00.000-04:00

This is not the usual crazy political rants. Although it has some relation and similarities. Liberal, I mean, as in true liberal, classical liberal, people who are interested in humanity first and not just their moral purity first.

it's LGF, the classical liberal of the new generation, vs Dean Esmay a old school liberal of the old generation. Kind of interesting in a way.

Dean Esmay’s doing an excellent impression of a snarling, snapping chihuahua again, this time attacking Michelle Malkin and Hot Air, and calling anyone who disagrees with him a “traitor.” Along the way he throws in the obligatory anti-LGF smears—and all of it without a single quote to back up his ridiculous rant. If you’re interested, check it out at Michelle’s site; I’m not going to play Esmay’s “send me some traffic” game any more: How not to argue about Islam.

JihadWatch:However, in my eagerness to find such people I am not going to allow myself to be fooled. I have read the Qur'an many, many times. I have read Bukhari, Muslim, and other Hadith collections. I have read the Sira of Ibn Ishaq. I have read treatises of Islamic law and first-hand accounts of Islamic history. All that brings me to certain inescapable conclusions about Islamic doctrine, Muhammad's character and behavior, and more -- conclusions which I have documented in my books. Then when I read various Muslim moderates, they state that the Qur'an teaches, and that Muhammad taught, and that Islam as a whole teaches, very different things from what I know to be the case.

JihadWatch:What should I do then? Clap my hands and shout, "Yea, here's a Muslim moderate"? Well, I haven't done that. Their omissions, distortions, and misrepresentations make me suspicious. As I have said many times, it is easy to convince Westerners who know nothing of Islam that Islam is peaceful. It is harder to convince mujahedin. I am all for real moderate Muslims. I am not for getting deceived. If I can see that a moderate's account of Islamic teaching is inaccurate, a mujahid will certainly be able to also. And if that moderate's moderation won't convince Muslims, what's the point of it? To make non-Muslims feel better? I would rather have the truth than feel better on the basis of half-truths, thank you.

Malkin has the specific comments Dean made, if you want specifics. Follow the link to her site for those specifics.

Dean is rather curmundgeon like, you know. It's like an argument with the grandfather, he knows best and he won't listen to anything you say. It's not an indictment against him, but more of an analysis of his personality.

I read his side of things first, and while I found it wrong on a premise based analysis, I did not find it too offensive. It was wrong on the premise that Malkin doesn't respect our Muslim allies, and it was wrong on the premise that Malkin is required to do something about all those right wing trolls who talk about dumping Iraq for America. Malkin cannot seriously do anything about those who are interested in iraqi civil strife or a 3 state solution or anything like that. She has no influence on that side of the Republicans, the "pro-war" tent if you will. People like Ralph Peters and skippy, what is she going to do with them? If Dean has a problem with people who disrespect our allies in Iraq and Afghanistan, then he should stick up for them specifically and attack their attackers, instead of calling upon LGF and Malkin to do the attacking.

Place your bets, see the fight!

Update:After Reading Dean and Malkin's side, I'm more inclined to be a peace maker, a diplomat. All this fighting is to no end after all. War is not for entertainment, regardless of how many grim jokes are told to me and laughed at by me.

Tobasco and Jews

2006-09-29T20:41:00.000-04:00

Found an archived link on Sala's site, that tallies up republican votes for Israel compared to Democrat votes. It is relevant to the topic Bookworm brought up, in that Jews vote predominantly Democrat for some reason.

There was also this about LTG Mattis. Something Bush won't talk about and someone who Bush won't support. But for the Jacksonians, Mattis has achieved almost Patton like mystique.

A nice little summary of how to learn about war.

The moral high ground of the Left.

Some British political ugh interrogation, for those interested and those who read Melannie Phillips

End Game Democrats

BLACKFIVE comes off the top rope. I'm not getting in his way.

A quaint discussion on what to do with terrorists, and do terrorists apply under the Geneva Conventions? Simple answer, yes they do.

Reminder from Afghanistan, Michael Yon on CNN

End Game Democrats 2

I can't find that End Game Power Politics post Sala put up. Too bad, it was quite impactful.

I did find this diagram which is curiously interesting in a way.

A valid question from hillary?

2006-09-24T17:04:00.000-04:00

Steven Den Beste - Good and Bad Anime Villains

2006-09-21T13:33:00.000-04:00

I was reading your post on that subject, and I got to thinking about the other characters you didn't mention. Notably, the characters in anime that you might not have watched yet, Bleach and Naruto. As well as Atsuyu, the villain in the last episode of Juuni Kokki.

Atsuyu fit your standard of being tempting, an attractive and charismatic figure. True evil isn't true evil without having a bit of debonair flare and charisma. If evil always looked ugly, then it wouldn't be so much of a problem for the human race, the way I see it.

On Hubris, this guy scores a pretty high max, as he just believes he is on the moral high ground, the path of righteousness, and everything shall fall into place one way or another.

Nemesis, is of course conservatively predictable for the villain. It gets high marks for "true justice" as well. Meaning, a reversal, an exposure of fake righteousness, as well as a checkmate execution. The villain got defeated not because he failed, but because everything he was trying to get was exposed as a fake.

The scare factor probably comes in concerning characters that are fooled. I care about those characters, and so there's a bit of fear when those characters fall under the sway of the villain's charisma.

I think Juuni Kokki, or the Twelve of Kingdoms, does an excellent job of portraying human dynamics and human politics. Using the Japanese feudal model, with modifications of course.

It's very ambiguous. You don't really know who is the good guy or the bad guy, or at least you don't comprehend the reasons for it. You know Shoryuu is the good guy from the earlier episodes, but that doesn't automatically make Atsuyu a bad guy. Even when Shoryuu told the Empress that he killed Atsuyu.

I see a lot of this fake righteousness in real life situations. Like the one Bookworm wrote about, concerning do fake liberals and Democrats really care about other people or is this just a facade that fools people.

In Naruto and Bleach, the "menace" factor is extreme, ultra high quality extreme. Their (villains') motivations are easy to understand. And horrible to contemplate.

Naruto and Bleach were inspired by DBZ's creator. Naruto's Kishomoto, because he kept drawing DBZ manga. Bleach's creator, because the DBZ author gave him support when his Bleach manga was rejected by Shounen. Both Bleach and Naruto have a sort of hybrid villain system. In which you start off small, and the small fry villains you fight are only slightly menacing and dangerous. Then when you defeat them, you convert them to your cause. I didn't watch the early episodes of DBZ, so I can't describe the exact correlations. But I do know Piccolo was fighting the main character, and then they fight together. In Bleach and Naruto, the fusion between former enemy and current friend is much much stronger and harmonious. They aren't "allied" because of convenience, like Goku and Vegeta were. But rather because they have the same philosophy now afterwards.

It is similar to Juuni Kokki's large numbers of serial villains combined with DBZ's redemption qualities then. One after another, some alike, some very different. Specifically, the villain progression in Naruto is very well done. Mishimoto gradually scales up the menace factor, the evil factor from small to huge. The sympathy you feel is not for the top villains, but you do feel sympathy for the lives those villains have affected. This being a Japanese animation, you have leader villains with henchemen, bound by loyalty binds and oaths of fealty. So even if there is no sympathy for the top villain, there is much for their sacrificial pawns.

Personally, the main character of the Twelve Kingdoms when she had that confrontation at the end, was very well done. The resolution was quite... final so to speak. It had a very nice dramatic flare as well. He who controls the military, controls the government after all.

A lot of the villains in Naruto and Bleach are after power, pure power. Not power through manipulation, or votes, or having people who follow them. No, this isn't a mass cult following, although there are some elements there but the number of followers are pretty small. The villains mostly seek personal power, power sourced from themselves. They'll use others to get that power, sort of like narcissists. The only thing that matter is themselves, if they have to derive their identity by looking into the mirror of other people's faces, so be it. This is why the menace factor is very high, and the hubris level not so high. They are menacing precisely "because" they are everything they say they are. This isn't hubris, they are as powerful as they say they are, in fact they are more powerful than they look and say. A lot of the fights in Naruto and Bleach are "underplayed". Meaning, like in politics when you lowball. You test a person's power and speed first, using non-serious strikes, then step up the power when you are serious. Percent duty cycles or something.

The right Nemesis for Naruto and Bleach is almost always the main character. The resolutions are also very interesting, in that it maximizes human potential. Meaning, yes the opponents of the main char is fighting for their own personal motivations, but through fighting the main char, they actually are able to fullfill their personal goals much better after they get beaten. As weirdly as that sounds. Counter-intuitive so to speak. At least if you talk to people who see Iraq as a one edged sword. Sometimes getting beaten, like Japan got beaten, is a good thing for your future. Like I said, counter-intuitive for the people who only see things in linear one dimensional images. They are the ones who think that if the enemy is in range of your guns, you aren't in the range of the enemy's guns.

The charisma is... of course present for the villains of Naruto and Bleach. We don't see it, of course, but the followers of these villains do. They feel honest loyalty and true belief, because the followers were helped by the villains in the past. Don't bite the hand that feeds you in other words. We understand but do not approve, and feel sad at their brainwashing and eventual fates.

The Police State that is Britain

2006-09-20T19:45:00.000-04:00

I found that blog and was intrigued by the writing style.

It is funny how a study with sample of 10 can be considered "scientific." As for taking British chefs seriously, we all know the British are famous for their cooking. My local phone book included advertisements for restaurants featuring American, Caribbean, Chinese, French, German, Greek, Indian, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Lebanese, Mexican, Pakistani, Persian, Salvadoran, Thai and Vietnamese cuisine, but there were none featuring cuisine from any of the British Isles. Even if such knives are useless to all chefs, not just British ones, they are handy in less affluent kitchens. A long, pointed knife is perfect for slicing steaks off of a chuck roast and for tenderizing a Swiss steak.

If long knives are to be banned, shouldn’t all potential weapons be banned? People could slit others’ throats with shorter knives, so those should be banned. Other kitchen utensils such as ice picks and shish-ke-bab skewers could be used as weapons and should be eliminated. Stabbing isn’t the only way to injure or kill people. Every year people are hurt or killed by blunt force trauma. Therefore, heavy cast-iron skillets must also be banned.

Office supplies could also be used as weapons. Letter openers should be banned, as should those old fashioned, long, pointed metal spindles for holding papers. Other office supplies such as large paper weights, heavy three-hole punches and hefty hard cover books must also be eliminated since those can be used to smash someone over the head.

Eva says it in jest, but of course, it is the route Britain is on. See any gels or liquids banned lately on airplanes?

Language, Linguistics, Lightning Round

2006-09-20T19:09:00.000-04:00

[An argument I was having over whether the English language was precise because it had many words and definitions or whether all those definitions and words created ambiguity instead of precision] I favor the former, Kevin favors the latter.]

No, it means the same thing, modified by the shades of meaning. It does not mean different things in different situations. Difference logically derives from different logical premises, and different logical premises results in different meanings for words. The meaning for a key and a keystone and the various other 80% of the usages on dictionary.com, is of course, based upon the same logical premise. The same abstract imaginary coordinate in space. Words mean different things when their meanings are not related abstractedly at all.

It’s simple analogy, kevin. You don’t know what a keystone is, you don’t know that the “key” means important? You have problems correlating this

As to the issue that began this thread, I have to agree with DQ on this one–why sweat the small stuff?

with this

A keystone is small, kevin, but it doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

Okay. If you have problems, that’s fine. I can spell it out.

Some of the keystones of a language, that which holds everything together, is its structure, the rules, and the meaning of words. So, even though these things look small, their importance is comparable to the importance a keystone holds for an architectural structure. Small, but if you ignore it or break it, it will cause a systematic crash. Do you understand the answer to your question “why sweat the small stuff” now?

Here’s how you, Kevin, differ with me. I believe that words have meaning, irrespective of how you massage the sentence and the context. You believe words have meaning because you get it from context alone. Your words, not mine. You said it comes down to context. It comes down to context in Chinese, and perhaps intonation of the syllables in spoken form. But not in English.

Context, is also known as the reality part of meaning in language. I am refering, of course, to phasor mathematics. Converting from rectangular to polar, polar to rectangular. The English language is setup so that it has two components. A real, and an imaginary. The imaginary component is the abstract, it is how our thoughts are organized, it does not come from what we see or feel in the world. Mathematics is abstract, but just because it is abstract, does not mean it cannot affect the real world. Thus x and y. i and j for imaginary y, and x for the real x axis. 5 + 5i instead of x,y.

Context is the x coordinate, horizontal axis. The abstract component is the y part, i or j. You believe the meaning of words come from context, without context the meaning of words are confused. There’s two practical applications, one for you, one for me.

You could go with the context model, which Clinton also used when he said “it depends upon what the meaning of is is”. It depends upon the context in which a word is used, to decipher the imaginary portion of that word, its abstract meaning.

Or you could go with my model, in which the real part, context, and the imaginary abstract part, the i, are independent of each other. Only when you convert them to polar form, do they affect each other.

The reason my model is more precise, as an application of the English language, is because I have two independent axis from which to choose variables from. You only have one, context. Words have meaning based upon context, all other methods produce confusion.

My model doesn’t produce confusion, because it allows for the existence of the abstract part independent of the real existing or not. Meaning, words have abstract meanings regardless of how they exist in a sentence, independent of the context even. So instead of the real dictating what the abstract means, the abstract dictates to the real what it is. And vice a versa. My model can do it both either ways. yours is sort of a one way street.

This allows more variables, more precision, and more shades of meaning, without losing the “definition” of a word by changing it into something it is not.

Instead of saying “let’s talk about what the definition of is, is”, I say, let’s talk about combining the abstract definition of is with the context of what situation you wish to use it in conjunction with.

I bolded the word “different” for a reason, you know. It’s more different than just “different”. The previous example is of using the same word in different real locations, with different abstract meanings. This is an example of where the abstract is modified by the real context, creating ambiguous meanings when one word is used many times in different contexts and for different abstract meanings.

If that doesn’t make sense, let’s just say that the sentence I used “different than just different” is what kevin was talking about in terms of the word key. Not the same thing, I think. Can you use context to figure out what I was talking about? Yes you can. But you lack something, and that something is called “precision”. If you can’t tell which part is from which manufacturer, if you can’t tell which part is part of which generation, then you will lack precision in your design work.

The way key is used, refering to kevin’s complaint about the number of variations in the dictionary, is this way.

1. a small metal instrument specially cut to fit into a lock and move its bolt.

9. the system, method, pattern, etc., used to decode or decipher a cryptogram, as a code book, machine setting, or key word.

12. Music.
a. (in a keyboard instrument) one of the levers that when depressed by the performer sets in motion the playing mechanism.
b. (on a woodwind instrument) a metal lever that opens and closes a vent.
c. the relationship perceived between all tones in a given unit of music and a single tone or a keynote; tonality.
d. the principal tonality of a composition: a symphony in the key of C minor.
e. the keynote or tonic of a scale.

Here are the synonymns and antonymns of the word key

Synonyms: basic, chief, crucial, decisive, fundamental, important, indispensable, leading, main, major, material, pivotal, primary, principal, vital
Antonyms: peripheral, secondary

Key=principal object I use to open the lock on my primary structure of residence.

To wrap it all up. Let’s just say that there are 3 components to the meaning of a word. Its contextual real part, its abstract imaginary part, and its polar hybrid part which is both its real part and abstract part combined.

The definitions for key you see here all have the same abstract component. The abstract component of “primary”, “necessary”, that which revolves in your head when you think about what you NEED. That thought, that’s the abstract thought I’m refering to. The “meaning” derives when you have the context. If you are talking about musical instruments, the “key” then becomes that which relates to the context of musical instruments and other similar situations. Context plus abstract, equals polar hybrid.

So, what does this all mean you might be thinking. What does this have to do with what I or Kevin were talking about? It can be wrapped up in a short description, so be not afraid.

“When people choose to use fewer words, and keep using the same words in their vocabulary to mean DIFFERENT things in different situations, then that is imprecision.”

And the single word key means many different things in different situtations–it comes down to the context in which it is used and can lead to confusion, so what again is your point?

Comment by kevin | September 19, 2006

Words that mean different things are words with different polar hybrids. Different situations means different abstract parts of the rectangular coordinate, real with imaginary.

So, how are you able to use the “same” word, to mean different things, in different situations? You can and the Democrats do. Torture is beneath our dignity and the dignity of humanity, therefore torture should be illegal. The CIA torturing someone then, is wrong.

You have one word, torture, with the same abstract coordinate, to inflict pain purposefully, combined with 3 different contextual real coordinates. To inflict pain combined with beneath our dignity, a moral result and meaning. To inflict pain combined with law, making it illegal to inflict pain purposefully. Then finally you have to inflict pain combined with the ethical judgement, that it is wrong, that it should not be done in any situation.

Used in an argument that appears to be logical, and what you have is one method of creating a circular argument using ambiguous semantics, words, and meanings.

Greater precision would automatically expose the illogic, only greater ambiguity can cover up gross deficiencies like the incident I’ve described.

But what does this have to do with the word key? Because the definitions listed for key are for different meanings. Different meanings, of different words, in different contexts. Kevin assumed that all the definitions listed for key were talking about meant that you were going to get a lot of confusion when you use the word multiple words of “key” in the same sentence.

I think that would be correct, but that is why I specified “fewer words”. More words, mean more precision. More variations of that one word, means if you do have two of them, you don’t have to figure out based upon the context what the meaning of the word “key” means. You can actually figure out the context from the meaning of a word, if you lack the context. Or you can figure out the meaning of the word key, from its context. But that is only because there are already numerous meanings for key, used in different situations. Since key has preset configurations, you just look it up.

If you had one word that meant one thing in one situation, only. What would you do if the contextual situation changed? You only have the imaginary part, how are you going to get the real part, then combine them together to get the meaning? Very hard to impossible, and still very imprecise and slow.

Practical application? the word torture.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=torture&x=0&y=0

Not many meanings to that word. So, when I want to use torture to mean good things, for necessary things, do I use torture or do I use another word, hard interrogation methods? Is torture just too… EngSoc to include all the different shades of meaning I demand that it be capable of?

When a person says he doesn’t like torture, does he mean he doesn’t like the infliction of pain on purpose or does he mean he doesn’t like tormenting a person for revenge? How do you tell the difference by context alone? You can’t, because because they are the same word.

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.

holy Christ. You have 3 meanings in one word, for one instance of a definition. I think my model is more preferable. My model, the many definitions for the word key, is more precise than kevin’s model where it says the less definitions the less confusing.

People can decide whatever they want, this was not easy to come up with.

For reference purposes, or just if you are confused. Here’s a logic whatever.

X=real=context=contextual=situation=environment used=X coordinate

y=imaginary=i=j=abstract=pure thought=abstract meaning

polar hybrid form=meaning, the kind of things it means=what you get when you take a word and combine it with the context in which that word is used= x+y. Also x+iy.

Comment by Ymarsakar | September 20, 2006

Around the World via the Blogosphere

2006-09-19T20:06:00.000-04:00

Here's some stuff I found pretty interesting while surfing the blogs.

Here we had a politician being asked a question about when his family ran away from Judaism. The reaction, priceless.

Then we had a post by Shrinkwrapped about gun control. Useful for those who understand psychology, and recommended for its other salient points.

Finally, we have this propaganda video by Kurdistan. I mean propaganda by, something created to convince people. It is not "advertisement" precisely because this movie was paid for by the Kurdistan government. Thus anything paid for by the government is called propaganda, including probably the BBC in one way or another.

Propaganda is like executions. It all depends upon who uses it, and who it is used upon. Good guys executing child rapists.. not exactly something I'll raise much raucus about. Bad guys executing a raped teenager in Iran? That is a different story. Same with propaganda.

Red vs Blue -A battlefield scenario

2006-09-14T22:05:00.000-04:00

[Just something I brainstormed while talking about the media and Vietnam, when I read bookworm's post on it]

People are tired of war, they want to go back to winning elections, envying Hollywood, and making money.

The weird thing is, it's like a sports team constantly getting beat, and the fans never likes it. However, the fans (Red Sox) keep rooting for their team. Unlike sports tv, Iraq is only shown piecemeal. So you have all the bad mistakes on the Red Sox being shown, and you can't feel "good" about anything. Meaning, they show you the Red Sox losing, but they never show you the Red Sox scoring anything. So instead of a real game where you see both sides in continuous time, you see snatches that keep your spirit at an all time low always. There's no ups and downs usually going on as with a normal game. Instead of seeing one team score, other team score, we see one team score, other team fumbles, one team scores, other team fumbles, and so forth. Eventually someone might just shut the tv off with that kind of frustration.

You can get people away from despair, by giving a victory party. However, first you have to get a victory. And you can't get a victory if nobody is paying attention to the Red Sox's wins. People do reminder the ecstatic mood when the Marines got to Baghdad. Future failures are to be expected, you can't win all the time. However, there have been few ups and down cycles. The election was notable because it was low, high, low. The invasion, high to low. The second election was high, middle, low, middle.

Reminds me of an AC sinuisoidal wave. The media damps down the morale and spirit of the US people, preventing it from going high or low. The failures are not as painful as pictures of Pallywood. The successes are not as joyful as marriages and promotions, but more like a 1% raise in your salary. Good news, but negligible. After awhile, this kind of mood will break people's spirit and willpower. At that moment, a coup de grace like the Tet Offensive can obviously shatter the will of a weakened people.

You should have heard this general story about two armies clashing on the field of battle. Red Army is fighting a losing battle, ultimately giving ground in order to prevent being enveloped. Blue Army is focused on smashing through the middle of the Red Lines, and defeating the enemy in detail. Blue army sees their side pushing through Red's center, slaughtering all in their way to victory and glory. Blue's soldiers feel uplifted, euphoric, ultimately joyous more or less at the sight. Red's morale is shaking, but holding.

Who will win the battle? The side that perceives that they are going to win. So obviously Red wins because they hid forces behind the Blue lines, allowing Red to hit Blue's forces in the rear at the moment of their victory. By snatching victory from the jaws of defeat, Red has demoralized Blue to such an extent that their morale shatters and they run for it. Blue has thrown down their weapons and is proceeding to leave the battlefield via a rout. How can this be, wasn't Blue winning? How could a small force hidden behind the indomitable Blue Army crashing their way through Red's center to victory, possibly be defeated by a small force from the rear when victory was almost on the tongues of Blue's men?

The reason is simple. It was precisely because Blue thought they were winning, that they were defeated. Perception creates victory, but whose perception of whom however, is not set in stone. It is mercurial, shifting.

Blue by believing that the battle was almost won, dropped their mental barriers. This allowed a small force that could surprise them with shock and awe (the real thing, not the Donald Rumsfeld air force version) to mow down several people at the back of Blue's lines. Blue's formation would shift, appearing to Red's center as if Blue was attempting to run away. Blue would be totally surprised, and even though Blue outnumbers the small force in their rear, panic sets in. You see, Blue believed things were going to happen in a certain way, and when new things occur, they cannot adapt, they panic, they are confused, they are without orders and direction. While Red's center was being pushed inwards, Red didn't run, because Red had orders and knew what to do. Hold the center, that was all. Even though they were dieing in droves to hold the center, they did not break and run. Yet Blue broke and ran after suffering a miniscule amount of deaths compared to that which Red's Center suffered. How could that be? Shock and Awe. The shock of being surprised and killed by a foe that you thought you had defeaten, the awe of Red's Center as they realized that victory was indeed occuring after gruesome hours of holding the line, watching their friends fall on their sides.

Red counter-attacks, with renewed vengeance, with a focus on vengeance. Red now believes victory is at hand. Why is that different from Blue's belief that victory was at hand? Because Red came to believe in victory after being at the BOTTOM, near bottom, of the morale scale. Red's morale has skyrocketed, from almost zero. The delta, the change, was from 0 to skyscraper. For Blue, they started off high, and when surprised, their morale shrunk and fell. As with gravity, if you fall from a great height, you hurt yourself. Blue's morale fell from skyscraper heights, to the ground. The acceleration was so fast, Blue's will to fight was broken instantaneously. It's simple force equations. F=v^2m iirc. Velocity being displacement over time. The less time, the more velocity, the more velocity, the more force. Red was losing morale at a very low rate, a low velocity. Blue lost their morale all at about the same time. That has a devastating effect.

The Democrats are so busy focusing on the kill counts, but you do understand that their effect on people and you are not based upon absolute numbers, right? Their propaganda effect is focused through changing your morale, numbers are simply a means to an end. It is the morale, the willpower, the spirit, that counts. It is what restricts your war machines and your body. No matter how strong or how numerous, those who are not willing to act, might as well be frozen in time regardless of their power on paper.

The Democrats do not care about how many die, in so far as the more that die, the more readily they can decrease your morale to fight. Attrition warfare, the lowest and crudest form of warfare.

But as the scenario I painted portrayed with Blue vs Red, it is not numbers that matter, it is time, shock, and awe.

Two generals have used inferior numerical forces to best and defeat superior forces. They weren't "freedom fighters" or "guerrilas" or even terrorists. Guerrila warfare is not some esoteric discipline based upon principles foreign and alien to warfare. It is simply taking a weakened position and purposefully applying it against a stronger position, which is what warfare mostly is about. The strong killing the weak, and the weak trying to survive and kill the strong. In other words, the 21st century of "Siege Warfare". But back to the two generals. Their names were Belisarius and Hannibal Barca. Most infamous, there are many more leaders and generals in history.

Why did Hannibal Barca cross the Alps? Why did Hannibal Barca bait a full Roman Legion across a river with his light numidian cavalry? Why did the generals send an armored push through to Baghdad?

Studying the current war and reading the events about it, is not a good way to understand warfare. Simply because this war isn't over, you can't see what will be or could have been. Looking into past battles however, and you can see the long reaching effects of the actions of both sides.