CLICK ON CONTINUE FOR PRICELESS UPDATES ON REAX FROM THE LEFT
IMPORTANT UPDATE AUG 11TH: Dry run planned for today on United, American and Continental Airlines, which fly to New York, Washington and California, with a series of deadly mid air explosions on flights from London to the US, planned for August 16th
Breaking news from the BBC in the early hours of this morning
A terrorist plot to blow up planes in mid-flight from the UK to the US has been disrupted, Scotland Yard has said.
It is thought the plan was to detonate explosive devices smuggled on aircraft in hand luggage.
Police have arrested about 18 people in the London area after an anti-terrorist operation lasting several months.
Security at all airports in the UK has been tightened and delays are expected. MI5 has raised the UK threat level to critical - the highest possible.
According to MI5's website, critical threat level means "an attack is expected imminently and indicates an extremely high level of threat to the UK".[...]
Home Secretary John Reid confirmed that there had been a plot "to bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions causing a considerable loss of life".
I shall be eagerly waiting for the theories of the learned left who will immediately begin with their conspiracy theory mongering, ranging from the timing of the breaking news being in question, to dismissing any possibility that airplanes as 'flying bombs' pose a security threat at all. We will look closely as the day progresses and the theories get hammered out to protect the 'NSA wiretapping golden calf' and the Patriot 'non-issue' Act over at the leftie blogs.Yawn. (check UPDATES below for plenty of amusement)
Michael Ledeen quoted Chertoff earlier today to the effect that "we share a common philosophy with the Brits, which is not to wait until they act, but to go after them before something terrible happens". Fine, but since Thug-In-Chief Ahmadinejad has spelled out his on more than one occasion, Ledeen quite rightly wonders why does our lame response continue?
Those arrested in the U.K. were mainly British born Asian men, and Ace points us to ABC's Blotter who already had the finger pointing to the man clearly planning the next attack on America.
Pakistani officials tell ABC News a new terrorist plan to attack the United States and Europe is being organized by a shadowy Pakistani, who is the keeper of the log of recruits who attended al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan in the 1990s.
Pakistani police and military officials identify the man as Matiur Rehman, whose role as al Qaeda's planning director was first revealed by ABCNews.com earlier this year.
U.S. law enforcement officials tell ABC News there has been great concern since last March about a "Pakistani" network that could attempt multiple international attacks.
Michelle Malkin was already connecting the dots, prior to the breaking news.
UPDATE: Michelle has a massive round up and will be updating, so keep checking. So does Pajamas Media, together with some blogger reaxs. Check Real Clear Politics Buzztracker.
UPDATE II: U.S. raises security level alert to orange, meaning 'severe'.
UPDATE III: Heathrow shuts down for incoming flights, causing absolute chaos. More details of the terrorist plot uncovered to "commit mass murder on an unimaginable scale" by exploding up to nine aircraft in mid-flight between Britain and America, as announced by Scotland Yard this morning.
UPDATE IV: Greg from STACLU alerts me to the first leftie out of the box, and leading the charge being of course the Democratic Underground, and as I predicted the BS has already started:
"Have to keep the Sheep Afraid.”
“‘plot’ ??? i’m dubious”
“The UK government mostly lie about these things. So i’ll wait and see what actually is going on. What does “foiled” mean anyway, obviously it hasnt been foiled as they have these restrictions in place. ”
“now with BP oil shut down..could Blair being holding back fuel for the british airlines..and US carriers..in preperation for a air strike on Iran?”
“It’s more to do with Blair trying to use the same tactics the neocons use on America: keep the populace in a permanent state of fear to drown out any critical thinking.”
“Tony Blair’s ass is on fire for being America’s dogtail - as they like to call it in the UK. Stories like this are sponsored by his government and are planned way ahead and are designed for times like this to distract people from what’s really going on and to try and cover his ass.”
“Help justify no real ceasefire or withdrawal in Lebanon”
“Why is this major disruption being discussed NOW. What else is going on? This sounds lke another Bush diversion tactic…Get the media to discuss terror, because there is something else that they don’t want us discussing. Bait & Switch technique.
Hahahahaaha.... I did not write this I swear! The link is there for all to see. As I predicted 1) denying the existence of a threat 2) questioning the timing. Classic. Thanks Greg.
Well at least Glenn Greenwald puts up a good fight, after all one must not give up the golden NSA calf with any haste on a day like today...
Over the next several days, at least, we will repeatedly hear Bush and his supporters attempting -- implicitly and overtly -- to transform this terrorist plot to into political support for Bush policies. That is a game they have been playing for several years now, and it is what accounts, more than anything else, for their victory in two consecutive national elections. But it is an intellectually dishonest and corrupt ploy, and the collapse of Bush's popularity strongly suggests that Americans have become increasingly immune to being told that they should support the president's extremist policies and overlook his profound failures, all because there are terrorists in the world who want to commit violent acts.
UPDATE V: My liberal friend Joe @ The Heretik links me to the "trumpet[ing] [of] the news". I am flattered, considering I mainly try and stay out of the daily flurry, but come on Joe, this one I could not resist. It's my Nostradamus moment, except for I get to see it all unfold the same day
"It’s all part of something bigger. But what? Look for more plots to be uncovered boldly on the front pages. (Say hello to Dirty Bomber Jose Padilla.) And if the
charges should later prove to be less than they are blown up to be now, we can forget how our leaders have bombed in the one basic assignment that began it all. Osama Bin Laden is still free. All those who regularly trumpet the news of the latest plots fail to mention why this truth continues to be allowed.
UPDATE VI: My friend Dean Bartlett over @ Hugh Hewitt's blog writes a must read moving essay. I love that guy, go over there and read it now. Truly inspirational.
UPDATE VII: Why are we surprised about the Jihad war against the Israel and the West? Just watch this must see video all the way....
UPDATE VIII: Our darling Anchoress uncovers the reasoning behind the so called reality based community who say that "there is no threat".
UPDATE IX: And the leftie nut-case spin of the day cup ladies and gentlemen goes to the inimitable Huffington Post, who thinks this is all Dick Cheney's fault
Since I began writing this piece last night, the airlines have been put on CODE RED for the first time ever because of a plot to take down planes flying from England to the United States (New York and Washington included, the places that got their DHS funding cut to protect real targets like pig farms in Kentucky). And it happened right after Lieberman lost. And Ken Mehlman made his speech. After not having their ridiculous color-coded warning system change since about the last election if memory serves. What a coincidence!
The Bush Administration knows that Lamont's victory sends a strong signal. People have figured out that Republicans are the ones who have placed us in peril with their inane, neoconservative policy of acting as judiciously on the world stage as Dick Cheney does with a shotgun. So let the attempted manipulation begin.
UPDATE X: We are officially on code RED alert now. Does the left believe it, nah, of course not, this has now become a world-wide conspiracy that knows no bounds, after all the British Muslims did plan this to coincide with Joe Lieberman's election plans. "Who the hell is Joe al-Lieberbin?" shouts the Jihadist guy in the corner "How the hell should I know? Isn't he the new recruit?" "What the hell are these crazy American liberals going on about?"
Bush just invoked a Code Red terrorist emergency, our first ever.
And isn't it queer that the emergency is declared within a day of Republican party leader Ken Mehlman launching an all-out offensive against Democrats following Joe Lieberman's loss in Connecticut, an offensive in which Mehlman, the White House and Republican operatives are claiming that Democrats no longer care about national security or the war on terror…
Do I sound as if I don't believe this alert? Why, yes, that would be correct. I just don't believe it…
Bottom line: Joe Lieberbush lost. The message is spreading across the land that incumbents who embrace the president are in serious trouble. And the Republicans needed to divert attention, to stop this meme in its tracks, and lo' and behold we have our first terror alert that I can recall since the last election, and it's our first ever Red Alert! What a coincidence!
Professor Bainbridge thinks these people need to check into the nearest clinic and get with the program. The talented Mary Katherine Ham suggests that most liberal bloggers today seem to be in "Nedrenaline mode anyway."
UPDATE XI: As the day progresses and the dust settles on today's story the left have moved on to staged political propaganda: "In case anyone had any question that the latest foiled terror plot was being used to political advantage by the Bush Administration, let me rid you of that doubt right now:"
Crooks & Liars' John Amato had managed to keep his powder dry until mid-day by which time he could be sure to find enough ammunition to blast away at the usual suspects. Yawn.
The Peking Duck is unusually cautious, calling the foiled threat a: "terror threat du jour", and wandering "is it in response to Lieberman? I'd need a lot more evidence before saying that. [emphasis mine] But I've seen us go insane so many times now, furiously spinning our wheels in concert over the latest breaking threat, and then it all dissolves shortly afterward".
Nah, why? It is so much more fun to simply carry on with the conspiracy theories that 24 British born Muslims in England, co-ordinated their terrorist plans to coincide with Lieberman's/Bush's political agenda.
Is it me, or has the left become completely unhinged?
More on the main story over @ Hot Air, Ed Morrissey, Protein Wisdom, Dan Riehl, Wizbang, Flopping Aces, Liberty & Justice, Right Wing Nut House, The Belmont Club, Tigerhawk, Gateway Pundit, Media Lies, Liquid Life, A Blog For All, Sigmund Carl & Alfred, PoliPundit, The Jawa Report, Sister Toldjah, USS Neverdock, The Real Ugly American, ShrinkWrapped, Neo-neocon, Blogs for Bush, Blue Crab Boulevard, Counterterrorism Blog, The Right Nation, Cold Fury, The Astute Bloggers, Outside The Beltway, One Hand Clapping, Woman Honor Thyself, Old War Dogs
I disagree with nearly all of your points of view, but you have great taste and are extremely intelligent and convincing in your argument. Not to mention, even humorous at times. I'll be coming back. Thank you.
Posted by: Tim | Friday, September 08, 2006 at 07:30 PM
In saying that we should bring liberty and the rule of law to the Middle East rather than democracy, I mean of course that we should focus on liberty and the rule of law rather than on democracy. Naturally the long-term goal would be to have both. But the highest priority ought to have been to establish security and liberty without worrying about voting rights, rather than to get millions of people voting while Baghdad was still a place of sectarian and criminal chaos. Moqtada al-Sadr has significant political power in the Iraqi democracy, and the Afghan democracy recently did its damndest to execute a man for converting away from Islam. Anybody who wants to convince me that Bush has not tried to establish democracy first in the hopes that a flawed democracy will usually correct itself in the direction of individual liberty for members of small minorities, is going to have a very tough sell indeed. We would have been much better off, I think -- if we really want to bring liberty to the Middle East -- had we said bluntly from the very beginning, "We will stay here and keep control of this country until such time as you people are willing to recognize the fundamental human rights of every individual including the ones who decide they disagree with your theological opinions." Had we established liberty, democracy would eventually have followed. Since we started with democracy, we are unlikely in the end to see the flowering of liberty.
Posted by: Kenny | Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 11:05 AM
[The following comment is cross-posted here.]
I bet JPE never again dares to ask me a direct question for fear he'll set me off again... ;) At any rate:
There's an interesting debate going on over at The Corner (it's hard to permalink to a debate over there but the first salvo is here) between Andy McCarthy and John Podhoretz. I think McCarthy has much the better of it on the merits of the initial subject, which was that our President says ridiculous things about the benefits of "democracy," and by both actions and words makes it clear that the central characteristic of "democracy" for him is the elections...in other words, Andy agrees with me on that point. John's initial attempt to refute him includes the statement, "Bush doesn't call [Lebanon] a 'democracy,'" which is probably the stupidest thing anybody has said on The Corner in the past six months and could only be honestly said by somebody who has spent the last year in a Trappist monastery. But as the debate moved on it got more interesting because several other topics came in.
Now, it may be that I am missing McCarthy's point as badly as I think Podhoretz is; I may well be projecting my own views onto McCarthy. I don't think I am, but I could certainly be wrong, and it is important to take note of that fact. But, with that major caveat, here's my take:
1. Podhoretz believes that "democracy" will reform the Middle East seems to be driven by his insistence that the term "democracy" implies individual rights, and that a "democracy" that tramples individual rights is not a democracy at all. He therefore thinks that running around talking about "bringing democracy to the Middle East" is a good strategy; and he tries to defend the President against McCarthy by saying, "This is what the word means," but without (at least on The Corner) bothering to prove that that's what Dubya means. There are several things wrong with this, however.
a. The fundamental question of the direction of causality is papered over by pretending that "democracy" and "individual rights" are essentially the same thing. From a practical standpoint, it is absolutely critical to ask ourselves, "Which comes first?" if we intend -- as Podhoretz wants us to intend -- to establish both in the Middle East. It is analytically useful to have two separate terms, one of which describes the form of government (which is what the term "democracy" has meant since the Greeks coined it two and a half millenia ago) and one that describes the end to which the form of government is the means. It is, quite simply, obviously clear -- as McCarthy points out and as Podhoretz cannot hope, and does not try, to refute -- to say that the democratic form of government naturally devolves into political oppression, and that only in exceptional cases does that form of government stabilize around protection of individual human rights. When Podhoretz responds by saying, "Oh, well, but if it devolves, then it isn't a Real Democracy," he is in effect trying to redefine democracy as democracy-that-worked-out-well. But in that case, what word would he suggest we use for democracies in which the majority oppresses the minority using the democratic forms of government as a means? By Podhoretz's standards, (a) the Athenian democracy that won Marathon, lost Syracuse, fostered philosophy and killed Socrates, was not a Real Democracy; (b) there is no useful term for democracies like the Athenian one; and (c) it becomes extremely difficult to frame elegantly the fundamental problem with Bush's approach to the remaking of the Middle East, which problem is precisely how to make sure that the democracies you found end up being Real Democracies. For if you point out to Podhoretz that democracies have for most of history been the natural precursors of some form of tyranny -- a point the awareness of which was instrumental in the Founding Father's approach to creating our own Constitution -- he responds, "Oh, but that doesn't count because that's not really democracy." Podhoretz badly needs to stop playing with words and answer the question.
b. Besides, even though that may be what the word means to Podhoretz, it is not in fact what the word fundamentally means to most people in the world. Americans tend to assume that democracies and individual rights go hand in hand, but that is an artifact of our childhood programming. And not even all Americans buy into it; Al Sharpton, for example, famously once said that we had to treat Yasser Arafat with respect because he had been "democratically elected." To most people in the world "democracy" refers to the form of government; it means elections and purple fingers. If Podhoretz wants to run around talking about "democracy" all the time but does not want to be misunderstood by the very people whose culture we are trying to change, then he is a very great fool indeed. What matters is not what Podhoretz thinks when he hears the President talk about "democracy in the Middle East." What matters is, in the first place, what people in the Middle East think when they hear the President indulging in that rhetoric; in the second place, what the President himself means by it; and in a very very distant third place, what Podhoretz means by it.
c. And what the President means by it is much more, it seems to me, what McCarthy criticizes than it is what Podhoretz defends. The President absolutely does talk about the "democracy" of Lebanon, and we had to endure lots of rhetoric from the President early in the Iraq War about how the people of Iraq were "ready to take over their own government." That the people of Iraq were ready to vote, was certainly true. That the people of Iraq had a sufficiently widespread passion for equal rights for all (and a dominant majority must have that passion or else your democracy will not wind up a Real Democracy), was always pretty dubious and the longer we go the more clear it is that that passion was not, in fact, sufficiently widespread among the people of Iraq (with the notable exception of Iraqi Kurdistan). When you ask the question, "Which comes first?" and then look at Dubya's decisions and tactics, the weight of the evidence seems to me clearly to imply that Dubya thinks that democratic forms of government naturally produce a widespread respect for human rights. And this is a catastrophic error.
2. Now, in his basic idea that the Middle East should be remade, Podhoretz (due allowance having been made for his unwise use of the term "democracy") is quite right.
This is absolutely true. As a refutation of McCarthy's position it seems to me to be a straw man; but as an idea in its own right it is absolutely correct. The problem is that what we ought to be talking about is precisely liberty and the rule of law, not democracy. But Podhoretz is absolutely right in the substance of what he's saying. He's committing himself to an extremely foolish rhetorical strategy that threatens the success of that very project; but he's absolutely right about the necessity of the project. If he could bring himself to shut up long enough actually to listen to what Andy is saying, he might learn something that would make it much more likely that his project would actually succeed; but that might be asking too much.
Podhoretz, in short, thinks that Andy is saying that we ought not try to bring individual liberty and the rule of law to the Middle East. In fact Andy is saying that we ought to be trying to bring individual liberty and the rule of law to the Middle East rather than "democracy," because the more you focus on and hold up as your goal "democracy," the less likely you are to establish individual liberty and the rule of law. Podhoretz's response is essentially, "Well, if the democracy doesn't produce liberty, then we've failed; but we still have to try." But McCarthy's point is that the more we and the President run around talking about and focusing on "democracy" the more likely we are to fail to establish liberty and the rule of law. Does Podhoretz think that it doesn't matter whether we fail as long as we try? I don't imagine so -- but then it would behoove him to pay attention to the point Andy is making.
I think the whole debate, in the end, reduces to this question:
Does it matter whether we call it "the Democracy Project" instead of "the Liberty Project"?
McCarthy says, in effect, yes.
Podhoretz, in whose mind Real Democracy and liberty are essentially coterminous, says, "No, it doesn't matter whether we call it the Democracy Project or the Liberty Project."
I think Podhoretz is disastrously wrong. The Middle Eastern Liberty Project is absolutely essential. The Middle Eastern Democracy Project is likely to fail precisely because people like Podhoretz and the President refuse to admit that the two are distinct, that the direction of causality is critical, that the order of implementation is therefore equally critical, and that the failure to distinguish between the two in one's rhetoric imperils everything Podhoretz and the President wish to accomplish.
Posted by: Kenny | Tuesday, August 15, 2006 at 10:45 AM
Thanks, Patrick.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Monday, August 14, 2006 at 11:41 PM
Kenny,
Here is one website still up that gives a pretty good overview of Malaysian Insurgency. An interesting point was the main problem the British had to overcome was the inequities with in the population. Once the "Chinese-Malaysians" were able to own property and have citizenship (made up 38% of the population of which only 20% were allowed citizenship and property rights-yet they dominated urban areas and the wealth), Briggs had a good start for Templar to work with. You will find some interesting similarities with Iraq. You will also see how we tried to apply some of these techniques in Vietnam (origin of the "Hearts and Minds" campaign).
If you research further, you will find that the communists in Malaysia were intially interested more in purging their own ranks and experienced quite a bit of corruption (can you say Hamas and Fatah).
http://britains-smallwars.com/malaya/index.html
Posted by: Patrick | Monday, August 14, 2006 at 03:33 PM
JPE,
If I understand you, your objection is essentially the same objection I have made on this site to Bush's variation on the "democracy" project and his naive assertion that "every human being wants freedom," and we agree far more than we disagree. Tell me if this is essentially the same thing as what you are saying:
Every human being does indeed want freedom -- for himself. (This includes people who want to be told what to do by their cult leader; they want at the very least the freedom to choose the cult leader before whom they will abase themselves, as you can prove by the simple experiment of demanding that they change religious allegiance.) But that is not what matters in stopping terrorism; that simply means that people in general want to be able to do what they want to do. If that's all that "every human being wants freedom" means, then it is nothing more than the truism that every human being wants to be able to do what he wants to do.
In order for a democracy (that is, the form of government in which leaders and policies are chosen by popular majority vote) to yield the results Bush thinks all democracies naturally yield, a dominant majority of the voters must want something that does not come naturally to human beings: they must want freedom for other people, and in particular for people outside of their own tribal/subcultural loyalties.
What comes naturally to human beings is to be outraged when other people try to tell us to live their way -- and also to be outraged when other people refuse to listen when we tell them to live our way. We want for everybody to have the freedom to do what we want them to do -- that is what comes naturally to most people. When we are outraged by tyranny, it is not usually the tyranny itself that outrages us -- it's the fact that we're on the receiving end of it.
Americans are raised from birth in a country saturated with societal and cultural programming intended to override this basic aspect of human nature. For this reason, if you are dealing with an American who is not a terribly thoughtful person, he is likely to make an instantaneous and thoughtless leap from "people don't like to have their civil rights violated" (which is quite true) to "people want to live in a society where civil rights are protected." But the truth is more commonly that "people want to live in a society where their own civil rights are protected but where their own coterie can override the civil rights of everybody else."
Therefore the remaking of the Middle East that is necessary, is the breaking of the deeply ingrained cultural norm of tribalism and the establishment of a culture of human rights. In other words, a culture full of people who have always wanted for their own group to have all kinds of rights including the right to subjugate others, must be brought to the point of valuing individual human rights for all. It is not a matter of mere education, because you must change people's fundamental emotions and loyalties -- it is, if I may use the term, a kind of evangelism that is required. The change from tribalism and group loyalty to "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" is as fundamental and radical a change as is a religious conversion. Not all of us who argue that the task must be attempted, are as naive as Bush about just how herculean a task it is, or of how long a process we must resign ourselves to.
Bush's constant use of the term "democracy" as the keystone of his rhetoric shows, in my opinion, that he does not grasp the true nature of the task, and that he does not understand his target audience; and therefore so long as your criticisms are aimed at Bush's specific implementation of the transformation project, I think your criticisms are perfectly valid. The term "democracy" is an appropriate term to describe what we must build in the Middle East only insofar as the term is taken to imply a political environment in which individual human rights are universally respected -- and there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to think that the term holds any such connotation in the Arab world. Certainly the natural result of democracy (as anybody who has read Aristotle or the Federalist would know, though that is unlikely to apply to Dubya) is oppression of relatively powerless minorities by a dominant majority. A culture in which most people value others' rights does naturally tend to evolve into a democracy; but democracies do not naturally tend to evolve into cultures in which most people value others' rights. Dubya seems to have the causality backwards, which in my view is a potentially disastrous error.
The transformation of Middle Eastern culture must be attempted, despite the difficulty and cost; on that I'm not sure whether or not you and I agree. This transformation process will be far more difficult, costly, and time-consuming than Bush's rhetoric would imply; on that I think you and I agree entirely. And the democracy project as Bush has implemented it, with its rhetorical and practical emphasis on the democratic forms of government rather than on the individual rights that are the end to which those forms are nothing more than the means, is unlikely in the end to have the transforming effect that Bush expects; on that, again, I believe that you and I are in perfect agreement.
To sum up: there is a fundamental division among "neoconservatives" who think cultural change is a necessity in the Middle East. On the Bush side are those whose faith is, or at least appears to be, in the democratic forms of government, and whose focus is therefore primarily on form. On the other side are those of us who believe that the natural end state of democracies is the tyranny of leveraged minorities, and whose focus is individual human rights and the rule of law. Thus the "neocon position on democracy in the Middle East" is not only complex; it is in fact a family of at least two different opinions that overlap in vocabulary but are in tension with each other. So when you attack "the democracy project" you have to be clear in your mind which variation it is that you're criticizing; and when somebody starts talking about "building democracy in the Middle East," you have to figure out what he means by that before you can be sure whether, and in what respects, you disagree with him. Thus I think your attack does severe damage to Bush's democracy-centric position; but it has little effect on, say, Jonah Goldberg's human-rights-centric arguments.
Does that make sense?
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Monday, August 14, 2006 at 09:56 AM
"But any long-term solution for Islamic terrorism will have to include remaking of the Muslim Middle East, in a way that breaks the power that the two types of tyrants (jihadists and secular dictators) hold over the ordinary Muslim who just wants to live his life in security and peace and see his children better off than he is himself. It is a long and difficult task and will never be done perfectly. But we are, whether we want to admit it or not, in a situation where there is no pleasant road, and the long-term cost of not remaking the Middle East will be much higher than the present cost of making the attempt."
There are certainly plenty of examples in the history of the Judeo-Christian world. But the flow of history has been to elevate western societies to include the principles of equality and freedom from repressive government and religious states; i.e. Magna Carta, Declaration of Independence, Emancipation Proclamation, and many other small steps. It seems though that we have reached a phase where the population has spent so much time enjoying the fruits of the sacrifices of previous generations, that if we don't wake up in time, we may be heading into another dark age, or era of worldwide despotic rulers. Hopefully that is not the case, but you are correct, the next generation or two, wether they like it or not, has already had the hand of God waved over them, appointing them a date with destiny.
Posted by: nofate | Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 10:14 PM
Here's something specific of what I mean:
We have, what, 300 million people in America, and an armed forces of 1.2 million. That means that we have a whole four-tenths of one percent of our population defending us from foreign adversaries. In the last three years we have lost about 2,500 soldiers in Iraq. That is eight one-thousandths of a percent of our population. Compare that to the 117,877 people who died in traffic accidents from 2002 to 2004, not to mention the 2,788,000 injured -- in 2004 alone. Also, compare it to the IDF, which varies from 150,000 to 500,000 depending on how many reserves have been called up -- from a population of 6.3 million.
Yet almost half of America thinks -- genuinely believes -- that (a) the war is too high a price to pay, and (b) we can't do more than we're doing. We really do, to an astonishing degree, want all the blessings of liberty with none of the cost. We're not under anything remotely resembling rationing (like WWII); we have no conception of what cost is. If the American people genuinely understood what we faced in Islamism, and was willing to say, "What's it gonna take, and let's get it done," then we could easily send 2 million troops to squash insurgency in Iraq and staff a full army for invading Iran. We could, if we had the national will, overwhelm the Islamist fascists with less trouble and per capit reduction in lifestyle to ourselves than any country in history.
But we are a nation raised on anaesthetic and Ritalin and Prozac and a car for every middle-class sixteen-year-old, a nation whose greatest medical problem is obesity, in distressingly large numbers composed of people who think that "missing one meal" and "going on a hunger strike" are the same thing.
Hm, too cranky, I think I'll stop posting for the day.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 05:02 PM
You understand, JPE, that it is my firm opinion that what most Americans want -- that is, to be left in peace and to not have to worry about the Middle East or hear about Americans dying -- is just not a real option, though many of us do everything in our power to maintain the comforting illusion that it is. It sucks to be born in a time where all options lead to death and destruction, where there is a foe who must be faced and defeated through blood and death and long, ongoing hardship. But it happens sometimes, and it is happening now to us. The longer we cling, a la the inter-war British pacifists, to our illusion that evil will be satiated without being destroyed, the steeper price we will pay in the end.
I do think that Bush is guilty of chronically understating the cost. On the other hand, I think if the American people knew the true cost of what we must attempt, they would find an excuse not to attempt it; and can therefore understand Bush's dilemma of having to answer to history for how he attempts to meet the threat while having to keep American voters in the fold. I would have taken a very different rhetorical tack from that which he has taken; but then I could never be elected President. The only thing that is in the long run true of any real democracy, is that in the end the majority gets the government they deserve. Until the American people is willing to fight the war that must be fought, the best any President can really hope to do is hold the line until the people face up to what they must do. And the American people haven't faced that yet when it comes to the jihadists.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 04:33 PM
JPE,
I won't try to defend Bush's specific variation on the theory -- I think Bush has a couple of things crucially wrong with his own formulation. But as far as the necessity of remaking the Middle East:
Democracy won't single-handedly cure terrorism; it is not a sufficient solution in itself. But any long-term solution for Islamic terrorism will have to include remaking of the Muslim Middle East, in a way that breaks the power that the two types of tyrants (jihadists and secular dictators) hold over the ordinary Muslim who just wants to live his life in security and peace and see his children better off than he is himself. It is a long and difficult task and will never be done perfectly. But we are, whether we want to admit it or not, in a situation where there is no pleasant road, and the long-term cost of not remaking the Middle East will be much higher than the present cost of making the attempt.
We are in a very long-term war here. It's going to last a long time, and cost a great deal of money and (eventually) young American lives, no matter what we do. But the longer we take to face up to the true magnitude of the task at hand and set to work on it, the more it will cost us in the end.
Remaking the Middle East is like invading Normandy: it's a truly daunting task and it's inevitable that some things are going to go very, very wrong (see: Omaha Beach; see also: gross failures of intelligence and imagination in re hedgerows; see also: decision to focus on supplying armaments rather than winter gear in the months before the Battle of the Bulge). It's like rebuilding post-war Japan as a radically different society: that took ten years at least, and I noticed just this morning in a piece about American players in Japanese baseball leagues that there were still in the '80's Japanese who claimed to remember that roving bands of American soldiers used to amuse themselves by beating up defenseless Japanese people in the Occupation.
Our major problem as a country is twofold: (1) A great many Americans, and most of the news media, simply doesn't want to face the war we're in. (2) We respond to setbacks like losers: any setback is an excuse, not for toughening our resolve and attacking the problems, but for declaring defeat and demanding our own surrender. But the fact that we don't want to face the necessity of a difficult task, and that we are eager to fail at it, doesn't make it any less necessary.
That's not a very detailed explanation, but my main point is that you seem to be arguing that an attempt to introduce freedom into the Middle East won't solve the problem of terrorism on its own; but the point is that it is a necessary component of any real long-term solution. You appear to say that it is not sufficient, which is true; but that does not mean it isn't necessary. Sufficiency and necessity are quite different things.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 04:26 PM
Gringo,
This is a serious red alert. I am checking on it right now. Will get back.
Er, I did not even manage to click the publish button, before the confirmation came in. That's a roger Gringo...sigh. That does it, this is all out WAR.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 08:00 AM
Alexandra,
If airline (in)security continues, and the Islamites are able, in effect, to sabotage yet another fundamental female human right (cosmetics at high altitude), solace for a woman is still possible (according to gringovision.) That is, although boarding cream-and-gel free, woman can use this adversity as an exceptional opportunity: a chance--practically an invitation-- to make contact with her inner nun. Man's loss can be The Church's gain. The situation is practically made for the woman of spirit and spirituality. ( I even suspect that you agree.)
Posted by: gringoman | Saturday, August 12, 2006 at 12:11 AM
JPE,
I think you misunderstand the theory...and I say this as somebody who things Bush's theory has significant problems.
I'll try to explain when I get back from lunch if I get a chance.
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 01:17 PM
Alexandra,
I think I should probably interpret that as, "Thank God, a short comment...let's encourage that!"
;-)
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 01:00 PM
Over on Jawa they had a link to it. The comments indicate that it was probably taken down due to copyright infringement. Rush interviewed the producer(director?) on his show. They are trying to get it shown in American theatres and get DVD's out.
Posted by: nofate | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 10:16 AM
"CAIR has another agenda." WOW!! GD with some timely clarity. Way to step up. Reminds me of POTUS putting the two words "islamic" and "fascism" together.....overdue.
Alexa, let us consider your makeup as in many ways like the leftist world view...false...something you are much better off without...talk about it all you want but please dont apply it to anything substantial. I'm sure you dont truly "need" it. I'll let you keep the moisturizing cream. As I'm sure that you only use it to preserve something that God gave you.
Posted by: Dave | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 10:09 AM
Gringo,
This is a serious red alert. I am checking on it right now. Will get back.
Er, I did not even manage to click the publish button, before the confirmation came in. That's a roger Gringo...sigh. That does it, this is all out WAR.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 08:00 AM
The President has some delusions about the loyalty of the Saudis that does need some orientating, I have to admit, but we are in some desperate need of finding any Arab nation that will support us."
================================================================
In the above Alexandra offers---intentionally or not--further evidence that the U.S. is not really today's Rome, in case more evidence is needed. Otherwise we'd be witnessing a great vice versa, i.e. it would be the Arab nations desperately seeking U.S. support.
Incidentally, while fully sympathizing with Alexandra's complaint about new airline restrictions on cosmetics, I contend that these Islamites have scored what is arguably an even more appalling victory against not only women but Western civilization, which still appears to include men: You can't bring books aboard! You are condemned to airline magazines. Tell me I got this wrong. Somebody. Anybody?
Posted by: gringoman | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 07:50 AM
Ghost,
Stop writing sensible comments that I agree with. You are making me nervous. LOL.
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 06:56 AM
GD:
that's probably because it is a war against Islamic fascists. You might choose to stick your head in the sand as American 'liberals' (pfffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff) obviously choose to do these days, but the rest of us understand that the driving force behind all of this is Islamic fascism. Their wish is to destroy Israel, to establish sharia law throughout the middle-east and to attack the West to bring the 'infidels' down.
The way they do? Terrorist organizations. They understand that they can't enforce an all-out war with armies against armies - they'll lose without a doubt. That is why, being the cowards they are, they use terrorists and hide behind women and children.
I agree. Most Muslim organizations like that are now showing their true faces to everyone: they are, quite simply, not opposed to terrorism, instead they endorse it. They condemn others when they fight back. That's their strategy: attack, attack, attack -> if the other responds play the victim.
GD and others like him / her are falling for it.
LOL, Alexandra: "Majid" could better stick to Al Manar TV since nobody is interested in his hatefilled rhetoric. I always wonder why people like that come to blogs like this: they only confirm our ideas. They'd be better off at Kos or the Huffington Post: they'll be welcomed with open arms there.
GD I - strangely - agree with your last post.
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 05:41 AM
I've studied CAIR...at least what is available on the INTERNET. I think Kenny is correct. Aside from association with HAMAS and pandering to Islamic extremists, their meme, specifically attempting to equate ANY criticism of Islamic extremism to an assault on Islam is, in fact, exactly the meme of Islamofascist entity.
Their strategy is to achieve the impression of Western wholesale western persecution of Islam, painting all military and other forces brought to bear against terrorist activity as neocolonial infringement; a continuation of colonial, economic and cultural imperialism...while they, in fact, are pursuing colonial, economic and cultural imperialism of their own.
The Western meme should be a continuous differentiation between the extremist politicized heretics and mainstream Islam, and values Western Liberal values of multi-cultural diversity and tolerance in order to achieve mutual economic prosperity and the positive burgeoning of the positive aspects of all ethnicities and religions.
To the degree that the West globalizes the concept, specifically conflates Islamic extremism with Islam in general, it undermines its own position and its own values.
The Islamic extremists are rightly referred to as fascist...they are hegemonic force of their extreme right...and as I've noticed previously, both the extreme right and extreme left share common characteristics.
That has also been my point frequently differentiating between the so called "christians" of the "stone-throwing" variety in our own culture, and true Christianity. We wouldn't want to paint all of Christendom with the same broad brush...nor do we wish to do that to Islam.
By the way, while I do not have the same profound issues with the ACLU as do some here, I think the ACLU should probably stop riding the CAIR horse...ACLU is egalitarian; CAIR has another agenda.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 05:02 AM
Kenny,
Your comment to Ghost is right on the money. One of your classics
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 03:07 AM
Saul,
I am so delighted you have managed to watch the video. It's brilliant isn't it. It is absolutely mind boggling why we do not see more of this, or for that matter as you said there is no discussion about this movie. Michael van der Galien wrote a post about this movie a few days ago, and I will post it on the main page today. It really should be widely seen. You are right Saul.
I am more Jewish than the Jews themselves...I take that as a compliment.I have to just say that it is not easy to find. It actually does not exist in the US Google. Only the 2 minute trailers do. Even the European version is not easy to find, as it is a documentary which has been made into an internet movie. UPDATE: GOOGLE HAVE PULLED THE MOVIE, AFTER MY POSTING YESTERDAY. IT IS NOW NO LONGER AVAILABLE. Can you believe it.
I just received a comment from a 'Majid' on the 'Can We Get Over It Already?' We Are All Jews Now' thread. Excuse the caps but I am not about to re-type it, and the shouting part is important for the atmosphere of the comment
Posted by: Alexandra | Friday, August 11, 2006 at 03:02 AM
Alexandra: Thank you for the link to the movie Obssession; it's long but well worth the time to view; I was just wondering, given the clear facts and repeated statements by Isamists seeking our destruction, and that of Western Civilization, I simply do not understand why there is a serious lack of public discussion regarding this movie. A significant amount of this information, and more, is contained in Steve Emerson's book on Islam -- he is an authorty. He was also vilified by CAIR -- which, to me, is a mega endorsement for his book. I cannot remember the title of the book -- something like Radical Islam in America. I remembered Google: the book is: "American Jihad: The Terrorists Living Among Us." A very imoprtant book for all of us.
Posted by: Saul Davis | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 09:14 PM
Ghost,
1. It delights me, as you quite correctly surmise.
2. Note how desperately CAIR wants to make sure that nobody is allowed to distinguish between sane Muslims who may arguably be said to follow a religion of peace, and Islamists. Anything you say about Islamic fascists -- including in a clear attempt to distinguish between them and their sane co-religionists -- CAIR desperately tries to misrepresent as a slander on all Muslims. I'll give you an easy clue: any organization that is so desperate to blur the distinction, is an organization that is a front for terrorism.
Not that anybody with a clue didn't already know that that's what CAIR is.
I think Rick Santorum may actually have gotten through Bush's six-inch skull on the war on terror / war on Islamism thing. This is like the fourth or fifth time in the last few weeks Bush has used the new -- and FAR more accurate -- terminology. No wonder CAIR's pants are turning brown.
To bad Bush is stabbing Israel in the back over Hezbollah...
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 08:26 PM
GD,
And your point is?
Posted by: Gang of One | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 08:14 PM
GREEN BAY, Wis. (AP) -- President Bush said Thursday that a foiled plot to blow up multiple flights from Britain to the United States shows ''this nation is at war with Islamic fascists.''
That's gotta make Kenny happy! ...war on terror equated to war on Islamic fascists!
''This country is safer than it was prior to 9-11,'' Bush said from the tarmac at Austin Straubel International Airport. ''We've taken a lot of measures to protect the American people. But obviously we still aren't completely safe. ... It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.''
Wouldn't make that mistake at all.
The president laid the blame for the would-be attack squarely on al-Qaida-type terrorism.
''This nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation,'' he said, his remarks carried live on television.
Bush read from remarks he had written himself on sheets of white paper. He spoke for just two minutes and took no questions. His brief message, aside from focusing on the ''stark reminder'' of the U.S.-led global war on terror, mostly appeared to be a promise that his administration was working to keep citizens safe.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html?hp&ex=1155268800&en=494a5eb2413ab38e&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 07:52 PM
I just got home and am catching up to all this but can you believe how the US muslims are throwing a fit because Bush called the people behind this plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists?
*rolls my eyes at muslims that try to stop freedom of speech*
Posted by: liquid | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 07:08 PM
I'm just wondering what Edward (a.k.a. Ned) Lamont, possible soon-to-be U.S. Senator-elect from Connecticut, will propose on the floor of the erstwhile "world's greatest debating body" (what the U.S. Senate was called in the old days) to stop those poor misguided Islamic "militants" (the politically correct word for "justifiably" angry, oppressed persons contemplating or carrying out what they call "acts of holy war," what others call evil murderous attacks on civilians) from making such plots in the future. Maybe he'll propose sending his good friend Markos Moulitsas (a.k.a. Kos) to talk to them. On second thought, that might work; I at least would rather have bamboo slivers slowly inserted under my fingernails than listen for 5 minutes to Kos...
Shalom, Mac Brachman
Posted by: mac Brachman | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 06:21 PM
It seems to me that the real motivation behind this plot is being overlooked. I argue that the Islamofacists were trying to remove a key U.S. ally in the War on Terror.
Check out the following, on the attempt to remove Britain from the war:
"If ten passenger jets filled to the brim with Brits went down in flames over the Atlantic on the way to the U.S., it would be quite hard to imagine a British parliament that would continue to support our efforts in the Middle East - even at the current half-hearted level."
It's a War on Evil, and we need all the good allies we can get. I hope Britain has the bravery and steadfastness to remain in the game - even if they get hit bigtime.
Great post and discussion!
Posted by: N.B. Goldstein | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 06:10 PM
Smug little Cliffy Schecter sure is a power-house of forceful reasoning and political insight, boychix! Talk about over-dressed sparrow farts …
Give liberals a series of events that bitch-slap them out of their kumbaya-singing daydreams and they’re sure to find a Rovian hand and conspiracy in it. Now they sniff that the plot that was foiled was made up in order to scare people into believing the threat of Islamofascism is bigger, stronger and deadlier only because millionairehead Ned Lamont beat Lieberman in the Connecticut primary. These guys find more twisted and convoluted connections in these events than I could find in the wiring diagrams of my old Heathkit DIY stereos.
Let them hyperventilate, and in fact, let them have the WH and let them have Congress for the next few years, just to see them fail abysmally after all their harping and noisemaking. But I think the price in blood we and the rest of the free world would pay in the interim would be too much.
Not long ago, several people reported strange antics by swarthy, Asian-looking passengers on airplanes. Actor James Woods had a cabin mate who literally went down in infamy. And then there was annie Jacobsen’s flight with 14 suspicious "musicians". And of course there is the usual LLL poo-pooing of this account by leftard Jeralyn Merritt at her enviously brilliant effort TalkLeft blog with the usual coterie of snarky and haughty comments.
For now, I will put up with and ignore the idiotarians who dismiss this a little too cavalierly, seeing as how they know so much better than the rest of us do. However, the really maddening thing about all this is that if, God forbid, there had actually been several detonations in the sky, the usual suspects would be finding seven ways to Sunday to blame Bush. You can bet your collective burkas and prayer mats on that.
Posted by: Gang of One | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 05:17 PM
UPDATE X: We are officially on code RED alert now. Does the left believe it, nah, of course not, this has now become a world-wide conspiracy that knows no bounds, after all the British Muslims did plan this to coincide with Joe Lieberman's election plans. "Who the hell is Joe al-Lieberbin?" shouts the Jihadist guy in the corner "How the hell do I know? Isn't he the new recruit?" "What the hell are these crazy American liberals going on about?"
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 04:30 PM
Now all that remains is for Bush to reveal the name of the informant so they can never be used again.
Posted by: Fred | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 04:09 PM
UPDATE IX: And the leftie nutcase spin of the day cup ladies and gentlemen goes to the inimitable Huffington Post, who thinks this is all Dick Cheney's fault
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 03:50 PM
madmatt,
Fallacy of hypostasization. The people who are trying to blow us up are individuals who live in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia; the individuals who run those countries find it useful to offer us cooperation in certain respects. Or are you not aware that people in Pakistan are just as prepared to think that the people running their countries are foolish tools of Satan as the drooling Left are ready to hate Bu$Hitler?
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 03:47 PM
"our leaders have bombed in the one basic assignment that began it all. Osama Bin Laden is still free. All those who regularly trumpet the news of the latest plots fail to mention why this truth continues to be allowed".
We continue to have a very large population of useful idiots. Unfortunately they are helping the islamofascists carry out their designs. As you so eloquently stated, "We Are All Jews Now". There are so many references that show the intentions of these monsters, don't these people do their homework? You have probably seen most of these, but I will put a few of the most eye opening up, for what good it will do.WHAT ALEX SAID--And Why We Should Listen.
Apocalyptic Muslim Jew-hatred.
Muhammad’s Willing Executioners.
Muhammad’s Dead Poets Society: The assassinations of satirical poets in early Islam.
The Legacy of Jihad in Palestine. Four parts..
A Hinge of History.
Bernard Lewis thinks MAD may not work with Ahmadinejad.
Daily Standard: Strange Allies; By Daveed Gartenstein-Ross.
The Yale Historian Who Argues that Islamists Are Acting According to an Ancient Script.
And last, but most certainly, not least, the event that finally got some of us awake and should never be forgotten:
The September 11 Digital Archive: Saving the Histories of September 11, 2001.
Keep up the good work, and take care you guys.
nofate
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
Posted by: nofate | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 02:27 PM
The plotters are called "Asians" because that allows them to skip around the troubling Muslim categorization. Bombs on board planes that would murder a couple thousand passengers, yet we can't offend the community of the Peace Loving.
With this coming just after the Lamont win for the netroots, and today's comments coming from sites like Kos and DU that this is the fault of Bush, makes me think that maybe it's best that we take the short term pain of allowing the Democrats to run government for at least 4 years. Let's allow them the opportunity to "do it right". I believe that the consequences would be deadly, but I'd like to see them actually putting their words into action, just to prove to the world how fecklessness and appeasement are not a solution in today's world.
Posted by: Brian | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 02:12 PM
Matt,
The President has some delusions about the loyalty of the Saudis that does need some orientating, I have to admit, but we are in some desperate need of finding any Arab nation that will support us.
If you have time watch the link I posted in an update above. It's an awesome video, which should be seen in its entirety, it's called 'Obsession'...
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 02:10 PM
Alexandra, your liberal friend is need of some therapy or just some time to read the pertinent information regarding OBL.
Like all the other LLLs out there in the "reality-based commune" he needs to get a grip and concentrate on relevant issues. It's not enough to tell these jokers that Clinton passed up an opportunity to have OBL's head on a couscous platter offered by Sudan. but the ongoing mewling about not capturing OBL is a by-now discredited canard
He [and anyone else who's interested] can go here, then for laughs and snorts they can check this, and then they should read this article and have this one for desert.
Any questions?
Posted by: Gang of One | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 02:00 PM
Why is it that US "allies" Like pakistan and saudi arabia are the people that try and blow us up? There wasn't a single iraqi aboard any 911 flight it was largely gwb's asshole buddies the sauds. Now after pakistan giving nuke secrets to anybody who asks, they are trying to blow us up (supposedly...the last time the brits got this excited was over a brazilian electrician)
Posted by: madmatt | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 01:58 PM
The muslim terrorists have harnessed the awesome powers of mentos and diet coke.
Posted by: madmatt | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 01:52 PM
So, JPE, I take you think that democracy is too good for little brown people with funny clothes and customs? Do you think it would have been beter to just go in and vaporize the little brown people and their funny clothes in order to prevent 2,500 dead Americans as well as the 6,000 dead around the globe due to their fanatical ideas? JPE, your latent racism and bigotry [that you project on to the rightwing/conservatives] is showing, and its getting a bit funny smelling around the edges.
GD,
Bog in Heaven, Ghost. Your patronizing attitude is wearing thin. Is there ever a time you don't come in here with your school-marm condescension? If you're not cutting and pasting the 'deep thoughts' of your beloved liberal losers what do you bring here? From what I can see, nothing but snippets of elitist snottlingism is what you're about.
Posted by: Gang of One | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 12:41 PM
Back at the front in Israel with Ralph Peters, two articles today:
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/ghost_towns_of_war_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/nyer_hangs_tough_opedcolumnists_ralph_peters.htm
On the terrorist plot, are the terrorists recycling prior plots? This plot is supposed to be similar in methods to one stopped in hte Philippines. If the left thinks these terrorists from different countries are not working together, looks like they will have to change their tune after today. If they want to start being rational, that is.
Posted by: rich | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 12:05 PM
UPDATE IV: Greg from STACLU alerts me to the first leftie out of the box, and leading the charge being of course the Democratic Underground, and as I predicted the BS has already started:
Hahahahaaha.... I did not write this I swear!!!!! The link is there for all to see. As I predicted in the main text 1) denying the existence of a threat 2) questioning the timingPosted by: Alexandra | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 11:56 AM
Words that seem conspicuously absent from linkage with "terrorism" in "news" reports I've seen thus far:
Muslim
Islamic
Oh, the words may appear elsewhere in some of the reports (though not in the al-reuters report here. Its only mention of Islam is in a link at the bottom of the page to an Islamic Aid organization... of course), but not in connection with terrorism.
Mass Media Podpeople's Army Hive Mind line: "Pay no attention to the Islamic terrorist behind the curtain."
Posted by: David | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 11:52 AM
jpe writes
This is the kind of moronic response one expects from the left now.Not that it will do any good to point it out to these morons, but the concept of bringing democracy to the middle east is to benefit the good people of the middle east, who have long suffered under repressive regimes. Then they can kill or imprison the extremists in their midsts themselves.
I know this requires higher thought processes than you may be used to exercising, but try and think about it for a moment. The vast majority of Arab Muslims are decent, god-fearing people who simply want to live in peace. Their societies are infested with a minority of extremists who will kill them for a whim. It is therefore very hard for them to speak out without the support of their governments, which they do not have.
Think of it like this. Those reporters you love, who bring you all the horrible stories of suffering of the poor, misbegotten Hezbollah warriors who are being slaughtered by the Joooooossss are writing those stories, by their own admission, because Hezbollah has made it very clear that they will kill the reporters if they write the truth.
It works the same way in Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc., etc., etc.
Posted by: antimedia | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 11:05 AM
Kenny,
OK now I know this is a chick thing....but my first thought when I heard the hand luggage restrictions was "Oh no...I will shrivel up like a prune between JFK and Heathrow"...that beauty case with all the goodies is attached at the hip when I travel...then I think my God I will be arrested because I WILL refuse to part with it, and yes I AM serious.
The make-up is one thing, but the lotions and the potions are what Israel would call NON-NEGOTIABLE.
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 10:56 AM
Epa: Would you believe that I actually saw comments like that? For instance here at TMV where I'm a co-blogger.
Kenny: LOL... women..
Posted by: Michael van der Galien | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 10:44 AM
Ghost,
Thank you for explaining in such detail the background of the well documented opinion of the learned left as to the level of security dangers we face. It has been due to the supposed 'vivid imagination' of the right that we have any substantial security measures at all in place, and even for that we have been ridiculed. The bravado comes from the learned left, and they do think that since nothing of substance has blown up (the thwarted attacks are repeatedly dismissed as fabrications designed by the great right conspiracy)that the chances of another 9/11 is about the sort of time that pigs will fly. Of course I did expect the explanations to come from you as to how they could fly after all....
Posted by: Alexandra | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 10:38 AM
Quote of the day from Heathrow security personnel, who have been responsible for enforcing the ban on all carry-on items other than "essential items" (i.e., passport, boarding pass and wallet):
"But you'd be surprised how many women try to insist that their make-up is an essential item."
Posted by: Kenny Pierce | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 10:19 AM
A flying pig is a symbol of an impossible event coming to pass. The popular saying "[it will happen] when pigs fly" (or "when pigs have wings") is traditionally used to mean that the specified event will never occur.
The idiom is apparently derived from a centuries-old Scottish proverb, though some other references to pigs flying or pigs with wings are more famous. Here is one such reference from Lewis Carroll:
"Thinking again?" the Duchess asked, with another dig of her sharp little chin.
"I've a right to think," said Alice sharply, for she was beginning to feel a little worried.
"Just about as much right," said the Duchess, "as pigs have to fly...." — Alice in Wonderland, chapter 9.
Possibly the first occurrence of a pig actually "flying" occurred in 1909 when the British aviation pioneer Lord Brabazon made the first live air cargo flight with a pig in a basket tied to a wing-strut of his airplane. Additionally, if enough thrust is applied, any pig is capable of ballistic flight.
Posted by: Ghost Dansing | Thursday, August 10, 2006 at 10:05 AM