Saturday, September 11, 2004

In The Name Of Allah

Michelle Malkin weighs in:

The third anniversary of Sept. 11 is upon us. We remain at war -- and the media remain in denial.

How many times have you picked up a newspaper and read about terrorist attacks perpetrated not by Muslim terrorists, but by generic "militants" or "guerrillas" or "rebels" or, as Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes noted the Pakistan Times called them, "activists"?

Contrast the media whitewashing of our Islamofascist enemies with the press coverage of the Waco, Texas, siege in 1993 -- which constantly reminded us that David Koresh and his Branch Davidian followers were members of a "peculiar religious sect" (New York Times, March 3, 1993) and "a group of religious zealots with a known propensity for violence" (Washington Post, March 2, 1993) who were steeped in a "culture of Christian extremism" (San Francisco Chronicle, April 20, 1993).

A Nexis search of the terms "Branch Davidian" and "religious" and "cult" in The New York Times for the year 1993 yielded 151 hits. The vast majority of these references were in headlines and news articles, as opposed to editorials, letters or book reviews. A Nexis search of the terms "al Qaeda" and "religious" and "cult" in The New York Times for the year 2004 yielded just one article -- a magazine piece in March.

The mainstream media pounded President Bush for trying to explain that the War on Terror is unwinnable in a conventional sense. The mainstream press itself proves the president's point every time its reporters disguise the deadly fanatical nature of our opponents in this global war. How are we to win a war against blood-spattered enemies whom our own free press continues to protect through politically correct sanitization?

It wasn't no-name militants or wayward guerrillas who have butchered, beheaded and slaughtered thousands of innocents over the last three years alone. Anniversary reality check:
In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Russia stabbed babies to death, shot toddlers in the back, forced children to eat rose petals and drink their own urine, raped teenage girls, executed their teachers and blew themselves up in a crowded school gymnasium. Death toll: 338.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Spain detonated bombs on four commuter trains during Madrid's rush hour. Death toll: 190.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Bali blew up a beach resort with an electronically triggered bomb at one bar and a car bomb hidden in a van at another nightclub filled with young Western tourists on holiday. Death toll: 202.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Pakistan kidnapped and beheaded American journalist Daniel Pearl.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Saudi Arabia kidnapped and beheaded American engineer Paul Johnson.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and beheaded American independent contractor Nick Berg.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Iraq kidnapped and executed Italian security guard Fabrizio Quattrocchi.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in the Philippines kidnapped and killed American missionary Martin Burnham.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Israel engineered near-simultaneous suicide attacks on two buses, killing at least 15 people.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Morocco waged suicide bombing attacks in Casablanca.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in Turkey bombed synagogues and the British consulate.

In the name of Allah, Muslim terrorists in America hijacked and incinerated three planes full of men, women and children, trapped pregnant women and firefighters in smoke-filled stairways, and forced office workers to leap 99 stories to their deaths after saying final prayers from the ledges of the World Trade Center on a peaceful September morning. Death toll: 3,000.

They tell us to "never forget." First, let's stop misremembering.

One can't remember to mention everything the Islamofascists have done, but I need to point out that Michelle did forget a very big example:

In the name of Allah, the Arab Muslim government of Sudan is supporting the Janjaweed campaign, of rape, slavery and death agains the Black African natives of Sudan. Two million people have been killed in the past twenty years. Countless women, boys and girls have been brutally raped. Countless men, women and children have been sold into slavery.

Never Again

Charles Johnson at LittleGreenFootballs weighs in with his thoughts on September 11th:

Three years ago America was attacked by teams of Islamic terrorists in a well-organized plan to murder thousands of people. They lived among us for years, taking full advantage of our free society to gain the knowledge, experience, and access they needed to kill us, hiding their virulent hatred behind masks of indifference.

If their diabolical scheme had gone off the way they envisioned, the World Trade Center towers would have fallen over onto the surrounding buildings and into the morning rush hour streets, killing many more than the three thousand who died in the buildings when they collapsed. They flew those planes into the towers from opposite directions, so that when they toppled the destruction and death would be maximized.

Throughout the Arab world, and in some places in America, our enemies danced and celebrated the carnage.

On the third year after September 11, at LGF we haven’t forgotten the promise we made on that day:

Never again.

At LGF our mission is to expose the ideologies, plans, and allies of our enemies, so that as citizens we have the information we need to defend ourselves—and to demand that our government defend us.

Some of the spoiled, self-hating sons and daughters of our rich society tell themselves that by mocking the events of that day, they’re showing intelligence and sophistication.
But the war has barely begun.

It is important to note something about Charles. Previous to 911 his blog was about software and goofy internet gossip and jokes. Sometimes the jokes were of the Bush or Chimp? variety. He did not seem to be a fan of George Bush, to put it mildly.

Here are his first two posts on the morning of September 11th, 2001:



Here's a post from two days later:

I preface this by saying that I may be the least patriotic person I know.

But I am going to refrain from posting any more criticism of our President for the duration of whatever is about to happen. (Unless he does something really dumb.)

Some visitors have apparently been seeing my criticism of President Bush as an invitation to post comments implying... no, saying outright that America deserves what happened on September 11th.

I've had to ban a couple of those people, something I really hate to do. But this is our house. If you're going to come in here, show some decency. Don't tell me the children in those planes deserved what happened to them. Don't tell me America deserved this. If you're able to say that with such disgusting and self-important glibness, you are putting yourself on the same moral level with the monsters who did this crime, and we don't want you here.

Make no mistake. I never thought I would say this, but the President has my full support now, in whatever he chooses to do. I pray he somehow finds the correct course through this labyrinth of hate and darkness.

His journey was close to mine. 911 snapped me awake with a whiplash shake. I have never been the same since.

When I saw the world turning on the Jews, my resolve doubled.

We can not allow the fascists get away with their evil again. Whether you are an Islamofascist or a European, or American, or other, who wants to see America come down, (even if you hide your desires behind "nuance"); I want your belief system to be destroyed.

America's system feeds the world in so many ways. Our economy raises the economy of the entire world. Our ideas and patents give the world comfort and health and fun. Our country makes your lives livable in a way that people would never have dreamed possible two centuries ago, three centuries, five ...

Don't bite the hand that feeds.

I want to give a profound expression of gratitude to Charles Johnson and all the other blogger who are doing similar work.

The Islamic Cult Of Death

From the New York Times:

We've been forced to witness the massacre of innocents. In New York, Madrid, Moscow, Tel Aviv, Baghdad and Bali, we have seen thousands of people destroyed while going about the daily activities of life.

We've been forced to endure the massacre of children. Whether it's teenagers outside an Israeli disco or students in Beslan, Russia, we've seen kids singled out as special targets.

This is the cult of people who are proud to declare, "You love life, but we love death." This is the cult that sent waves of defenseless children to be mowed down on the battlefields of the Iran-Iraq war, that trains kindergartners to become bombs, that fetishizes death, that sends people off joyfully to commit mass murder.

This cult attaches itself to a political cause but parasitically strangles it. The death cult has strangled the dream of a Palestinian state. The suicide bombers have not brought peace to Palestine; they've brought reprisals. The car bombers are not pushing the U.S. out of Iraq; they're forcing us to stay longer. The death cult is now strangling the Chechen cause, and will bring not independence but blood.

But that's the idea. Because the death cult is not really about the cause it purports to serve. It's about the sheer pleasure of killing and dying.

It's about massacring people while in a state of spiritual loftiness. It's about experiencing the total freedom of barbarism - freedom even from human nature, which says, Love children, and Love life. It's about the joy of sadism and suicide.

We should be used to this pathological mass movement by now. We should be able to talk about such things. Yet when you look at the Western reaction to the Beslan massacres, you see people quick to divert their attention away from the core horror of this act, as if to say: We don't want to stare into this abyss. We don't want to acknowledge those parts of human nature that were on display in Beslan. Something here, if thought about too deeply, undermines the categories we use to live our lives, undermines our faith in the essential goodness of human beings.

Three years after Sept. 11, too many people have become experts at averting their eyes. If you look at the editorials and public pronouncements made in response to Beslan, you see that they glide over the perpetrators of this act and search for more conventional, more easily comprehensible targets for their rage.

The Boston Globe editorial, which was typical of the American journalistic response, made two quick references to the barbarity of the terrorists, but then quickly veered off with long passages condemning Putin and various Russian policy errors.

The Dutch foreign minister, Bernard Bot, speaking on behalf of the European Union, declared: "All countries in the world need to work together to prevent tragedies like this. But we also would like to know from the Russian authorities how this tragedy could have happened."
It wasn't a tragedy. It was a carefully planned mass murder operation. And it wasn't Russian authorities who stuffed basketball nets with explosives and shot children in the back as they tried to run away.

Whatever horrors the Russians have perpetrated upon the Chechens, whatever their ineptitude in responding to the attack, the essential nature of this act was in the act itself. It was the fact that a team of human beings could go into a school, live with hundreds of children for a few days, look them in the eyes and hear their cries, and then blow them up.

Dissertations will be written about the euphemisms the media used to describe these murderers. They were called "separatists" and "hostage-takers." Three years after Sept. 11, many are still apparently unable to talk about this evil. They still try to rationalize terror. What drives the terrorists to do this? What are they trying to achieve?

They're still victims of the delusion that Paul Berman diagnosed after Sept. 11: "It was the belief that, in the modern world, even the enemies of reason cannot be the enemies of reason. Even the unreasonable must be, in some fashion, reasonable."

This death cult has no reason and is beyond negotiation. This is what makes it so frightening. This is what causes so many to engage in a sort of mental diversion. They don't want to confront this horror. So they rush off in search of more comprehensible things to hate.

Islamofascists Kill Children And Rape Teenage Girls And Make Snuff Videos

Remember Beslan.

They raped teenage girls and videotaped it. They stabbed babies. They shot children. They wired themselves and the entire building with explosives because they intended to kill everybody.

Thank God Russian forces stepped in and did not allow every last person to be murdered.

Islamofascists Use Children As Human Shields

Photograph, from AP, of Islamofascist wiring bomb in the midst of a street full of children.

We will put an end to this.

Where Is The Muslim Outrage?

Jeff Jacoby from

They are still burying the victims of the latest atrocity committed by evildoers professing Islam -- the slaughter of hundreds of children, teachers, and parents in an elementary school in Beslan, Russia. And from Muslims the world over, as usual, has come mostly silence.

There have been no public demonstrations by Muslims anxious to make it clear how outraged and sickened they are that anyone could commit such unspeakable deeds as an act of Islamic faith. There has been no anguished outcry by Islam's leading imams and sheiks. Prominent Muslim organizations in the West have not called press conferences to express their disgust and anger. Once again the world has witnessed a savage episode of Islamist terror, and once again it strains to hear a convincing rejection of the terrorists from those who should care most about Islam's reputation.

That is not to say there has been no criticism at all. Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia telephoned Russian President Vladimir Putin to assure him that "this terrorist act . . . goes against religious teachings and violates human and moral values." Syria's official news agency decried the massacre as "a terrorist, cowardly action." Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi of Al-Azhar University in Cairo lambasted the murderers for "taking Islam as cover" and said that "those who carry out the kidnappings are criminals, not Muslims."

But these are boilerplate denunciations, practically meaningless -- particularly when they come from sources that sustain Islamist fanaticism (Saudi Arabia), shelter and support terrorists (Syria), or defend suicide bombers as praiseworthy "martyrs" (Tantawi). They condemn no terrorists or terror organizations by name. They offer no help in destroying the infrastructure that recruits, funds, and trains them. And they contain no hint that the global scourge of Islamofascist jihad is a cancer eating away at the Muslim world.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which issues dozens of press releases every month, had nothing to say about the bloodbath in Russia until I requested a comment on Tuesday -- four days after the mass-murder occurred and nearly a week after the terrorists, shouting "Allahu akbar," first seized the school. The statement CAIR then issued doesn't even acknowledge that the killers were Muslim:

No words can describe the horror and grief generated by the deaths of so many innocent people at the hands of those who dishonor the cause they espouse. We offer sincere condolences to the families of the victims and call for a swift resolution to the conflict in that troubled region that will let all people live in peace and freedom.

At least CAIR went through the motions of condemning the butchery. Other voices preached a different message altogether.

Ali Abdullah, an Islamic scholar in Bahrain, announced that the bloodshed in Beslan "is the work of the Israelis who want to tarnish the image of Muslims." In London, Islamist cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed said he would support hostage-taking at British schools if it were done for a good reason. "If an Iraqi Muslim carried out an attack like that in Britain," he told the Daily Telegraph, "it would be justified because Britain has carried out acts of terrorism in Iraq." Fortunately, a few Muslim commentators have denounced the evil being done in the name of Islam, and have done so courageously and unambiguously. (The Middle East Media Research Institute has compiled their reactions at One in particular stands out: an extraordinary column in the pan-Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat by Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of the Al-Arabiya news channel. (An English translation was published in the Telegraph.)

"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists," he begins, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

"The hostage-takers of the children in Beslan were Muslims. The hostage-takers and murderers of the Nepalese chefs and workers in Iraq were also Muslims. . . . The majority of those who manned the suicide bombings against buses, vehicles, schools, houses, and buildings all over the world were Muslim. . . . "What a pathetic record. What an abominable `achievement.' Does all this tell us anything about ourselves, our societies, and our culture?. . .

"We cannot tolerate in our midst those who abduct journalists, murder civilians, explode buses; we cannot accept them as related to us. . . . They are the people who have smeared Islam and stained its image. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly implemented by Muslim men and women.

"We cannot redeem our extremist youths, who commit all these heinous crimes, without confronting the sheiks who thought it ennobling to re-invent themselves as revolutionary ideologues, sending other people's sons and daughters to certain death, while sending their own children to European and American schools and colleges."

When it is no longer astonishing to encounter such sentiments in the Muslim world, we will we know that the corner has been turned in the war against Islamist terror.

Steven Spielberg And The French Ought To Be Ashamed Of Themselves

Heads In The Sand by Diana West:

If there was something tragi-farcical about Steven Spielberg receiving a knighthood from French President Jacques Chirac last weekend for "Schindler's List," there was also something tragi-farcically apt. Here we be, facing not World War III (the Cold War), but World War IV, "the war on terror." We see the gymnasium massacre in the Caucasus and the bus bloodbath in Beersheba. We hear of the ongoing extermination of black Africans in Sudan, and the murders of twelve Nepalese cooks and cleaners in Iraq, where Iran and Al Qaeda support terrorist cadres in their efforts to suicide-bomb their way over nascent Iraqi society. The Western mind reels and tries to come to terms with the global bloodletting -- of the week.

Alas, there are no "terms" to come to. Literally. We are experiencing a civilization-wide failure, even three years after September 11, to define the terrorism born of Islam's core medieval precepts: violent jihad and dehumanizing dhimmitude. We see the same kind of terrorism in Russia that we see in Israel, Sudan and Iraq. We've seen it in Spain and we've seen it in Bali, and we've certainly seen it in the United States. We see it, but maybe we don't believe it -- a failure that could ultimately be our undoing. Too many of us prefer to overlook the evils of World War IV and watch Chevalier Spielberg get a kiss on both cheeks from Jacques Chirac for dramatizing the evils of World War II.

"In this difficult time," Mr. Chirac told his new Hollywood knight, "it is essential that cinema" blah, blah "recalls the horror of what is unutterable." Unutterable is right. But no "cinema" -- not by Spielberg, not by anyone -- is recalling anything utterable about the colossal struggle of our age. There is no cultural echo chamber in which this conflict finds resonance. Indeed, Mr. Spielberg's next picture is a remake of H.G. Wells' 1898 martian-invasion story, "The War of the Worlds." This is a far cry from the scores of movies Hollywood made to depict World War II, including "Mrs. Miniver," "The Mortal Storm" and "Thirty Seconds over Tokyo." These days, Hollywood just hates President Bush and sticks a sock on its lens.

This is just one more reason why we haven't come to terms with the battle we've joined. I've written about this failure before. The war we wage, the United States and its coalition of friends, is not a war on generic "terrorism," but on Islamic jihad -- the spread of Islam by violent means. We wage it not against generic "terrorists," but against Islamic jihadists who dream of death and destruction, not to mention a caliphate, in their religion's name.

In our religion's name -- the postmodern "religion" of tolerance the pluralistic West publicly enforces and enshrines -- we torture ourselves over whether jihadists are just a minuscule minority of "extremists." We nudge along a lagging conviction that terrorists who maim and kill in the name of Allah constitute some far-out sect that will some day be denounced, ostracized and neutralized by a robust Muslim mainstream.

Meanwhile, when the New York Times' David Brooks identifies the source of global terrorism as a "death cult ... at the fringes of the Islamic world," I suppose we give two cheers for a real mouthful in a newspaper that routinely mumbles over the Muslim identity of jihadists the world over. (In reporting on the Beslan horror, the newspaper changed the surviving terrorist's widely quoted words, "By Allah, I didn't shoot," to "By God, I didn't shoot" -- as noted by blogger Dawn Patrol). But we must also wonder how fringy the Islamic "death cult" can be given the doctrinal primacy of jihad and dhimmitude in the Muslim world.

Writing in the pan-Arabic newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, the general manager of Al-Arabiya News Channel offers a genuinely fringe view: "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," Abdel Rahman Al-Rashed writes. "We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise -- an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women." Mr. Al-Rashed doesn't explain the basis of this "monopoly" -- which includes the central precepts of jihad and dhimmitude -- and he glosses over Islam's bloody centuries of conquest and subjugation. But he does call for "an end to a history of denial," which is a promising start. "Self-cure starts with self-realization and confession," he writes. "We should then run after our terrorist sons, the sour grapes of a deformed culture."

How to support this mission? By coming to terms with the foe we face. This won't win anyone a suit of armor from the French. But it just might help save the world.

Remember The Fireman

They Ran Into The Building While Everyone Else Was Running Out.

God Bless The Heroes.

"I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven."
Matthew 16:19

Remember The People

Always Remember.

September 11, 2001

Never Forget.

Friday, September 10, 2004

The Shot Heard Round The World
(With Thanks To Belmont Club)

Wretchard at Belmont Club calls the Blogospheric Triumph over the MSM (Main Stream Media) The Shot Heard Round The World:

Blogs, including this one, are often wrong. But there is no reason why bloggers should ipso facto be dismissed as amateur analysts when compared to the Mainstream Media (MSM).

The traditional news model is collapsing. It suffers from two defects. The "news object" can no longer be given sealed attributes in newspaper backrooms. The days when the press was the news object foundry are dying. Second, the news industry is suffering from its lack of analytic cells, which are standard equipment in intellgence shops. Editors do some analysis but their focus is diluted by their attention to style and the craft of writing.

The blogosphere and other actors, now connected over the Internet, are filling in for the missing analytic function. And although the news networks still generate, via their reporters, the bulk of primary news, they generate a pitiful amount of competent analysis. Put another way, the classic media outlet generates data and entertainment but they don't generate much information. Because of this, the MSM will stumble into these pitfalls time and again.

The Andrew Gilligan and Jayson Blair fiascos were indicators that something was really wrong, but no one was listening then. Maybe there is no point to listening now.

I don't think Wretchard really believes there is no point in listening. Clearly, the MSM will always be with us (That's the nature of capitalism, which is a force of human nature not a political system). Two things will probably happen after of few of these huge scandals:

1) The MSM will get scared and as a result will start fact-checking everything to the nth degree.

2) The MSM will continue to devise ever more diabolical ways to create their virtual reality (sorry for the Nineties phrase).

Overall, I think things will get better. And that's why this is The Shot Heard Round The World.

In the Advertising/Media world there is a thing called "Share of Voice." An advertiser who throws a lot of money a TV, radio, inernet and Outdoor will gain larger Share of Voice, meaning their message will be a larger percentage of x amount of commercial spots heard in a given market.

Up until now, the MSM, the chattering classes, and the politicians have dominated Share of Voice.

Democracy, theoretically, is the dividing up of Share of Voice equally among all players.

I know I have already used this quote from John Podhoretz, but I will repeat it to make the point about Share of Voice:

... the credit really goes to the incredible power of the internet. We knew nothing; all of our information came from our readers. Many thousands of smart, well-informed people who only a few years ago would have had no recourse but perhaps to write a letter to their local newspaper, now can communicate and share their expertise in real time, through sites like this one.

Yes, now many thousands of people can share their voice; Tomorrow many hundreds of thousands, the next day, many millions, etc. etc. etc, until one day everyone, even Afghani's, Iraqi's, Saudi Arabians, Middle Eastern women,


will be heard.

The powerful people of the Earth are shaking in their turbans, and business suits.

PowerLine Gives Credit Where Credit Is Due

Regarding the blog destruction of 60 Minutes lies:

As Stephen Hayes reported earlier today, Power Line "led the charge" against the 60 Minutes hoax today. But the credit really goes to the incredible power of the internet. We knew nothing; all of our information came from our readers. Many thousands of smart, well-informed people who only a few years ago would have had no recourse but perhaps to write a letter to their local newspaper, now can communicate and share their expertise in real time, through sites like this one. The power of the medium is incredible, as we've seen over the last fourteen hours.

Thanks to our readers; we were able to publish only a small fraction of the information we got on the fake documents. But it was more than enough.

This accomplishment will go down in the History Books used to teach your children about America and it's Democracy.

I am so proud of our country and of the accomplishment of the blogosphere that I literally have tears in my eyes.

LittleGreenFootballs and Powerline Bring Down The Main Stream Media

I want to say congratulations on the accomplishment and thank you for the beautiful work.

Yesterday, Powerline and LittleGreenFootballs pointed out that the documents displayed on the previous evenings 60 Minutes program (which purported to show that Bush had skipped out on service in the Air National Guard) were clear forgeries.

The documents, which were supposed to have been from the year 1973, were clearly created by a 21st century Microsoft Word program.

As John Podhoretz puts it in this mornings New York Post:

September 10, 2004 -- THE populist revolu tion against the so- called mainstream media continues. Yesterday, the citizen journalists who produce blogs on the Internet — and their engaged readers — engaged in the wholesale exposure of what appears to be a presidential-year dirty trick against George W. Bush.

What the bloggers and their audiences did was call into profound question the authenticity of four documents proudly trumpeted by CBS News in a much-heralded investigative report on Wednesday night's edition of "60 Minutes" about the president's National Guard service in the early 1970s.

These were "previously unseen documents . . . obtained by '60 Minutes,' " the network bragged Wednesday night on its Web site. Their author, supposedly, was Bush's squadron commander, Jerry Killian, who died 20 years ago.

They "include a memorandum from May 1972," CBS reports, "where Killian writes that Lt. Bush called him to talk about 'how he can get out of coming to drill from now through November.' " A document dated "18 August 1973" complains that Killian is being asked to "sugar coat" Bush's record. "I'm having trouble running interference and doing my job," the document says.

I did not follow the days events because my internet service was not working. However, from what I know of the blogosphere I can surmise what happened. LittleGreenFootballs has about 40,000 readers a day and PowerLine also has significant readership (possibly more the LGF) ,including the blog monstrosity Instapundit.

I'm guessing Instapundit picked up the story. Instapundit is the Time Magazine of the blogosphere. Both Instapundit and PowerLine (as well as LGF to a lesser extent) are big with talk radio. So I'm guessing it was a big story on Hugh Hewitt and others yesterday. All three also have legions of rabid fans who are willing to write scads of email to the Main Stream Press.

Oh man, what a horrid day it must have been over at CBS yesterday.

You just know those guys consider blogs to be the Creature From The Black Lagoon (with all the cheese and stupidity, yet all the horror included). I'm sure they think to themselves,

"This can't be happening to us. Those people aren't reporters. They're just lonely guys with keyboards and mousepads. They just cut and paste and rant about our stories."

Ah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah hah.

Now, for the most meanspirited, unChristian, disgusting, but apt analogy of the day:

The Main Stream Media is about to collapse on itself like the Twin Towers did three years ago.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

Imagine There Is No Jihad

The other night Madonna lifted her finger for World Peace:

Pop star Madonna drew massive applause from a sold-out crowd in Paris when she dedicated her version of John Lennon’s peace ode Imagine to the Russian hostage crisis.

Addressing the audience midway through her show last night, Madonna spoke briefly about the tragedy at a Russian school that left at least 350 dead, including pupils, teachers and mothers.

As video images of war and children were broadcast behind her on giant screens, the pop diva urged her fans at Paris’ Bercy stadium to think about what happened in Russia and to think about Lennon’s lyrics.

I suggest that in the future Madonna ought to perform that song wearing a Burkha.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Ain't That A Kick In The Head

I sent an email to IraqWarWrong over at TheIraqWarWasWrongBlog yesterday asking him if a Russian war against Chechneya would be wrong.

Well, thankfully, he responded to me today. I say thankfully because, sadly, I need clarification on such issues, as Mr. IraqWarWrong has made me aware of the factoid that I am a Bad Person. Just remember though that, while Christians may be Bad People, it doesn't matter because we are forgiven, or something like that.

Anyway, here's what IraqWarWrong had to say:

Noted jazz bassist and TIWWWB reader Jaco Pastorius inquiries as to my position re:vis-a-vis the coming 3rd Russian War On Chechens:

I was just wondering, if Russia were to declare war on the Islamic Chechneyan regime (which would be strange because, of course, Chechneya theoretically is state within Russia), would that War Be Wrong?

Would you start a new blog called ChechneyaWarWrong? What if the United States joined forces and helped the Russian Army fight against the Islamic regime in Chechneya?

For the record:

Although such a war would almost certainly be Wrong (as I explained here, Putin is an other-bad-man and the Chechens (btw what happened in that school is bad and all) just want their own free democratic republic), I would probably mostly leave it onto others's shoulder's to name that wrongness(except insofar as wrongness of such War On Chechenyan's would bear on wrongness of The Iraq War).

As for question about US involvement in such a war - well I doubt it would happen at all (Russian's/Putin VERY suspicious of meddling/scheming mercantile US/Westerners-that's the one area where I agree/approve are Russianic friends), but as we do know Bush "looked into Putin's soul" which probably means Bush would be at Putin's beck and call /obey Putin's every command so you never know. (US troops under Russian command)? (For religious reasons)? Hard to say.

However, it is true that a Chechnya War Wrong blog of some type would certainly be wellcome in the blogosphere ...

Thanks for teh inquiry,

with much ,

Now, I must say, for the record that I don't agree with IraqWarWrong. Not one bit. In fact, I think his blog is the

Wrong blog on
The wrong blog host at
The wrong time and
about the wrong suject

(by the way, that was a Haiku, well actually it was a very ancient and obscure form of traditional Japanese poetry called the Yu Kuku which was seminal in the development of the respected art of Haiku)

To put it bluntly, I think he is wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

Oh God, my head is really starting to hurt. I feel like someone fractured my skull or something. This can't be happening to me. I am the great Jaco Pastorius - the Greatest Bass Player in the world. How could that mean man have done this to me? My head. My head.

I ... can't ... feel ... hands ...

The Abomination of Desolation

Roger Simon, like me, approached 9/11 as a liberal Democrat and came away from 9/11 wondering what was wrong with his libDem friends. Like me, he now does what he never thought he we would do; that is he supports the big W.

Here is his comment on the aftermath of Beslan:

When I first "came out" on this blog as an apostate from the liberal church, I heard a number of old friends and acquaintances whispering, sometimes in front of me and sometimes behind my back, "Poor Roger, he's scared. He got mugged by 9/11." Well, no. I don't scare that easily. I have my share of problems, but unbridled fear isn't one of them. I was angry.

But now I am scared. 9/11 didn't scare me. The Atocha railroad station didn't scare me. The horrors of the Russian schoolhouse didn't even scare me. It was the reaction by many in Europe and in our media to what happened in that school that has me terrified. Sure the Russians have historically brutalized and mistreated the Chechens, but this barbarism was far beyond a reaction to that. It goes to the core of our common humanity. It was a gauntlet thrown down at Western civilization and yet some still choose to look the other way. But if the sight of children being stripped and shot in the back after having had their gymnasium pre-wired with explosives doesn't wake them up, I don't know what will.

Yet sleep they do. Andrew McCarthy slogged all the way down to paragraph twenty-four of the NYT's coverage this morning to find this strange and forlorn statement: "While the extent of international support may be debated, the attacks bear some trappings of Islamic militancy. Officials here in Beslan said they had found notebooks with Arabic writing, and witnesses reported hearing Arabic exhortations, though the attackers mostly spoke Russian." (Emphasis added.)

I wonder what the paper would say if those same people took over Dalton. Scratch that - I don't want to know. Years ago, it was "the love that dares not speak its name." Now it is "the religion that dares not speak its name." But as McCarthy wrote in his post, "What is the good reason to be hesitant about noting that this latest barbarity, like its numerous predecessors, is the work of militant Islam? An enemy that doesn't get identified, doesn't get wiped out -- and lives to fight another day, resulting in more Beslans, more Madrids, more 9/11s, etc."

Roger doesn't really define what he is afraid of, so I'm going to make a couple of guesses:

1) he realizes the West is hard at work writing our collective suicide note

2) he realizes the world is going so crazy that anything is liable to happen, including Europe really physically turning on America, itself, and possibly the Jews.

There really is something wrong when people can't seem to get up any outrage over child sacrifice. But, the world has been ignoring, and even justifying Palestinian child sacrifice for years now.

Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Dick Cheney Threatens The United States

Dick Cheney has, apparently, moved into the land of Looneyville today. He seems to be uttering threats against the United States. This from AP:

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.

The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States," Cheney told about 350 supporters at a town-hall meeting in this Iowa city.

If Kerry were elected, Cheney said the nation risks falling back into a "pre-9/11 mind-set" that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Instead, he said Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, and pressure countries that harbor terrorists.

Cheney pointed to Afghanistan as a success story in pursuing terrorists although the Sept. 11 mastermind, Osama bin Laden, remains at large. In Iraq, the vice president said, the United States has taken out a leader who used weapons of mass destruction against his own people and harbored other terrorists.

"Saddam Hussein today is in jail, which is exactly where he belongs," Cheney said.

Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards issued a statement, saying, "Dick Cheney's scare tactics crossed the line today, showing once again that he and George Bush will do anything and say anything to save their jobs. Protecting America from vicious terrorists is not a Democratic or Republican issue and Dick Cheney and George Bush should know that."

I'm afraid I have to agree with John Edwards this time. Cheney's statement reminds me of Maxine Waters (another resident of Looneyville) and her "No Justice, No Peace" mantra.

Let me get this straight, Cheney is warning Americans that if Kerry is elected we stand the chance of being moved back into "a pre-9/11 minset" where terrorists acts would be treated as crimes, and then he cites the fact that Saddam Hussein is in jail awaiting a criminal trial as an example of Bush's success??!?

Speaking of mis-speaking.

I think the Bush-haters have been getting it wrong all these years. Apparently, Cheney is the idiot, not Bush.

Anyway, to be honest, I do think that Kerry would, as a President, be likely to treat terrorism as a crime, rather than as an act of war. I do agree with Cheney that that is the wrong tactic, and that the Jihadi mindset percieves such a tactic as a sign of weakness. I do agree that showing weakness will likely lead to more terror attacks in the long run. However, I also believe showing strength will likely lead to more terrorist attacks in the short run.

And, truthfully, none of us really know. It's not really a question of terrorist operations, it's a war against an enemy; Islamofascism.

I agree that we have to treat terrorism as an act of war, and I believe we have to take the war to the Islamofascists and beat them, and then we have to beat them some more, until they, like the Germans and Japanese before them, are afraid to even lift a finger anymore.

That is the way wars are won.

That being said, I think Cheney is going down a dangerous path when he tries to make the case that a vote for Kerry is a vote for more terrorism.

He comes off sounding a lot like a mafia shakedown artist working the protection rackets; "You can trust the police to protect you, or you can come to me as a friend and ask that I help. But, if you trust the police for your protection it is likely that something bad will happen to you."

Is that the image the Bush Administration wants to project. Maybe they should take the mic away from Cheney's mouth.

Thesaurus Rex

Thanks to DhimmiWatch for making me aware of this article from Daniel Pipes:

I know it when I see it" was the famous response by a U.S. Supreme Court justice to the vexed problem of defining pornography. Terrorism may be no less difficult to define, but the wanton killing of schoolchildren, of mourners at a funeral, or workers at their desks in skyscrapers surely fits the know-it-when-I-see-it definition.

The press, however, generally shies away from the word terrorist, preferring euphemisms. Take the assault that led to the deaths of some 400 people, many of them children, in Beslan, Russia, on September 3. Journalists have delved deep into their thesauruses, finding at least twenty euphemisms for terrorists:

Assailants - National Public Radio.
Attackers – the
Bombers – the
Captors – the
Associated Press.
Commandos –
Agence France-Presse refers to the terrorists both as "membres du commando" and "commando."
Criminals - the
Times (London).
Extremists –
United Press International.
Fighters – the
Washington Post.
Group – the
Guerrillas: in a
New York Post editorial.
Gunmen –
Hostage-takers - the
Los Angeles Times.
Insurgents – in a
New York Times headline.
Kidnappers – the
Observer (London).
Militants – the
Chicago Tribune.
Perpetrators – the
New York Times.
Radicals – the
Rebels – in a
Sydney Morning Herald headline.
Separatists – the
Christian Science Monitor.

And my favorite:

Activists – the Pakistan Times.

The origins of this unwillingness to name terrorists seems to lie in the Arab-Israeli conflict, prompted by an odd combination of sympathy in the press for the Palestinian Arabs and intimidation by them. The sympathy is well known; the intimidation less so.

Reuters' Nidal al-Mughrabi made the latter explicit in advice for fellow reporters in Gaza to avoid trouble on the Web site, where one tip reads:

"Never use the word terrorist or terrorism in describing Palestinian gunmen and militants; people consider them heroes of the conflict."

The reluctance to call terrorists by their rightful name can reach absurd lengths of inaccuracy and apologetics. For example, National Public Radio's Morning Edition announced on April 1, 2004, that "Israeli troops have arrested 12 men they say were wanted militants."

But CAMERA, the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, pointed out the inaccuracy here and NPR issued an on-air correction on April 26: "Israeli military officials were quoted as saying they had arrested 12 men who were ‘wanted militants.' But the actual phrase used by the Israeli military was ‘wanted terrorists.'"

(At least NPR corrected itself. When the Los Angeles Times made the same error, writing that "Israel staged a series of raids in the West Bank that the army described as hunts for wanted Palestinian militants," its editors refused CAMERA's request for a correction on the grounds that its change in terminology did not occur in a direct quotation.)

Metro, a Dutch paper, ran a picture on May 3, 2004, of two gloved hands belonging to a person taking fingerprints off a dead terrorist. The caption read: "An Israeli police officer takes fingerprints of a dead Palestinian. He is one of the victims (slachtoffers) who fell in the Gaza strip yesterday."

One of the victims!

Euphemistic usage then spread from the Arab-Israeli conflict to other theaters. As terrorism picked up in Saudi Arabia such press outlets as The Times (London) and the Associated Press began routinely using militants in reference to Saudi terrorists. Reuters uses it with reference to Kashmir and Algeria.

Thus has militants become the press's default term for terrorists.

These self-imposed language limitations sometimes cause journalists to tie themselves into knots. In reporting the murder of one of its own cameraman, the BBC, which normally avoids the word terrorist, found itself using that term. In another instance, the search engine on the BBC website includes the word terrorist but the page linked to has had that word expurgated.

Politically-correct news organizations undermine their credibility with such subterfuges. How can one trust what one reads, hears, or sees when the self-evident fact of terrorism is being semi-denied?

Worse, the multiple euphemisms for terrorist obstruct a clear understanding of the violent threats confronting the civilized world. It is bad enough that only one of five articles discussing the Beslan atrocity mentions its Islamist origins; worse is the miasma of words that insulates the public from the evil of terrorism.

Thank you for that Mr. Pipes. Someone ought to nominate you for a government post of some sort. Oh wait...

The Jews Must Be Losing Their Grip On American Power

Thanks to No Pasaran for making me aware of this article from the International Herald Tribune. In a discussion about how the people's of different countries around the world feel about George Bush, there is this revealing fact:

When asked whether they prefer Bush or Kerry, Israelis prefer Bush by about 55 percent to 45 percent, in sharp contrast to American Jews, who seem to favor Kerry by about 75 percent to 25 percent.

Now, if the Jews control America shouldn't Kerry be doing better?

By the way, you can bet the numbers were the same for the Bush-Gore election in 2000. That's just the way it is here in America; the Jewish vote, like the African-American vote, goes primarily to the Democrats.

Maybe we should infer from that that the Jews have about as much control as Black people.

Monday, September 06, 2004

George Bush Is Exporting Our Jobs and Destroying Our Economy

Thanks to the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (what a name, and what a blog, filled with much more unleashed anger than CUANAS) for making me aware of these numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and for August, 2004. When Bush took office in Jan, 2001 employment was at 135,999,000.

Somehow Kerry claims we lost a million jobs, but instead of ending up with 135,999,000 – 1,000,000 = 134,999,000, we have 139,681,000, a gain of 3.682 million instead of a loss of one million, and a difference of 4.682 million from Kerry's constant fictions.

All this after a virtual crash in the stock market just eight months before Bush took office, and then 9/11 just eight months after Bush took office.

The Surreal World Of Manhattanites
The Liberal World Of New Yorkers Is A Windowless Monad

Art Spiegelman, author of the criticially acclaimed graphic novel Maus, and the new In The Shadow Of No Towers, was interviewed by U.S. News And World Report where he made a statement reveals the level of his isolation from the real world:

U.S. News: You covered the Republican convention for the New Yorker.

Spiegelman: It's very disconcerting to find out that Republicans actually exist. Up to now, Republicans only existed in my mind and the electronic media. A lot of what has happened in the last few years feels like that Orson Welles War of the Worlds thing. It's presented as authoritative, but I have the suspicion that it's fiction.

I've read similar quotes from other Manhattanites and college professors over the years. Always, I am just as shocked by their ignorance as they are by the reality of the world around them.

Well, welcome to the real world Mr. Spiegelman, where there isn't complete lockstep agreement 100% percent of the time.

By the way, just because Republicans exist doesn't mean you have to be friends with them, ok?


"Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him."
Salih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57

Thanks to for making me aware of this post from the Washington Times:

Christians from across the country traveled to Falls Church this weekend to attend the first Muslim Background Believers Convention, a cross-cultural conference aimed at improving understanding and relations between born-again Christians from Muslim backgrounds and born-again Christians from Protestant or Catholic backgrounds. They speak only under fictitious names assumed for the occasion.

Sponsored in part by the Baptist General Association of Virginia, the convention kept the registration and entrance process under tight security to protect the participants, many of whom say they face death threats or ostracism from their families for leaving the Islamic faith....
"We need to bridge that gap and love one another," says Mr. Noble, who, like other Christian converts at the conference, was concerned about anonymity because, he says, the Koran dictates that those who leave Islam be considered apostates and can be killed.

"For a Muslim to convert to Christianity is a very risky undertaking," Mr. Noble says. "If he does not go back to Islam, he could face death."

Although it is rare for converts to be killed in America because of their faith, many face ostracism from their families or denial of entrance to their former countries, he says.
"I was called by my embassy and told I'd better repent or I could not go back home with my family," says the conference organizer, a former member of the government in his native country.

To avoid punishment, many converts don't tell their families that they have left Islam. However, the Christian faith teaches its followers to obey the command, "Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature," as set out in the Gospel of St. Mark (16:15). Not being able to share their new faith can be distressing, says "Dania Smith," who converted from Islam in April.

"I think I'm going to have to tell them eventually because I want them to be Christians, too," she says.

Until then, however, she fears discovery and ostracism from her family, who live near her Virginia home.

"I know they're going to disown me if they don't kill me," she says.

"Leana Copeland," another convert, has been a Christian since March. Her Muslim family, who migrated from Jordan, does not know of her conversion. Already ostracized by her brothers because of her marriage to an American, she keeps contact only with her mother and sister.

"My brothers haven't spoken to me in the last couple years, and that was only because I married an American," she says. "Can you imagine what they would do if they found out I was a Christian?"

I very much agree with Robert Spencer's conclusion:

This is not a solely Christian issue. Freedom of conscience should be a concern of everyone who professes concern for human rights. The human rights organizations should be the first to defend these people. But they have yet even to notice that they exist.

Now, let me be clear, I do not consider ostracism a human rights issue. I consider ostracism a healthy control within society. Actually, ostracism is one of the main purposes of this blog. A repeated mantra of mine is that certain people should be "castigated and laughed out of normal society."

As a person who believes in "freedom of speech" and "freedom of conscience" I do not believe it is in society's interest to make laws concerning forms of speech or matters of conscience, such as religious preference.

But I stop at death threats. I'm sure most of you would agree with me on this.

I'm guessing that some of the people quoted in the above article are resorting to hyperbole when they say their family members would "kill them." However, having read of this very thing happening quite often in the Islamic world, and a few times here in the U.S., I think it is wise for us to take them seriously.

Wahabbi Jihad In Chechneya

Thanks to Roger Simon for making me aware of this post over at WindsOfChange, wherein Dan Darling writes a relatively comprehensive article about the political structure of the Jihad in Chechneya. One significant thing to note; the native Chechneyans practice Sufi Islam. Sufi Islam is a particularly peaceful branch of Islam:

... the essence of Sufi practice is quite simple. It is that the Sufi surrenders to God, in love, over and over; which involves embracing with love at each moment the content of one's consciousness (one's perceptions, thoughts, and feelings, as well as one's sense of self) as gifts of God or, more precisely, as manifestations of God.

Jeez, man, Christianity could do with a little more of that.

So, you might ask, how is it that the separatist movement of a country which is predominantly Sufi came to a place where they considered Infanticidal Terror an option?

Read on and discover for yourselves the truth about The Invasion Of The Killer Wahabbi Monsters. Excerpted below:

First of all, claims that this has to do with the Russian military presence in Chechnya completely misunderstand the situation. The problem with Chechnya, more or less, is that the Russians tried to surrender after their failure to bring the rebellious republic back into the fold in the first Chechen war and it didn't work. The country was taken over by a mixture of international terrorist organizations, Wahhabi theocrats, drug cartels, and other criminal organizations that subsided more or less on generous funding from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.

This funding helped the Wahhabis to finalize control over the institutional infrastructure of the de facto independent state and led for calls for the imposition of sha'riah even though most Chechens (and Caucasus Muslims in general) are Sufis. The al-Qaeda presence in Chechnya was headed up by bin Laden's protege Amir ibn al-Khattab,

since the fall of Grozny in 2002 the Chechen Wahhabi fighters under Basayev have increasingly been in ascendance and are set up along the following lines:

United Forces of the Caucasian Mujahideen: The Russians refer to this group as the Supreme Military Majlis ul-Shura of the Mujahideen Forces of Caucasus, but this is the coordinating organization under which all of the Chechen Wahhabi groups operate that is headed up by Shamil Basayev. It also includes the Chechen sha'riah court, which provides theological rationales for activities such as that which we witnessed in Beslan.

Islamic International Brigade (IIB): Commanded first by Khattab and then his late successor Abu Walid al-Ghamdi (a relative of 3 of the 9/11 hijackers), the IIB is also known as the "Arab brigade" or the al-Ansar Mujahideen due to the high percentage of Arab al-Qaeda fighters in its ranks. While other Chechen groups contain al-Qaeda members serving either as "officers" or in some kind of a military advisor capacity, the IIB is unquestionably the hub of the al-Qaeda presence in Chechnya.

Riyadus Salikhin: This is a Romanization of the Russified form of Riyadh al-Saliheen or Garden of the Righteous, which I believe comes from Islamic descriptions of Paradise. This is basically the Chechen equivalent to the Tamil Tigers' Black Tigers suicide bombing squad and essentially performs the same duties for the Chechen Wahhabis.

Basayev's terror offensive ...

Since August 21, Russia has been subject to a wave of Chechen terrorist attacks masterminded by Basayev and bankrolled by al-Qaeda through the personage of an Arab national named Abu Omar al-Saif who serves as the network's paymaster in the Caucasus.

Here's a basic chronology of Chechen attacks prior to Beslan:

From August 21-22, upwards of 60 Russian and Chechen-backed troops were slaughtered in and around the Russian-controlled Chechen capital of Grozny.

On August 24, we had the twin plane bombings apparently carried out by members of Riyadus Salikhin that killed 89.

On August 31, a double suicide bombing in Moscow killed 10, also perpetrated by members of Riyadus Salikhin.

Basayev's reasons for selecting North Ossetia in general and Beslan in particular are obvious to one familiar with the warped nature of al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers. Unlike most of the North Caucasus, most North Ossetians are Eastern Orthodox Christians, so it "makes sense" to target them rather than say Russian Muslim schoolchildren in Ingushetia or Dagestan if you're a Wahhabi who subscribes to bin Laden's belief in a Huntingtonian-esque clash of civilizations.

I should point out that regardless of what one thinks about Russian involvement in Chechnya, the people of Beslan had no power whatsoever to effect Russian policy in region.

However, I should point out that Basayev's ambitions extend far beyond just Chechen independence, so everybody saying that a political solution to the Chechen war or Russian withdrawl from the region is going to solve the issue is going to be sorely disappointed.

Here's Amir Ramzan, one of Basayev's flunkies, in an interview with the Chechen propaganda website Kavkaz Center from last year:

Q: From your words I can assume that you operate not only in Chechnya but all over the North Caucasus.

R: Yes, very much so. Not only we carry out raids to various areas in the Caucasus, but we also form local Jama’ats, militant sabotage groups locally. We are joined by a lot of Kabardinians, Dagestanis, Karachaevans, Ingushetians and even Ossetians (Muslims).

Q: That means that those in Russia who say that you want to create a caliphate in the Caucasus from sea to sea, are right?

R: Yes, it is so. Since they are unwilling to negotiate with us, then we’ll be doing what we can. And there is a lot we can do. Next year the war will seize the entire Caucasus from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea. I swear by Allah, this is only the beginning.

Note that his reference to negotiations refers to the establishment of a caliphate from the Black Sea to the Caspian, not to Russian withdrawl from Chechnya. So unless one wants Putin to consider placing millions of people in the hands of these madmen, there is really very little for him to negotiate with Basayev about.

Wow, it's almost as if there were a World War going on.

Putin Gets It

Thanks to PowerLine for making me aware of these quotes from Vladimir Putin's speech in response to the Islamofascist Beslan Massacre:

What happened was a terrorist act that was inhuman and unprecedented in its cruelty. It is a challenge not to the president, the parliament and the government but a challenge to all of Russia, to all of our people. It is an attack on our nation.

We showed weakness and weak people are beaten.

Terrorists think that they are stronger, that they will be able to intimidate us, to paralyze our will, to erode our society. It seems that we have a choice: to resist or to cave in and agree with their claims; to give up and allow them to destroy and to take Russia apart, in hope that eventually they would leave us alone.

As president, as the head of the Russian state, as a man who gave an oath to protect the country and its integrity, as a citizen of Russia, I am convinced that in fact we do not have any choice, because as soon as we allow ourselves to be blackmailed and to panic, we shall immerse millions of people in a series of bloody conflicts, similar to Karabakh, Trans-Dnestria and other well known tragedies.

We cannot but see the evident: we are dealing not with separate acts of intimidation, not with individual forays of terrorists. We are dealing with the direct intervention of international terror against Russia, with total and full-scale war, which again and again is taking away the lives of our compatriots.

The Islamofascists ought to ask Germany what happens when you have the combined forces of America, Britain and Russia fighting against you at the same time.

Sunday, September 05, 2004

Can Europe Be Expected To Understand America
When They Could Never Afford To Behave As America Does?

Belmont Club has an important post today on the subject of Russia's options in repsonse to Islamofascist Terrorism vs. the United States options:

Little public analysis has been devoted to options realistically available to Vladimir Putin in response to the massacre of schoolchildren in Ossetia. The fact is that the world has been spoiled by looking at the world through the prism of the American media. When President Bush stopped to consider his response to September 11, he had a range of options available only to a nation as unimaginably powerful as the United States of America. Japanese newspapers reported that President Bush was offered the nuclear option immediately after the attack, probably as an extreme in a range that included filing a diplomatic protest on the opposite end of the spectrum, which he rejected, choosing instead to do what no other country could do: take down the state sponsors of terrorism and pursue the terrorists to the four corners of the earth. America's unmatched power allowed President Bush to select the most humane course of war available. No European power, nor all of them put together, could have embarked on such a precise campaign for lack of means. It was a rich man's strategy, a guerre de luxe.

But no one who has seen the rags and hodgepodge of equipment issued to the Russian Special Forces can entertain any illusion that Vladimir Putin can go around launching raids with hi-tech helicopters, or follow around perps with robotic drones before firing, or use satellite-guided bombs to wipe out enemy safe houses that have been seeded with RFID chips. Nor will those detained by Russia gain weight the way detainees have done at the "inhuman" Gitmo prison. That's an American way of war which even Europeans can only regard with envy. The poor must respond with less. When the Nepalese saw the video of their 12 compatriots executed by terrorists in Iraq, they did what you could do with a box of matches: they burned the mosque in Kathmandu.

While Russia can do better than a box of matches, the reality is that its poverty and low-tech force structure will make any response that Putin may choose a brutal and largely indiscriminate affair unless it is subsumed into the larger American-led Global War on Terror. The real price of the European vacation from history is its abandonment of the first principle of civilization. Unless there is common justice, there will be vigilante justice.

In this post, Wretchard points to something that never occurred to me previously, but which might go a long way towards explaining Europe's, and the Left's, hysterical reaction to the War on Islamofascist Terrorism. Europe's experience, and therefore their knowledge, of war is the history of European wars. European wars, right up to the time of Ceaucescu's Romania and the recent conflict in Bosnia, have been brutal and bloody, inhumane on an almost incomprehensible scale. The lefts' knowledge of war is limited by their enforced pacifism, which causes them to turn away from the study of military technique and to file the footage (which they might happen upon on the TV news) of military actions under the heading of propoganda.

I, Pastorius, have tended towards pacifism in my life, so I understand the mindset. The Gulf War was a revelation to me. Back in the 80's the big media line was that America was losing the tech battle to Japan. Japan was building more stylish cars at a better price, cheaper and more reliable gadgets, etc. What was generally being lost in the hysteria was that America innovated and Japan refined. But, to be truthful, there was somewhat of a silence on the innovation front in the 80's, or at least that appeared to be true. The Gulf War (as well as the 90's tech boom - which does not matter to this discussion) proved those concerns to be unfounded.

Where had American innovation gone? It had gone into the military innovation of the Reagan era. Until the Gulf War, we were not aware of the amazing innovations in American military tecnology. I recall the Evening News bringing us footage of a guided missile, with a mounted camera, being fired from a fighter jet, and finding it's way down the air-shaft of it's targeted building before exploding. Shortly thereafter, the media attacked the credibility of this footage. They seriously informed us that less than half of these so-called smart bombs found their way to their target, but instead were liable to explode in the midst of civilians.

But, I Pastorius, gung-ho American (Chomsky reader) that I was, got the point; America was trying to develop more accurate weaponry, which gradually would mean less civilian casualties.

In fact, the Iraq War, itself, even though it has been largely fought in cities, has apparently produced surprisingly few civilian deaths. The media, which spent weeks and weeks on Abu Ghraib, several months back reported something in the range of 10,000 deaths caused by the Iraq War. There was no attempt made to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants. But, the point is, given media hysteria at a lesser American misdeed (yes, I am assuming that torture, when it is not official policy, is less evil than civilian death), I would imagine that, if civilian deaths numbers were to suddenly drastically increase, we would be hearing about it.

As Belmont Club points out, this is a very expensive type of War.