Archive

Archive for the ‘The War’ Category

Happy 9/11 Day!

September 11th, 2017 2 comments

The day the world changed. And then, very quickly, changed right back again.

TOM CLANCY WAS RIGHT: (Reposted from earlier today) And we’re living one of his scenarios right now. Not much is known for sure, but it’s obvious that the United States is the target of a major terrorist assault. There’s a lot of bloviation on the cable news channels, most of which will turn out to be wrong or misleading later. Here, for your consideration, are a few points to be taken from past experience:

The Fog of War: Nobody knows much right now. Many things that we think we know are likely to be wrong. 

Overreaction is the Terrorist’s Friend: Even in major cases like this, the terrorist’s real weapon is fear and hysteria. Overreacting will play into their hands.

It’s Not Just Terrorists Who Take Advantage: Someone will propose new “Antiterrorism” legislation. It will be full of things off of bureaucrats’ wish lists. They will be things that wouldn’t have prevented these attacks even if they had been in place yesterday. Many of them will be civil-liberties disasters. Some of them will actually promote the kind of ill-feeling that breeds terrorism. That’s what happened in 1996. Let’s not let it happen again.

Only One Antiterrorism Method Works: That’s punishing those behind it. The actual terrorists are hard to reach. But terrorism of this scale is always backed by governments. If they’re punished severely — and that means severely, not a bombed aspirin-factory but something that puts those behind it in the crosshairs — this kind of thing won’t happen again. That was the lesson of the Libyan bombing.

“Increased Security” Won’t Work. When you try to defend everything, you defend nothing. Airport security is a joke because it’s spread so thin that it can’t possibly stop people who are really serious. You can’t prevent terrorism by defensive measures; at most you can stop a few amateurs who can barely function. Note that the increased measures after TWA 800 (which wasn’t terrorism anyway, we’re told) didn’t prevent what appear to be coordinated hijackings. (Archie Bunker’s plan, in which each passenger is issued a gun on embarking, would have worked better). Deterrence works here, just as everywhere else. But you have to be serious about it.

As Glenn says, these predictions have held up dismayingly well—which has demonstrated just how “serious” we really were, and remain. Now, hopelessly enmired in two bootless attempts at nation-building, trying to establish “democracy” and “freedom” in places where the primordial inhabitants want nothing to do with either, we’re reminded of just how much of the latter we’ve abandoned ourselves, and just how thoroughly we’ve shit on the former.

Now we’ve learned how to “absorb” another Muslim terrorist attack on our own soil every other month or so. We docilely stand in hours-long lines while watching the TSA crotch-grope grandmas from Wyoming or Mississippi at our airports while letting visibly belligerent, thobe-clad, military-age Muslim males pass unmolested; sit idly by while Leftist morons (including women and gays, hilariously enough) trash Christianity while insisting we “respect” Islam as one of the world’s “great religions” in the next breath; have had to endure a Republican President lecture us all on how Islam is a “religion of peace”; have been unctuously instructed that we are NOT to refer to Islamic terrorism as anything more sinister or preventable than “man-caused disasters”; are treated to the ludicrous and sad spectacle of the FBI declaring itself “baffled” after each and every ALLAHU AKHBAR-yodeling terrorist atrocity as to what could POSSIBLY have been his motivation for it; are treated to insulting declarations of concern over Muslims as the real victims after each incident, because of “Islamophobia”; and import them by the millions into the very heart of the West without asking for even the most token or insincere nod towards assimilation or respect for our culture from them.

And the Muslim call to prayer—”the most beautiful sound in the world,” according to our previous President—is heard over more American cities with every passing day, doing what it always does in every part of the world in which it’s been allowed to ring out unattenuated by staunch resistance: drowning out the shrieks of the murdered, muffling the sound of freedom, and giving voice to the barbaric hooting of the victors as they gloat over those they’ve vanquished.

Mission accomplished. Looks like we’re all “America Strong!™” now.

Share

Used to it

June 10th, 2017 6 comments

Ain’t got a whole lot to say in defense of someone who responds to Manchester and the subsequent attacks by blaming Trump for it all.

Theresa May has said sorry to the Tory MPs and ministers who lost their seats as a result of her decision to call a snap general election which cost the Conservatives their majority.

A disastrous set of election results have left Mrs May clinging onto power with the Prime Minister forced to pursue a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) to stay in Downing Street.

She had been hoping to boost her mandate for Brexit negotiations but the Tories actually lost seats and fell below the 326 needed to form a majority government.

What’s truly baffling is that—as I’ve been reading and hearing everywhere and can’t really find anything to contradict—the ceaseless Muslim terrorist onslaught had no impact on the election at all.

I mean…seriously? May’s pathetic appeasement of the savages who in just the last couple of weeks unleashed bloody mayhem in Manchester, at London Bridge, wasn’t a factor in any way here? Her mewling suck-uppery, her disgraceful contortions in blaming Trump for her own fecklessness, her abandonment of entire sectors of her once-proud and mighty nation to gang-rape and grooming and creeping sharia—these profound derelictions were suddenly irrelevant in a national referendum?

Of course, it’s not as if the useless Leftists in the other parties will do any better. England’s electoral choice would seem now to be between “weak” and “cringing,” between “self-deceiving” and “openly begging for mercy.” Given that, it’s kind of hard to get worked up about one party or the other losing or winning a single election; in the end, the foregone conclusion of dhimmitude is all that really matters here.

All in all: wow. Just…wow. “There’ll Always Be An England“? Not one worth bothering about, or that anybody would recognize as such. To re-quote Steyn:

On November 25th 1941, off the coast of Alexandria, HMS Barham was torpedoed by a German U-boat during a visit to the battleship by Vice-Admiral Henry Pridham-Wippell. The ship lurched to its port side, the commanding officer was killed, and the vice-admiral found himself treading oil-perfumed water surrounded by the ship’s men and far from rafts. To keep their morale up, he led them in a rendition of “There’ll Always Be An England”. The 31,000-ton Barham sank in less than four minutes, the largest British warship destroyed by a U-boat in the course of the war. But 449 of its crew of 1,311 survived.

“There’ll Always Be An England” was written for that England.

It’s different now. It’s still a popular headline, but today there’s a question mark at the end, either explicit or implied.

I’d say that by now, it’s more than explicit; the question mark is a given, hugely ironic, and the very asking of the question itself little more than a bitter joke.

It’s already too late for England; the jihadists are seeded throughout the nation, and even if the Brits began earnestly rounding up, locking up, and deporting first thing in the morning, they’ll suffer attack after attack for years to come. The pitiful truth is that they’ve been overrun; England is a conquered nation, and it’s just going to have to, as they say, get used to this.

England resigned itself to its ignominious fate long ago; disarmed, enfeebled, helpless, and besieged, they are now reaping the whirlwind. May God forbid that America ever walks the same shameful, contemptible road.

Now tell me again, whydon’tcha, how Trump’s disdain for NATO is just the most horrible, unthinkable thing EVAR.

Share

UNEXPECTED!

June 8th, 2017 2 comments

I almost appended this to the Trump post below as another example of somebody coming around to embrace Teh Rebellion at last, but…well, naaaah.

Donald Trump’s whole position on this has been that we are all at risk from Islamist extremists who want to kill us. And he has come up with endless ways he is suggesting of trying to stop this. You may not agree with him, but that is where he is coming from. After what has been happening in London and Manchester, has Trump not got a point?

Is he not allowed as President of the United States to say ‘Wake up everybody! We are in a war here.’?

Brace yourselves, gang; in fact, you better sit down for it. That’s Piers Morgan—PIERS FUCKING MORGAN, ferchrissakes—quoted above. He was interviewing London’s terrorist-supporting sleeper-Muslim mayor, whose response was:

KHAN: Let me tell you what I was commenting on when I said he was ignorant. The idea at the time, when he was a candidate, of banning all Muslims from going to the USA, and I made the point that his views are ignorant — why? Because there are literally million of Muslims born and raised in America who love their country… But also there are millions of Muslims around the world who love America –me included– who love Americans. Who have family in America. And playing to the ISIS narrative that Western liberal values are incompatible with Islam is ignorant.

Okay, first off, you fucking insidious liar: Trump never once, not even ONCE, suggested “banning all Muslims” from etc. It was actually an extension of an Obama edict that…oh, to hell with all that. I am all done with being lured into the weeds, arguing minutiae with dishonest liars. It’s a distraction, and it ain’t no accident that they do it, if you ask me. To hell with arguing on their dishonest terms; I won’t do it with Muslim frauds any more than I will with the Left. Once they get you chasing your tail like that, the game is over, and they won.

Second: Western values incompatible with Islam? Well, depends, I guess. If you mean the Islam of the Koran and the hadiths, yeah, they most certainly are. But if you mean the milder Islam embraced by a tiny handful of more-moderate Muslims scattered here and there across the globe, well, Islam has a word for that, too: APOSTASY. You can go look for yourself what the punishment for that is.

All that said, I must tentatively doff the CF chapeau to these guys:

Over 130 imams from across the United Kingdom have said they will refuse to perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the London and Manchester terror attackers. The ritual is normally carried out for every Muslim, regardless of their actions.

In what is a highly unusual move, Muslim religious leaders from different schools of Islam — both Sunni and Shia — issued a statement late Monday saying their pain at the suffering of the victims of Saturday’s attacks had led to their decision, and they called on others imams to follow suit.

“We are deeply hurt that a spate of terror attacks have been committed in our country once more by murderers who seek to gain religious legitimacy for their actions. We seek to clarify that their reprehensible actions have neither legitimacy nor our sympathy,” the statement put out by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), an umbrella body representing over 500 organizations, read.

At risk of being an asshole here, I must say I am more than a little skeptical of this. Much as I would love to wholeheartedly welcome and endorse such a move—it’s exactly the kind of gesture we’ve said all along needs to be made by reasonable Muslims, and the onus is surely on them to do it—well, frankly, I don’t trust them. The rest of their statement has a pretty greasy feel to it, which doesn’t do much to allay my suspicions:

“Consequently, and in light of other such ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam, we will not perform the traditional Islamic funeral prayer for the perpetrators and we also urge fellow imams and religious authorities to withdraw such a privilege. This is because such indefensible actions are completely at odds with the lofty teachings of Islam,” the statement continued.

See what I mean? A lot of noise about “the lofty teachings of Islam,” and what is and is not “ethical principles which are quintessential to Islam.” Tell me, is abject subjugation of women one of those “lofty teachings”? The killing of gays, the enslavement into dhimmitude of all non-Muslims? It would seem so; it’s all right there in the Koran, after all. Sorry, but this sounds too much like a press release penned by some grubby hack working for a third- or fourth-tier PR firm to me. This, too, only reinforces my skepticism:

He said that while a campaign would be launched to urge mosques to increase their vigilance, “the path towards extremism is outside of the mosque and at the margins of society.”

Umm, no. Not even close. The path towards extremism runs directly through the mosque, into and then out again; in fact, the mosques are a prime source of the problem here, as has been demonstrated again and again. As I’ve said: the problem isn’t some supposed “perversion” of Islam; the problem is Islam, as specifically and unmistakably delineated in its own “sacred” texts.

I dunno, maybe they’re sincere; I most surely hope so, as must we all. If so, good on ’em. But I’ll hold to my skepticism for now; Lord knows the Muslim world has earned that skepticism many times over, and one hell of a lot more besides.

Share

Lessons? What lessons?

June 5th, 2017 17 comments

Before too long, we’ll have a Second Civil War to blithely ignore the lessons of.

There’s a tried and true American approach to suppressing terrorism, and it worked quite well during Gen. Sherman’s 1863 Kentucky campaign and Gen. Phil Sheridan’s subsequent reduction of the Shenandoah Valley. We don’t have to be particularly smart; we merely have to do some disgusting things. Sherman and Sheridan suppressed sniping at Union soldiers by Confederate civilians by burning the towns (just the towns, not the townsfolk) that sheltered them. In other words, they forced collective responsibility upon a hostile population, a doctrine that in peacetime is entirely repugnant, but that in wartime becomes unavoidable. By contrast, the peacetime procedure of turning petty criminals into police snitches has backfired terribly. No doubt we will learn that the perpetrators of tonight’s horror at London Bridge were known to police, like the Manchester Arena suicide bomber and most of the perpetrators of large-scale terrorist acts in Europe during the past several years. (Update: “At Least One London Bridge Terrorist Was a ‘Known Wolf'”) The remedy is time-tested and straightforward. We merely require the will to apply it.

Yeah, well, that’s gonna be a problem right there. Best we just go on with the “cower in place” strategy for a long while yet. We can all keep comforting ourselves each time a few dozen more of us are slaughtered by having a good cry; it seems to be working well for blithering idiots all over the world so far, right?

Like Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman, who burned a great swath through Georgia and the Carolinas, Sheridan believed that war is won not just by killing soldiers but by denying them support from a broader civilian population.

Actually, it’s worse for us than that: Sherman believed, and explicitly stated, that wars were won only when the spirit of the opposition, both military and civilian, was utterly and entirely broken—their will to resist crushed right out of them—and not one moment before. He and Grant both proved, along with a lot of other leading officers throughout history, that competence in warfare is less a matter of intelligence and more a matter of brutal, implacable resolve.

In other words: it all comes down to will. The will of our enemies to conquer us must be bested by our own will to defeat them. So far there’s absolutely no sign at all that that’s the case. We lack the fortitude to even call the enemy by his proper name; for us to even be discussing defeating him is very nearly an obscenity.

DOOMED update! It’s laugh or cry, folks.


metro-police-warning.jpg

That last bit is especially poignant; since Brits long ago allowed their government to disarm them, they’re now reduced to throwing chairs and bar glasses at their Muslim tormentors. It bears repeating: before we can defeat the Muslims, we will first have to crush the Left, and nullify its malign influence on our lives. That’s every bit as true here as it is there, and everywhere else.

Share

He’s on a roll!

May 25th, 2017 4 comments

Schlichter, that is.

We’re not even willing to take our own side in this fight.

Yeah, the West is theoretically at war with them somewhere far away, or rather, we’re playing at war with a few soldiers and some bombs. It’s war on the cheap, and this campaign may eventually wear down the ISIS caliphate so that that one pustule of Islamic radicalism is lanced, but it won’t be victory. They’ll just pop up again, in Yemen or Somalia or Afghanistan, where we have futzed around for 15-plus years and those pedophilia-loving creeps still hold most of the ground. We sort of fight a sort of war to sort of hold them at bay for a little while.

But it gets worse. We invite them into our countries, willy-nilly, sacrificing what we are so they can remain what they always have been, and on our dime. Do we screen immigrants to make sure they adhere to our values and our beliefs, or do we somehow feel we have no right to decide who comes into our nation and just shrug?

We know who they are and we know what they want. But the suicide squad that is our elite would rather prove its virtue to its emasculated self by placing its weird multicultural fetish above our kids’ lives. We elect a president who wants to slow down the influx of refugees so we have a chance to figure out who the hell they are and our elite rushes to credulous courts that manufacture sanctimonious legal reasoning out of whole cloth to ensure that our people are kept defenseless.

Why?

When something is truly unacceptable, you can tell because we do not accept it. But we accept terror. We won’t do what it takes to win. The solution is obvious. It’s right there, and we all know it, but our elite is largely willing to let scores of us die rather than admit the truth that none of them dare speak.

The answer is not fake solidarity and social media memes and sacrificing a few little girls here and there so we can avoid calling out the lies we have allowed to castrate us.

The answer is destroying the enemy in war zones thoroughly and completely. It is to take up arms and crush our enemies, not just tread water in this sea of blood.

Get angry.

Because we have a right to be angry.

Because anger is the first crucial step to fighting back.

Because if we can see two dozen little kids blasted to shreds and not get angry, then maybe we deserve to live as the slaves of these 7th century savages.

As I’ve said all along: we’ll never defeat an enemy we’re too fucking chickenshit to even call by his proper name. We might not even have to destroy the terror-sponsoring regimes in Saudi Arabia and Iran to win, though; Billy Hollis left some great ideas in the comments here:

How’s this for some brainstorming about what could be done:

1. For any act of Islamic terror that results in injury to a non-Muslim, the mosque of the perp is closed for one year.

2. For any act of Islamic terror that results in death of a non-Muslim, the mosque of the perp is closed for two years.

3. For any two such acts from the same mosque, the mosque is closed permanently.

4. If the number of deaths from any incident or combination of incidents by perps from a mosque exceeds 20, the mosque is closed, defiled, and burned to the ground.

5. For any violent responses to such acts, such as riots, any participants who are not citizens are immediately deported. Any participants who are citizens are convicted of a felony and jailed unconditionally for one year.

Works for me, every last word of it. In any event, I feel certain that more weepy, maudlin rallies after the fact are NOT gonna get the job done. Nor are ziggurats of flowers adorned with photos of the never-to-be-avenged victims of each successive Muslim atrocity. Nor any number of pathetic, embarrassing #WHERETHEHELLEVERSTRONG hashtags.

Piss-soaked milksops all over the Western world can roll over and show their soft, flabby bellies all they may like; it will never buy them a single moment’s peace or safety. They are begging for mercy from an enemy who possesses not an ounce of it; they are speaking in a language he doesn’t comprehend, bargaining with a currency he doesn’t value. With each successive attack, they are being tested…and found wanting.

Our “leadership” won’t lead. Our military—the “strongest in the WORLD!”—is forced to squander its might and spill its lifeblood fighting Welcome-Wagon “wars” in far-flung barbaric shitholes without the faintest hope of victory—or any clear idea of what victory might actually even be. Our law enforcement agencies don’t dare to cross the rigid boundaries of political correctness to take official notice of blatantly suspicious malefactors living among us. And too many of our population will support no more vigorous response than flapping their hands, weeping, and milling about in the streets after the fact congratulating themselves on how “strong” they are.

And so, in another couple of weeks—maybe a month at the outside—we’ll be having this conversation again. Until we learn. Or are vanquished.

Official Lies update! Steyn:

Twenty-four hours after the Manchester attack, I joined Evan Solomon on CFRA in Ottawa to talk about what it meant and where we go. You can hear the full interview here (scroll down if necessary). I began by making the point that I was offended by the media coverage’s Orwellian inversion of language – whereby “#ManchesterStrong” means a limp passivity of flowers and candlelight vigils and teddy bears for a couple of days before we all forget it until the next “strong” “united” community gets blown apart.

My thoughts yesterday did not meet with universal agreement. Linda Cianchetti emails:

The killer was the queen of England’s clan.

Rothschild Soros club.

Stop zionist Israel jews from manufacturing all this illusion. They are the banking cartel around the world. Stop blaming everyone but the culprits, themselves. Or we will have no respect for journalists and the tales they put out.

Well, thanks for clearing that up.

I get a lot more of this than I used to. I suspect Ms Cianchetti would blame “zionist Israel jews” and “the queen of England’s clan” whatever happened, but it’s a close call whether she’s any more detached from reality than, say, Newsweek fretting about “reprisals” against Muslims or the nincompoop diversicrat who serves as Chief Constable of Greater Manchester sternly warning that we must not “tolerate hate” – by which he means not the hate of people who shred little girls’ bodies with nail bombs but the mean-spirited Tweets of people who get angry at the people who shred little girls’ bodies with nail bombs.

I was halfway hoping for a more lengthy and comprehensive piece from Steyn on this, but as he himself has said: really, what’s the point? Before we can hope to defeat the Muslims, we’re first going to have to defeat the Left. Until their miserable self-loathing and cowardice is made entirely irrelevant, it’s all just gum-flapping, to little or no good purpose. It’s the main reason I haven’t been in any great hurry to post on this latest attack: I had plenty to say, all right—but I’ve already said it, and have been saying it for sixteen years now. You guys already know it; the Progressivist lackwits ain’t listening, and couldn’t grasp it if they were. Until they’re removed from any position of power or influence, we’re all just pissing in the wind here.

Share

Demography is destiny

April 24th, 2017 2 comments

Steyn’s perspicacious old quote, elaborated on:

Thursday’s killer was 39 years old. That’s almost geriatric for the jihad. In France’s (and western Europe’s) population, the demographic cohort ten years younger has a significantly higher proportion of Muslims, and the cohort a decade younger than that a higher proportion still. Which means that there will be, statistically, a higher number of men who wish to do what Thursday’s killer did – and open fire on the careless metropolitan jollity of the Champs-Elysées.

During my time in France, I made a mordant joke that, where once Beirut was “the Paris of the East”, Paris was in danger of turning into the Beirut of the West. Not quite, not yet, but where else is that demographic ratchet headed? Late in the evening, as the waiters brought last cognacs and upturned the chairs on nearby tables, I asked almost everyone the same question: “What’s the happy ending here?” The sophisticates had no answer. The French prime minister and at least one presidential candidate Gallicly shrug and say: Get used to it. Get used to what? A terror attack once in a while? Or an increasing rate thereof? Or, as demography works its remorseless logic, less and less terrorism (because it’s no longer necessary) but more and more smaller and subtler curtailments of la vie parisienne – until there’s nothing left.

One candidate, Marine Le Pen, wants less Muslim immigration. Most of the others won’t even go that far – although, in truth, it’s not that far at all, notwithstanding that it would require withdrawal from the European Union even to attempt it. But, without an end to mass immigration, there is only demographic arithmetic.

And it adds up to…nothing good. But the only math we need to bother about is this: the more Muslims, the more terrorism. So anybody mind indulging me when I ask yet again where exactly the fancy fuck is the demand for the heedless, reckless importation of more of these primordial savages—unassimilable, hostile, murderous, barbaric, incompatible with Western values in every least way—coming from, exactly?

Share

“Make Arabia great again”

September 12th, 2016 Comments off

Umm…ouch.

As I suggested above, we are still too close to this event to grasp its full significance; but after fifteen years we in the West are in a much worse position than we were on the 10th of September, 2001. We showed, as the Islamists predicted, that we did not have the stamina to prevail, even against weak adversaries; that America and allies could only fight “Vietnams.” Our will is shaken, and to Salafist delight, we have by now expressed contrition for fourteen centuries of Christian defence against Islamic aggression. We bow respectfully, as our culture is insulted, and as versions of Shariah are imposed. In disregard of our own security, we have thrown our borders open to massive Muslim immigration. We follow, at every junction, the course of sentimentality, and adapt to the certainty of defeat. After each hit we call for grief counsellors.

It is instructive that, in the present circumstances, with Christians reduced to desperation through much of the Near East, we import Muslim refugees almost exclusively. The Christians flee to the protection of the Kurds; not to refugee camps in which they would risk massacre. Western governments take only from those camps; or in Europe, the flotillas launched from Turkey and Libya. The Islamists gloat at this demographic achievement; the Daesh now recruit from the disaffected young in the new Muslim ghettoes of Europe, radicalized in Saudi-built-and-financed mosques. Few directly engage in suicidal acts of terrorism; but those who do are lionized as heroes. Lesser, safer acts, such as rape of European women, and desecration of churches and synagogues, have become commonplace. We are, and we know that we are, as incapable of assimilating these migrants as the Romans were of assimilating the Vandals and Huns through their increasingly porous frontiers.

Crucially, in the mindless fantasy of “multiculturalism,” we refuse to recognize the contradictions between Islamic and Christian teaching, and look the other way, muttering fatuities about “the religion of peace” after each psychopathic explosion. This is just what Osama predicted: the harder the blows, the more docile we would become, and the more complacent in the face of the ancient Islamic demand for submission.

The genius of Osama bin-Laden, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, was to know that the de-Christianizing West would respond in this way. Their propaganda spelt out, from the beginning, the argument for their methods. They called us chestless wonders; they said we would fold under any sustained pressure; that we had lost the confidence of our Christian identity. We are an aging society now, vitiated by abortions, needing immigrants to pay our pensions; a people addicted to drugs, from opiates to iPhones; lapsed in creature comforts, and spineless in the face of adversity.

Not all of us, of course. I am sometimes impressed by the number of remnant faithful to the old Christian religion, and its “Western ideals.” In moments of crisis, as we saw for some weeks after the Twin Towers came down, the rest of the population stirs. Yet by Christmas of 2001 they were snoring again, and again the liberal reflexes were twitching.

And that never to leads anyplace good. Again: in order to defeat Islam, we’ll first have to crush liberalism, until those reflexes are shorted out entirely.

Share

Happy 9/11 Day!

September 11th, 2016 Comments off

So what will you be doing to “remember”? Grilling out, having a few beers? Getting together with friends and family to enjoy the lovely weather? Going to a “patriotic” rally to hold hands, light candles, and weep gently?

Okay, except for that last, we’re not quite there yet. But I think we can all see it coming.

Two years ago today I was convinced that every presumption I had about the future was wrong. This war, I feared, would be horrible, total, and long.

Two years later I take a certain grim comfort in some people’s disinterest in the war; if you’d told me two years ago that people would be piling on the President and bitching about slow progress in Iraq, I would have known in a second that the nation hadn’t suffered another attack. When the precise location of Madonna’s tongue is big news, you can bet the hospitals aren’t full of smallpox victims. Of course some people are impatient with those who still recall the shock of 9/11; the same people were crowding the message boards of internet sites on the afternoon of the attacks, eager to blame everyone but the hijackers. They hate this nation. In their hearts, they hate humanity. They would rather cheer the perfect devils than come to the aid of a compromised angel. They can talk for hours about how wrong it was to kill babies, busboys, businessmen, receptionists, janitors, fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers – and then they lean towards you, eyes wide, and they say the fatal word:

But.

And then you realize that the eulogy is just a preface. All that concern for the dead is nothing more than the knuckle-cracking of an organist who’s going to play an E minor chord until we all agree we had it coming.

I’ve no doubt that if Seattle or Boston or Manhattan goes up in a bright white flash there will be those who blame it all on Bush. We squandered the world’s good will. We threw away the opportunity to atone, and lashed out. Really? You want to see lashing out? Imagine Kabul and Mecca and Baghdad and Tehran on 9/14 crowned with mushroom clouds: that’s lashing out. Imagine the President in the National Cathedral castigating Islam instead of sitting next to an Imam who’s giving a homily. Mosques burned, oil fields occupied, smart bombs slamming into Syrian palaces. We could have gone full Roman on anyone we wanted, but we didn’t. And we won’t.

Which is why this war will be long.

Long, hell. It’s why we lost.

This morning CBS This Morning ran as its concluding story a 9/11 remembrance piece, focused mostly on the new WTC. Not once in the whole thing were the words “Islam” or “Muslim” uttered—not by interviewers, narrator, or interviewees, not by anybody. There are still pockets of resistance to the whitewashing of history, however:

A group of New York Muslims has taken offense at a small town’s new memorial honoring those who died in the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The Islamic Organization of the Southern Tier fired off a letter to city leaders in Owego – alleging that words engraved in the granite memorial would encourage hatred toward Muslims.

Know what really encourages hatred toward Muslims, asswipe? Muslim terrorism. And, beyond that, any familiarity at all with Islam itself, which is one of the greatest atrocities mankind ever perpetrated against itself.

“They want us to change the word from ‘Islamic Terrorist’ to either ‘terrorist’ or ‘Al Qaeda terrorist,’” City Manager Donald Castelluci told me. “I sent them back an email saying I disagreed with their premise 100 percent.”

The entire inscription reads:

“On September 11, 2001 nineteen Islamic terrorists unsuspectedly boarded four airliners departing east coast airports to hijack the planes and carry out a series of coordinated attacks against the United States. This is a tribute to all the lives lost that day and to the heroic sacrifice of all who rushed to help. As Americans, we honor their memory by living our lives in freedom. We will never forget.”

Mr. Castelluci said they have no plans to change a single letter in the town’s memorial.

“I don’t live in a politically correct world,” he told Fox affiliate WICZ. “I live in a historical fact world…whether it’s American, homegrown, Christianity, Islamic, you call it what it is. And we don’t whitewash things, especially here.”

Good on ya, Mr Manager. Would that there were more like you; in a saner nation, one wherein half the population hasn’t been brainwashed by America-loathing Leftists into believing that every bad thing that happens is our fault, you’d be in the majority by an overwhelming margin. In the America we’re stuck with, though, it took a lot of courage to stand up for the simple truth like this, and my hat’s off to you for it.

Update! Can’t have a proper remembrance post without some vintage Steyn:

What was taking place that Tuesday morning was, as a lot of people said, “unimaginable.” But once it happened, once we no longer had to imagine it, my main memory of that day is of how quickly the mind leapt forward to encompass the new reality. When the second plane hit, it was obvious not just that this was no accident but that it would be impossible to find two commercial airline pilots willing to fly, even at the point of a gun, their jets into skyscrapers. Which meant that, at the moment of impact, these flights must have been in the hands of terrorists who’d trained as pilots presumably for the purpose of this mission: They had acquired at least basic skills in a profession that would guarantee a good life anywhere on the planet; they could be pulling down six-figure salaries instead of Manhattan skyscrapers. But instead they went to pilot school in order to make one flight one time one-way, into a tall building.

And halfway across the world, on the streets of Ramallah, people filled the streets and cheered and passed out candy. They celebrated at Concordia University in Montreal, and in northern England and in Scandinavia, too, but I didn’t find that out until e-mail from readers began coming through later in the day. In Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden and his colleagues followed events on the Arabic Service of the BBC. (Not all the BBC’s output is in Arabic; it just sounds like it is.)

As the years go by, it’s these curious examples of cultural interconnectedness that stay with me. “Interconnectedness” is the word used by the late Edward Said, the New York-based Palestinian grievance-monger and eminent America-disparager: a couple of weeks after 9/11, the professor deplored the tendency of commentators to separate cultures into what he called “sealed-off entities”, when in reality western civilization and the Muslim world are so “intertwined” that it was impossible to “draw the line” between them. National Review’s Rich Lowry was unimpressed. “The line seems pretty clear,” he said. “Developing mass commercial aviation and soaring skyscrapers was the west’s idea; slashing the throats of stewardesses and flying the planes into the skyscrapers was radical Islam’s idea.”

Very true. But that may be the only “interconnectedness” a large part of the world is interested in: state-of-the-art technology in the service of ancient hatreds. Edward Said was right: there are no more “sealed-off entities.” The “modern world” and the “primitive world” are more like those overlaid area codes the phone company’s so partial to. So a man can roar “Allahu Akhbar!” as he ploughs his jet into an office building. Even the most primitive parts of the map aren’t that “sealed off” these days. After all, why were they listening to the BBC’s Arabic Service in Afghanistan? Afghanistan isn’t an Arabic-speaking country. They parly-voo the old Pushtun and Dari and Turkmen and whatnot. But on September 11th 2001 the nation was, in effect, under colonial occupation by thousands of Arab and other foreign jihadists. We think of the badlands of the Afghan-Pakistani border as a remote region of isolated peoples whose rituals have been unchanged for centuries. Yet the truth is that these village tribal cultures have been wholly subverted by Saudi money and ideology. The House of Saud’s toxic kingdom, a land where the beheading schedule is computerized, may be a more apt emblem of the way an “interconnected” world is heading than we like to think.

In The New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote: “The failure to prevent Sept 11 was not a failure of intelligence or co-ordination. It was a failure of imagination.” That’s not really true. Islamist terrorists had indicated their interest in US landmarks, and were known to have plans to hijack planes to fly into them. But men like John O’Neill could never quite get the full attention of a somnolent federal bureaucracy. The terrorists must have banked on that: after all, they took their pilot-training classes in America, apparently confident that, even if anyone noticed the uptick in Arab enrollments at US flight schools, a squeamish culture of political correctness would ensure nothing was done about it.

Five years on, half America has retreated to the laziest old tropes, filtering the new struggle through the most drearily cobwebbed prisms: all dramatic national events are JFK-type conspiracies, all wars are Vietnam quagmires. Meanwhile, Ramzi Yousef’s successors make their ambitions as plain as he did: they want to acquire nuclear technology in order to kill even more of us. And, given that free societies tend naturally toward a Katrina mentality of doing nothing until it happens, one morning we will wake up to another day like the “day that changed everything.” September 11th was less “a failure of imagination” than an ability to see that America’s enemies were hiding in plain sight.

They still are.

Yep—only more so, as our “leaders” continue to bring in more and more of them, unvetted, to “hide in plain sight” in our very neighborhoods. Meanwhile, another massive attack like 9/11 will remain “unimaginable.” Until one day, all of a sudden, it isn’t.

Share

Another Muslim terror attack which has nothing whatever to do with Muslims

June 30th, 2016 1 comment

Right-wing Christian conservative Republican Trump supporters blew up a train station in Turkey. Looks like the Turks are gonna need to get themselves some common-sense bomb control—not that anybody wants to take away Muslims’ bombs, of course, which is just silly and an outrageous lie. Obama immediately issued a statement calling for Turks and international travelers to remain calm, saying that they “can absorb a few attacks like this” and that people should “chillax, dude, no biggie.” No comment was available or even necessary from the Islamic State’s leadership, who were all laughing too hard to speak.

Meanwhile, in other news, the number 12 man in charge at ISIS was taken out by a drone strike in Outer Hellholistan, bringing IS to its knees and signaling final victory in the “War” on “Terror,” since it is impossible to imagine that he will be replaced by any of the fifty or so underlings scrambling to succeed him. His name was not released because who cares.

Update! Fucking morons.

In a Tuesday hearing on the use of terms like “Islam,” “Muslim,” and “jihad” in discussions on national security, Senate Democrats and expert witnesses argued that using the term “radical Islam” to describe groups like the Islamic State (ISIS) is just as insulting and factually incorrect as using the term “radical Christianity” to describe the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Yes, they did it with straight faces.

Well, of course they did. They’re idiots, and they really believe their own PC bullshit. Although I must admit, the moron Left is right about this part:

“Radical Islam is no more accurate or appropriate a descriptor of the source of terrorist violence committed by Muslims than radical Christianity would be to describe the Ku Klux Klan, Army of God, or others,” Michael German, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, testified at the “Willful Blindness” Senate Committee on the Judiciary hearing organized by Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

“Radical Islam” is of course NOT accurate. The correct and truthful term would be “mainstream Islam,” or more simply, Islam. Not that you’ll ever hear it from any of these contemptible assclowns.

At this point, it’s hard NOT to be rooting for ISIS at least a little bit. A well-timed bomb or three in and around the halls of Congress would do us all a world of good, in all kinds of ways. But they’re not stupid enough to try it; they know that after such a cleansing event, there’d be a dangerous chance of our bringing in some actual leaders, who might then decide to stop organizing committees and holding hearings and start fighting a real war on terrorism or something.

Via Ed, who adds: “Klan-admirer Woodrow Wilson (D-NJ) could not be reached for comment.”

It gets worse update! Another one of those things, increasingly common in life these days, that you will simultaneously find shocking and won’t be the least bit surprised by.

You’d think we would be thanking him.

Share

Surprise? Hardly

June 13th, 2016 11 comments

Not much to add to this.

9/11
Ft. Hood
Chattanooga
Paris
San Bernardino
Brussels
Orlando

We’ll leave space available for future entries. And as statistics and muslim inclinations dictate, some of these instances were always destined to weigh heavy on cohorts high in the liberal hierarchy. Gays in particular. Love wins! is always a gratifying sentiment, until accompanied by Allahu Akbar! and the ululations of 7.62 rounds. We all understood that advocacy on behalf of those who want you dead is a sensuous virtue. But who knew it could hurt more than a rectal prolapse?

Though I doubt additional supplications, no matter how well practiced, are going to change much. Borders produce no magical alchemy, and muslims do not change perspectives upon crossing them. They are no more interested in becoming epicene dilettantes here than they were in the goat pasture. Importing them in sufficient numbers eventually means submission or war.

Yep, that’s about the size of it. God knows they’ve told us, clearly and without equivocation, enough times. Can’t remember the quote exactly, and Google is of no help at all, but I believe it was Hamas co-founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin who said: You in the West don’t understand. We don’t want anything from you. We want to kill you. Maybe someday, we’ll take that flat statement in the spirit in which it was intended: not as allegory, or metaphor, or hyperbole, but as literal fact.

(Via WRSA)

Share

Remember the Cole

May 9th, 2016 1 comment

Of course, it’ll take some deep dredging to bring it up.

On Thursday morning, sailors on board the USS Cole were lining up for an early lunch. Seventeen of them died as an Al Qaeda bomb on board a fishing boat tore through the hull outside the galley. The dead included 15 men and 2 women, one of whom had a young child. For three weeks the crew of the USS Cole struggled to keep their ship from sinking while working waist deep in water with bucket brigades, sleeping on the deck and living surrounded by the terrible aftermath of the terrorist attack.

The survivors, wounded and whole, received the words “Glory is the Reward of Valor” written on the bent steel removed from the site of the explosion that tore through their ship and their lives.

The President of the United States promised that justice would be done. “To those who attacked them we say: You will not find a safe harbor. We will find you and justice will prevail.”

Despite Clinton’s words, justice did not prevail.

The father of Hull Maintenance Technician Third Class Kenneth Eugene Clodfelter believed that there would be justice, but he was to be disappointed. “I just felt, for sure, you know, they’re not going to go ahead and just kiss off the lives of 17 U.S. sailors,” he said. “In fact, they didn’t do anything.”

Walid bin Attash, a planner of the USS Cole bombing and who also played a role in the 9/11 attack, is still at Gitmo. His trial continues to drag on while he and his lawyers play games. Rahim Hussein al-Nashiri, another of the planners, is still awaiting trial. But Mashur Abdallah Ahmed al Sabri, one of the members of the USS Cole cell, has already been released by Barack Obama from Guantanamo Bay.

Sabri was rated as a high risk terrorist who is ”is likely to pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies”, but that was no obstacle for Obama who had already fired one Secretary of Defense for being slow to free dangerous Al Qaeda terrorists and was browbeating his latest appointee over the same issue.

The very paperwork that was used as the basis for the decision to free Sabri describes him as “a member of a Yemeni al-Qaida cell directly involved with the USS Cole attack”. This cell “conducted surveillance” on the targeted vessel and “prepared explosives for the bombing”. Sabri had been arrested in Yemen for his involvement in the attack before he managed to make his way to Afghanistan.

Now he has been sent to the homeland of terrorism, Saudi Arabia.

After praising the “beautiful religious tradition” of Islam, which the USS Cole terrorists had “twisted”, President Clinton had promised that, “America will not stop standing guard”.

But under him, it never even started standing guard.

Nope. And then we got Bush, who gave us the sour-tasting “Religion Of Peace” formulation. Now we have supposed conservatives shrieking and lying about Trump’s “Muslim immigration pause,” telling us as sanctimoniously as Obama himself that that’s Not Who We Are. Eventually, our Muslim enemies will manage to kill enough of us at one time to force us into figuring it out and confronting the obvious at last; I shudder to even guess at what that number might end up being. As Daniel says:

The USS Cole attack was the final step on the road to 9/11. Our government’s inaction sent a message that America could be hit hard and we would not retaliate. It told Al Qaeda that American blood was dirt cheap and that the murder of our people came with no price.

These days we are sending that same message all over again.

If the Cole was, as he says, the final step on the road to 9/11, what even darker road might we now be walking?

As far as I’m concerned though, there’s a very simple solution going forward to the problem of what to do with vicious monsters like the ones held in Gitmo: take no more prisoners.

Share

Drool, Britannia

April 10th, 2016 1 comment

Sick and disgusting.

The last time Tommy was in prison, he was locked up with hardened Muslim criminals who wanted to kill him. He was repeatedly attacked and beaten up, and ended up in the prison hospital more than once.

On one occasion he was locked in a cell with several Muslim prisoners, one of whom (a Somali, if I remember correctly) was about throw boiling water in his face. Tommy acted pre-emptively, knocked the boiling water away, and beat up the man who tried to throw it on him.

It is this incident for which he is being charged.

The real issue behind all these arrests is that Tommy speaks the truth about the danger to the British people posed by Islam. But he is no longer being prosecuted for “hate speech” offenses — the state does not want the substance of what he says to aired in an open courtroom and discussed in the national media. Thus other types of infractions must be found and other charges brought. The current case against him is simply the latest example of the repressive tactics being employed by the totalitarian British state.

The Powers That Be were successful in “decapitating” the English Defence League — with the help of the Quilliam Foundation — and are now attempting to do the same thing to the recently established UK chapter of PEGIDA.

So here’s the plan: Lock up the most charismatic leader the British Counterjihad has. Put him in with his most dangerous enemies — Muslim criminals who have promised to kill him. Make sure that the guards are absent or looking the other way when the trouble starts. Then, as far as the shariah-compliant British state is concerned, the problem has been solved.

The UK, like all the other enlightened governments of Western Europe, has abolished the death penalty. But there’s more than one way to kill a political nuisance — you don’t have to march him up the steps to the gibbet, put the noose around his neck, and open the trapdoor under him.

What is happening to Tommy Robinson is capital punishment by alternative means.

It’s going to be gratifying to see liberal Brits all treated just like Robinson when sharia is fully implemented there. And it’s going to be, just as soon as they can get all the remaining Tommy Robinsons killed, locked away, or otherwise silenced.

The goal of this appeal is to keep that iron door from clanging shut behind Tommy Robinson again. Please give what you can afford to his defense fund and spread the word among your friends and colleagues.

A worthy cause if ever there was one. A bit more from GoV:

I hadn’t realized it before, but part of the establishment’s strategy to ensure that he gets sent back inside is that the charge against him has been reduced to battery, so that he is not entitled to a jury trial. Tommy is convinced that if he were to stand before a jury of his peers, he would be acquitted. But he is to be denied that opportunity.

Could there be a more bitterly ironic metaphor for where (and what) Western Civ now is than this guy being charged and jailed among patently hostile savages for the “crime” of defending himself against them? If nothing else, it’s all the proof anyone should need of my oft-repeated statement: in order to defeat our would-be Muslim conquerors, we are first going to have to defeat the treasonous Left. I see no way around it.

(Via WRSA)

Share

Buckley Conservatives vs Alt-Right

April 6th, 2016 5 comments

By George, I think he’s got it.

Ideological movements enter into decline at the same point they turn inward and focus on a narrowing set of doctrines that define the cause. That’s the point they lose faith in the future, their future. They turn their tools to the task of maintaining the status quo, often at the expense of the movement and the benefit of the leaders. Today, Buckley Conservatism is mostly a Reagan Mystery Cult with a gift shop for their books, magazines and television programs.

There is some continuation here with the tradition of Buckley, as far as the war on the people to their Right. That has always been an essential element of Buckley Conservatism. Like Progressives, they hate the people to their Right and curry favor with those on their Left. By casting the people on their Right as unacceptable, so the theory goes, they position themselves as the sensible alternative to the Far Right and the Far Left. Buckley cut his teeth purging Burchers and Randians.

The whole point of Buckley Conservatism was to fight the Soviets so this strategy of self-legitimization made some sense. The Left was hoping to emulate the Bolsheviks, not counter them. In order to prevent that from happening, the Right had to be a legitimate counter argument. So, Bill Buckley was willing to throw anyone over the rail if it made him and his cause look good. A lot of people went over the rail as a result.

The problem for Buckley Conservatives is they have nothing to offer. People see 25 years of failure and naturally begin to look elsewhere for answers. The alt-right has loads of problems and parts of it are a bit like heroin, offering momentary relief at the expense of long term happiness. To the person suffering in the present, however, the momentary high from joining a white identity group, for example, feels like salvation.

The alt-right, in all of its manifestations, is not growing in number and confidence because they made a pact with the devil. There is nothing supernatural at work here. It’s not a coherent intellectual movement, but simply a refuge from the endless assault on ordinary people, who see their traditions, their customs, their ancestors and their progeny being ground up in the meat grinder of technocratic managerialism. The alt-right is not offering anything but shelter from the storm – for now.

When people who have been loyal to conservative causes and conservative politicians their whole life find themselves being called racists and bigots by those people they supported, they start to feel like they have been conned. When ruling class organs publicly argue that vast parts of the culture must be destroyed, that traditional America must be wiped out, people hear a declaration of war. The response is not going to be “yes sir, may I have another.” The response, to quote the late Andrew Breitbart, is going to be “Fuck you. War!”

Hey, I’m okay with that. It was always going to end up like this once enough of us realized that, as with Islam, the people using the rhetoric of war against the Left had no intention of actually fighting them. Their definition of victory has apparently always been “more Republican snouts in the trough” rather than “stopping the Left’s destruction of America That Was, and reversing it.” It’s a recipe for ultimate defeat just as surely as their “bring democracy and freedom to people who are violently and unalterably opposed to both” was.

Share

Insane, or just stupid?

April 6th, 2016 1 comment

Acting in a counterintuitive way is not much of a strategy for fighting Muslim terrorism.

Obama initially tried to defeat ISIS by ignoring it. This cunning approach allowed ISIS to seize large chunks of Iraq and Syria. He tried calling ISIS a J.V. team in line with his claim that, “We defeat them in part by saying you are not strong, you are weak”. Unimpressed, ISIS seized Mosul. It was still attached to the old-fashioned way of proving it was strong by actually winning land and wars.

Europe and the United States decided to prove that we were not at war with Islam by taking in as many Muslims as we could. Instead of leading to less terrorism, taking in more Muslims led to more terrorism.

Every single counterintuitive strategy for defeating Islamic terrorism has been tried. And it has failed. Overthrowing “dictators” turned entire countries into terrorist training camps. Bringing Islamists to power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia led directly to attacks on American diplomatic facilities. The Muslim Brotherhood showed no gratitude to its State Department allies. Instead its militias and forces either aided the attackers or stood by and watched while taking bets on the outcome.

Islamic terrorism has followed an intuitive pattern of cause and effect. There’s a reason that the counterintuitive strategies for fighting Islamic terrorism by not fighting Islamic terrorism don’t work. They make no sense. Instead they all depend on convincing Muslims, from the local Imam to Jihadist organizations, to aid us instead of attack us by showing what nice people we are. Meanwhile they also insist that we can’t use the words “Islamic terrorism” because Muslims are ticking time bombs who will join Al Qaeda and ISIS the moment we associate terrorism with the I-word.

There are contradictions there that you can drive a tank through.

The counterintuitive strategy assumes that Islamic terrorism will only exist if we use the I-word, that totalitarian Jihadist movements want democracy and that our best allies for fighting Islamic terrorism are people from the same places where Islamic terrorism is a runaway success. And that we should duplicate the demographics of the countries where Islamic terrorism thrives in order to defeat it.

The West’s counterterrorism strategy makes less sense than the ravings of most mental patients.

You could say the same about socialism too, but the Obamas of the world would still cling as fiercely to it.

If you believe the experts, then Islamic terrorists want us to stop them from entering Europe, America, Canada and Australia. They crave having their terrorists profiled by law enforcement on the way to their latest attack. And they wish we would just carpet bomb them as hard as we can right now.

When ISIS shoots up Paris or Brussels, it’s not really trying to kill infidels for Allah. Instead it’s setting a cunning trap for us. If we react by ending the flow of migrants and preventing the next attack, ISIS wins. If we police Muslim no-go zones, then ISIS also wins. If we deport potential terrorists, ISIS still wins.

ISIS wins no matter what, it’s beginning to look like, until we rediscover 1) our spines, and 2) our self-respect. I’d like to excerpt more of it; it’s chock full of good, solid analysis supported by well-turned phrases, which is just par for the usual course with Daniel. You won’t go wrong by reading all of it. I do have to include this bit, though:

After the San Bernardino shootings, Obama insisted that, “Our success won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning our values… That’s what groups like ISIL are hoping for.” But ISIS does not care whether Obama talks tough, even if it’s only his version of tough talk in which he puffs out his chest and says things like, ”You are not strong, you are weak.” It is not interested in Obama’s “right side of history” distortion of American values either.

Actually, they want those values–both the true American/Western/Judeo-Christian ones, and Obama’s ahistorical perversion of them–wiped from the earth and replaced with Muslim ones.

Like I said, read all of it. His last line is particularly dead on.

Share

Preview

April 4th, 2016 1 comment

Of the coming race war, in Dallas.

DALLAS, TEXAS — Thanks in part to a heavy police presence, a planned demonstration by armed members of the group BAIR — the Bureau for American Islamic Relations — went off peacefully, despite a counter protest organized by a group called the Huey P. Newton Gun Club that included members of the street gangs the Bloods and the Crips, as well as elements of Black Lives Matter.

As the event ended, an angry mob of black protesters advanced on the BAIR members, and frantic Dallas police ordered the group to evacuate immediately.

Both members of BAIR and the Huey P. Newton Gun Club were openly armed, primarily with long guns.

As this exclusive video from Breitbart News shows, members of BAIR came to South Dallas to protest the local mosque connected to the Nation of Islam, a group that they call “a domestic terrorist group.” Leaders of BAIR said their concern with the Nation of Islam is part of a larger concern that leaders of mosques around the country may have ties to terrorism and the Muslim Brotherhood. the BAIR group was also demonstrating to show their support for the police, who have come under heavy fire from activist groups like Black Lives Matter.

The police kept the BAIR protesters penned up about 100 yards from community members, many of whom were shouting angrily and accusing the group of being the Ku Klux Klan, a group that BAIR has no known connection to.

That false belief angered the crowd and was being spread by local Nation of Islam and Black Lives Matter groups, says BAIR director David Wright. Wright says the group is concerned with Islam, not race issues but that the lie was spread to get non-Muslim black residents to support the protest.

All in all, I’d say the whole thing hardly rates Stranahan’s description of the confrontation as “chaos.” But that doesn’t mean chaos isn’t coming, right enough. I’m throwing this one in my “The War” category, which I’ve previously used just for War On Something Or Other news. There’s more than one war going on these days, after all.

Share

Evening the score

January 11th, 2016 1 comment

You may not be interested in war. But war is interested in you.

Packs of vigilantes conducted what appear to be revenge attacks on foreign nationals in Cologne, Germany — the same location where refugees and migrants reportedly sexually assaulted hundreds of women New Year’s Eve.

Cologne police said 20 men attacked at least six Pakistani nationals Sunday near the city center where the New Year’s Eve sexual assaults and robberies took place, reported CNN. About 20 minutes after the attack, an apparently separate group of five men assaulted a man of Syrian descent.

The Syrian man was injured, and two of the Pakistani nationals were hospitalized. The attackers allegedly beat the Pakistani men and verbally abused them. Police are looking to press charges as the group of men committed “serious bodily harm.”

More than 500 people filed criminal complaints over the sexual assaults, rapes and robberies that took place in the city center on New Year’s Eve, reported The Daily Mail. Cologne police have admitted the focus of their investigation is on refugees and migrants of North African and Arab descent who look to be “almost exclusively responsible” for the New Year’s Eve violence.

“Admitted,” after a week of trying to hide the truth, insulting the victims, threatening outraged Germans with dire consequences for indulging in Doubleplus Ungood Wrongthink and the natural human reaction to Moslem barbarity, and suggesting to German women in general that the assaults were their own damned fault and could be avoided in future if only they’d modify their behavior to accommodate misogynist savagery.

Western authorities have refused to defend their populations from hostile foreign invasion by adherents to an ideology incompatible with Western ideals. They have instead openly sided with the invaders, humiliating and endangering their native populations in the process. Did anybody really expect that these people were going to remain willing participants in their own destruction–as Diplomad said, paying (both literally and figuratively) our executioners?

It’s a terrible pass we’ve been brought to by our own supposed “leaders.” No, innocent people should surely never be held responsible for the crimes of others. But anybody waiting for me to harshly condemn these vigilantes had best not be holding their breath doing it. This sort of thing is only to be expected, and anybody who couldn’t have seen it and worse coming just around the bend is a fool and a knave. And probably works for a Western government or its captive media machine. Those supposed “leaders” better watch out from here on out, lest some of the thirst for revenge they’ve witlessly cultivated eventually splash back on them too. As Glenn says:

Look around the world, and you ‘ll see a leadership class that doesn’t seem to be up to the job and doesn’t want people talking about it. It bodes poorly for the coming years.

And bodes even worse for the leadership class…which I personally consider a feature and not a bug. Gee, think maybe we’d have been better off sticking with the Founders’ prescriptions against the establishment of a permanent-professional-politician class instead of allowing the rise of a peculiar species of trough-swilling pigs to misrule and abuse us?

Update! More of the same from Sweden:

But in internal communication that has been leaked to the daily Dagens Nyheter, a very different picture emerges. Gangs of boys and young men molested girls, a dozen cases were reported to the police, and officers working at the festival managed to identify some 50 suspected perpetrators. During the five days of the festival, approximately 200 young men were removed from the culture festival, which is held outdoors at Kungsträdgården square in central Stockholm every year.

The organizers of the festival tell DN that there are cases of sexual harassment at every festival, but that, beginning in 2014, groups of boys and young men work the crowds together.

“These cases are very particular. There are groups of guys who are deliberately focusing on surrounding and molesting girls. At first we were completely shocked by their actions,” said Roger Ticoalu, head of events at Stockholm City council.

That’s because you’re stupid as fucking hell, and political correctness has killed what few brain cells you ever had to begin with.

According to Peter Ågren, who was heading the police operation this summer, one explanation as to why they did not talk more openly about this may be because the young men who were accused of harassing the girls, were mainly said to have foreign backgrounds. “Some times we do not really say how things are because we believe it may play into the hands of the Sweden Democrats,” Ågren told Dagens Nyheter, referring to the anti-immigration party in Parliament.

And there you have it. PC Leftism must be preserved at all costs, most especially the cost to their own population, who are just a bunch of privileged white people anyway and have it coming. So hey, screw them, amIright?

Glenn links to another report that says the assaults are nothing new: “In Cologne alone, more than 11,000 people have been robbed in this way in the last three years. According to police, all of the perpetrators have been male and in the majority of cases, they have come from North African countries such as Morocco and Algeria.” But naturally, even in the course of finally admitting this, Der Spiegel just has to get its “NOT ALL MUSLIMS! NOT ALL MUSLIMS! YOU’RE ALL RACISTS!!” dodge on, leading to this near-hilarious, wholly pathetic passage:

Hands seemed to come from every direction to grab the women’s bodies. They always went for between the legs. Paul’s attempts to protect the women were futile. Providing cover for one left another to fend for herself. “It was one hand after another,” Jeanette says. She was able to throw one attacker “really violently to the side” with a judo grip.

None of the three students can say for sure who attacked them. They are, however, all in agreement that all of the men surrounding them were speaking the same language, and that it sounded a lot like Arabic.

“Damned xenophobic HOOERS!! How DARE they imply…uhh, whatever it is they’re implying, which I wouldn’t ever dare say myself!” Which all leads to this, at the end of the piece, which isn’t just nearly-hilarious; it’s outright sidesplitting, considering where it’s coming from:

What should be done? An attempt at complete honesty would be a good start.

Damned if it wouldn’t. Should have tried that a long time ago, but better late than never, I guess. Go ahead, you start.

I keep right on saying it, and events keep right on bearing it out: in order to defeat the Moslems, we’re first going to have to crush the “liberals.” Until that happens, we’re going to go right on trying to win an existential clash of fundamentally and eternally opposed civilizations–one side barely deserving of the name–with both hands tied behind our backs, and most especially blindfolded. That’s every bit as true here as it is over there.

Blow it out both sides update! Another of the more prominent lying fools we misnomer “leaders” heard from:


Obama_Two_Mouths_Guns_Muslims

People’s Cube, via Bill.

Laugh until you cry update! On the lighter side of it all: “I wonder how many of Germany’s immigrants are also Holocaust deniers. Karma’s a biotch.” Um…heh. Indeed.

An update that bears repeating update! Spencer cuts to the chase, as is his wont:

Not a single mainstream news outlet has identified the approximately 1,000 men who congregated by the main train station in Cologne, Germany, on New Year’s Eve and raped and sexually assaulted hundreds of women — or their counterparts who did the same thing in Zurich, Helsinki, and elsewhere — as Muslims. But there is little doubt that they were indeed Muslim, since they have been identified as migrants and most of the migrants are Muslims.

Most importantly, identifying the attackers as Muslim leads directly to understanding the attacks themselves, because the attackers were acting in accord with Islamic teachings.

Sexual assault plagues all cultures — but only in Islam is it given divine sanction.

Bold his. And frankly, as the West cowers under the Islamic onslaught, theirs.

These Muslims in Cologne no doubt don’t think they have done anything wrong — these women are just infidels, uncovered meat.

And the shameful truth is that the only ones giving them any reason to think otherwise, or to rethink the assumption that Westerners feel the same themselves, are the vigilantes.

Share

Je suis Charlie“? In a pig’s eye

January 15th, 2015 4 comments

Yer doin’ it wrong.

The Oxford University Press has warned its writers not to mention pigs, sausages or pork-related words in children’s books, in an apparent bid to avoid offending Jews and Muslims.

The existence of the publisher’s guidelines emerged after a radio discussion on free speech in the wake of the Paris attacks.

A spokesman for OUP said: “OUP’s commitment to its mission of academic and educational excellence is absolute.

“Our materials are sold in nearly 200 countries, and as such, and without compromising our commitment in any way, we encourage some authors of educational materials respectfully to consider cultural differences and sensitivities.”

Emphasis mine, and totally absurd and disgraceful. But then, I guess an argument could be made that they’re really NOT compromising their commitment to free speech after all: they’re discarding it entirely. In fact, they clearly had none to begin with.

Hey, remember a few days ago when I said it would be around two weeks when the “Je suis Charlie” horseshit would be dispensed with and the Left would get back on their knees for Islam and get back to their long-time hobby of dismantling freedom of speech and thought? Looks like I actually underestimated their cowardice, fecklessness, and treachery. It barely took a week.

But: is there more, you a…oh, never mind.

Hebdo writer Caroline Fourest appeared Wednesday evening on SkyNews to tout her magazine’s hot-selling post-attack issue, with cover art showing Muhammed holding up a “Je Suis Charlie” sign and a caption reading “All Is Forgiven.”

“I’m very sad, very sad that journalists in UK do not support us, that journalists in UK betray what journalism is about by thinking that people cannot be grown enough to decide if a drawing is offending or not,” she said to the hosts of SkyNews Tonight via satellite. “Because you are not even showing it.”

The camera then panned out as Fourest reached for a copy of the magazine and continued: “It is completely crazy that in UK you cannot show a simple drawing as that.” At this point, she was holding the Muhammed artwork in full view of the camera, before the photographer panned upwards and then SkyNews immediately returned back to studio.

The anchor then explained the decision to cut away: “We at SkyNews have chosen not to show that cover, so we’d appreciate it, Caroline, not showing that.”

“I do apologize,” the anchor continued, “for any of our viewers who may have been offended by that.”

Like I said yesterday, I’m just about to the point of openly rooting for the Moslems here. Western civilization was profoundly worth defending; these pusillanimous twits, not so much. In fact, they wouldn’t be worth crossing the street to piss on if they were on fire.

And the truth is, as Ace intimates, Western Civ is all done. Time to turn out the lights on it and walk away, maybe mourn its loss over a glass or three of good, stout whiskey (soon to be outlawed for health and safety reasons, plus being an egregious offense to practitioners of our new State Religion) and gird our loins for the awfulness surely to come. What the hey, we had a good run. And what the Left has replaced it with is not only not worth defending, it’s wholly indefensible.

Think of it: Western Civ gave us Huck Finn. Post-Western Civ banned it.

Western Civ gave us Mozart, Bach, Beethoven. Post-Western Civ saddled us with Beyonce, Fitty Cent, and Miley Cyrus.

Western Civ gave us internal combustion engines, hot rods, Harleys, a Ford in every garage, and plenty of cheap gas to run ’em all. Post-Western Civ gave us helmet laws, high gas taxes, the “peak oil” lie, impossible CAFE standards, and the seventy thousand dollar Chevy Volt.

Western Civ gave us central heat and air conditioning. Post-Western Civ gave us brownouts and windmills. Although actually, it was Western Civ that gave us the windmills many centuries ago; Post-Western Civ just brought ’em back as “cutting edge” “green” technology. They’re so goddamned feeble even their “new ideas” were stolen from their betters.

Western Civ gave us the Concorde. Post-Western Civ would rather force you to walk, or ride a bicycle you don’t even own. Yes, even to Europe.

Western Civ gave us modern agriculture capable of feeding a hungry world, the tulip gardens of Amsterdam, and staunch, stout, stoic farmers as both benefactors and admirable role models. Post-Western Civ foists on us urban hothouse flowers copiously weeping to their shrinks over the trauma of discovering that the organic bok choi at Trader Joe’s was slightly wilted this week, and their insuperable anxiety over GMOs.

Western Civ gave us Charles the Hammer, King Leonidas, Charlemagne, Churchill, and Reagan. Post-Western Civ brought us Obama, the Clintons, LBJ, Slow Joe Biden, and John Effing Kerry.

Western Civ gave us Newton, Einstein, and Goddard. Post-Western Civ hoodooed us with Michael Mann and Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Western Civ gave us William Wallace, the aforementioned Leonidas, Robert E Lee, George S Patton, and Audie Murphy. Post-Western Civ gave us Vagina Warriors, Hashtag Armies, flash mobs, and Bradley/Chelsea Manning.

And, of course, Western Civ gave us the concept of natural rights, freedom of speech and “I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Post-Western Civ gives us thought crimes, “hate speech” laws, and “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam exercise their erstwhile free-speech rights, now defunct by Royal Decree.”

Even the surviving Hebdo cartoonists–Leftists themselves–see through the transparent, self-serving, jejune fraudulence of the “Je suis Charlie” imbeciles.

A Charlie Hebdo cartoonist is speaking out against many of the people who he says are “suddenly” standing with the satirical magazine — the same people who are routinely “vomited” on by their controversial caricatures and cartoons.

“We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends,” Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Bernard Holtrop told Volkskrant, speaking particularly about Pope Francis, Queen Elizabeth, and Vladimir Putin. “It really makes me laugh. A few years ago, thousands of people took to the streets in Pakistan to demonstrate against Charlie Hebdo. They didn’t know what it was. Now it’s the opposite.”

Western civilization is finished; the terrorists have won, and there’s no turning back the clock now to our bygone glory days, no retrieving our squandered legacy. Might as well sit back and enjoy it as the freeloaders, parasites, thumbsuckers, and rent-seekers who sold the birthright they were unworthy of for a mess of collectivist pottage slowly but surely get theirs. And as the last “Je suis Charlie” libtard wets himself and screams like a cornered rat as he’s about to be taught by a butcher-knife-wielding savage the stunning, UNEXPECTED! lesson that no, the pen is NOT in fact mightier than the sword–begging for help that can never come, pleading for mercy from a barbarian as blank and pitiless as the sun–we can at least look down from the Long Home of our noble if dishonored fathers and know that justice was truly done at long last.

So, yeah. Might as well saddle up the Moslem strong horse and leave the lame, limping Lefty nag to gasp out its last sobbing breath and expire by the side of the road, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle. The King is dead; long live the Caliph. Go, Team Troglodyte!

But one question for our new Moslem masters before we bend over and genuflect towards Mecca: can we maybe work out some sort of special dispensation on the bacon and BBQ thing, perhaps?

Share

Want the truth about what’s going on in Libya?

October 17th, 2012 Comments off

The bitter fruits of cowardice and appeasement

September 22nd, 2012 Comments off

Michael Totten would like to remind all you “liberal” idiots who pooh-pooh the importance of not submitting to Muslim “suggestions” on free speech and blasphemy of a few things:

You’re kidding yourself if you think he’s bluffing or that this is just talk. He’s not and it isn’t. There are precedents. In 1989, Iran’s blood-soaked ruler Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa condemning acclaimed novelist Salman Rushdie to death for allegedly blaspheming Islam in his novel,The Satanic Verses. Terrorists and death squads went after him and anyone who dared to publish, translate, or sell his books all over the world. They set bookstores in the United States and the United Kingdom on fire. They firebombed a small newspaper office in New York City with Molotov cocktails. They killed dozens of people around the globe as far away as Japan. Rushdie spent years in hiding under the assumed nameJoseph Anton and still lives with the knowledge that he could be murdered at any time. Just a few days ago, the Iranian governmentincreased the bounty on his head to $3.3 million.

Rushdie is lucky compared with some. In 2004, an Islamist maniac with a butcher’s knife stabbed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh to death on an Amsterdam street over a short film, Submission, about women’s rights in Muslim societies. A blood-curdling note pinned to his corpse said the local Somali-born feminist Ayaan Hirsi Ali was “next.” Ali eventually fled the Netherlands, where she was once a member of parliament, and lives today in the United States under armed guard.

She’s not the only one who has to live this way now. Paul Berman compiled quite a list of names in his 2010 book, The Flight of the Intellectuals. Dutch politician Ahmed Aboutaleb, British writer and occasional City Journal contributor Ibn Warraq, and Italian journalist Magdi Allam all have bodyguards or have had to go into hiding. They’re liberal Arabs who live in the West, but non-Arabs are just as frequently targeted. A would-be assassin attacked Danish cartoonist Kurt Westergaard in his own house with an axe. An international terrorist cell went after Swedish artist Lars Vilks. French writer Caroline Fourest and French philosophy professor Robert Redeker joined the ranks of those under guard, and Seattle Weekly cartoonist Molly Norris also went into hiding. She had to enter the FBI’s witness-protection programafter Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki (whom the United States later vaporized with a Predator drone) placed her on one of his hit lists. These names are but a sample. Berman’s list is more inclusive, but not exhaustive.

Terrorists and state sponsors of terrorism have been going after apostates and blasphemers for years. But the Egyptian government, supposedly an ally of the United States, just filed international arrest warrants for eight American citizens allegedly involved in the now-notorious video. All are currently in the United States, so unless they’re kidnapped, there’s no chance they’ll ever see the inside of an Egyptian courtroom. But the prosecutor’s office in Cairo says they may receive the death penalty if they’re convicted. And who can say that death squads will never go after them, Rushdie style, if they’re convicted in absentia or even beforehand?

Who indeed? Certainly the gutless Ogabe regime won’t lift a finger to prevent it, although they’ll be happy to sweep up the mess afterward and sadly deplore both the violence and the “provocation” in equal measure, as if they were remotely equivalent or even comparable. As I only half-jokingly suggested the other day, the regime clowns are probably already negotiating with the howling lunatics over extradition.

Share

Lessons: unlearned

September 20th, 2012 2 comments

Or worse: forgotten.

Even before I learned of the killing of the American ambassador in Benghazi and the storming of the U.S. embassy in Cairo, it seemed to me that our commemorations of the 9/11/01 attacks have become exercises in self-deception. Of course it is appropriate to remember victims and pay tribute to first-responders. But did you hear any government official or major media figure say what should by now be obvious: that on a September morning eleven years ago, America lost a battle in a global conflict that began much earlier and continues to this day? On television and in the editorial pages of newspapers there was almost no discussion of who our enemies are, what they believe, what goals they seek to achieve, and what strategies they are pursuing. There was no debate about the policies that can best defend “liberty and freedom.”

On September, 11, 2012, the front page of the New York Times had not a single article on the attacks or the anniversary, but a piece on page 17 described “a growing feeling that it may be time to move on.” The day before, there was an op-ed by former Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald charging that President Bush could have prevented the 2001 assault had he “reacted with urgency” to warnings provided by the CIA — warnings that gave no indication of where or when the attacks would take place. Eichenwald wrote that “Mohamed al-Kahtani, a Saudi believed to have been assigned a role in the 9/11 attacks, was stopped at an airport in Orlando, Fla., by a suspicious customs agent and sent back overseas on Aug. 4. Two weeks later, another co-conspirator, Zacarias Moussaoui, was arrested on immigration charges in Minnesota after arousing suspicions at a flight school. But the dots were not connected, and Washington did not react.” How should Washington have reacted, Kurt? Should Bush have ordered al-Kahtani and Moussaoui arrested and subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques if that’s what would have been necessary to make them talk?

On the morning of September 11, 2012, NBC’s Today show featured Kim Kardashian’s mother discussing breast implants. The producers did not bother to cut away to the moment of silence that was being observed elsewhere in New York City. Even Foreign Policy magazine featured an article by Juliette Kayyem, a former Obama administration official now teaching at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, headlined “Our Foolish Obsession with Stopping the Next Attack.” She argued: “It is time to make [9/11] personal again…The burden of tragedy is private.” Silly me, thinking this had something to do with national security. I guess if I were at Harvard — which, coincidently, has received millions of Saudi petro-dollars — I’d know better.

It’s much bigger than national security. This is a civilizational conflict that has been ongoing, with very occasional pauses for breath, for around a thousand years. When enough of us recognize that, and that the stakes are the highest imaginable, AND that the victory of Western values over barbarism and cruelty is by no means assured and therefore not something that can comfortably be taken for granted (as so many other things are by spoiled Western brats of all ages), then and only then will the battle be well and truly joined. Until that momentous realization occurs, we”ll continue groping blindly and ineffectually along, futzing and fumbling around and accomplishing little of note or worth.

Share

Get out now

February 3rd, 2012 1 comment

Ogabe will wind up doing the right thing just this once–for all the wrong reasons, naturally. Tim Lynch explains, starting with this vivid nugget of an opener:

I’ve been trying to come up with a post for over a month now but don’t have any good pictures because I’m back in America, sans super cool Nikon which got blown up in the Helmand, and without good pictures I don’t seem to be able to write. That camera cost over a thousand bucks and that money is now down the sewer, which is appropriate given the fact that on my last night in Kandahar the poo pond burst its seams and I had to wade through 3 feet of waste water to get to the freedom bird. I’m serious – here’s a picture of that shit, which I hesitate to say because using inappropriate language is (so I have learned) a sign of PTSD.

Uhh, Tim, looking at the pic, I’d say there’s nothing whatever inappropriate about your language there, buddy. Onwards:

But I don’t want to talk about shit, I want to talk about the alarming deterioration I see in this country and our nitwit President. That is proving hard to do, because every time I think I’ve crafted an astute observation or two I read a post by Victor Davis Hanson or Richard Fernandez who say what I was going to say, only they say it ten time better than I ever could. My agent keeps telling me I’m just 12 months of hard work away from a Hollywood blockbuster but I don’t believe a word he says except when he tells me I need to keep the blog going. Keeping the blog going is proving hard because I’m not in Afghanistan and the Afghans are screwed now anyway. I can sum up our ten years in Afghanistan in 3 pictures and then I’m moving on to the President’s new genius plan for the military and (this is going to freak you out) I agree with him. Not his reasoning mind you, he was, is, and will always be an absolute moron, but what he is doing by gutting the ground forces was inevitable. But hey, every once in a while even a blind squirrel will find a nut.

Ten years ago, Afghans were thrilled to see us and thought that finally they could live in peace and develop their country.

Five years ago they watched us flounder – we stayed on FOBs and shoveled cash by the billions into the hands of a corrupt central government that we insisted, despite clear evidence to the contrary, was a legitimate government – one that had to be supported at all costs. We raided their homes at night and shot up civilians who got too close to our convoys, we paid for roads that did not exist and, because of the “force protection” mentality, most Afghans thought our soldiers were cowards because they never came to the bazaar off duty and unarmored to buy stuff like the Russians did. In fact, every bite of food our soldiers consumed was flown into country at great expense, so in a land famous for its melons and grapes our troops ate crappy melon and tasteless grapes flown in by contractors from God knows where.

Now, they want to shoot us in the face. Except for the klepocratic elite who want us to give them billions more and then shoot us in the face.

There it is; Afghanistan is toast, and what the last 10 years has taught us is we cannot afford to deploy American ground forces. Two billion dollars a week (that’s billion with a B) has bought what? Every year we stay to “bring security to the people,” the security situation for the people gets worse and worse, deteriorating by orders of magnitude. Now the boy genius has announced a “new strategy”. A strategy that is identical to the “strategy” that resulted in a hollow ground force getting its ass kicked by North Korea in 1950; a mere five years after we had ascended to the most dominant military the world had ever known.

Was Iraq worth the blood and treasure spent by the United States? If it was, I’m not seeing it. Will the end state in Afghanistan be worth the blood and treasure we have spent and continue to spend? Not a chance in hell. The only lesson to be learned from the past ten years of constant war is that we cannot afford to go to war. At least not in the way we do it now which is, sort of, what I’ve been pointing out in this blog for years.

Tim has it right, I think. Herschel Smith concurs (and why both of these guys haven’t already taken up residence in Ye Olde Blogrolle until now, I surely don’t know):

Listen well. This is no anti-war cry. I have argued virtually non-stop for increasing troop levels, staying the course, and increased (and different) lines of logistics for support of our troops. But I have watched with dismay and even panic over the course of the last six years as we haven’t taken the campaign seriously, and good men have suffered and perished because of it.

Michael Yon applies the KISS principle:

This war is going to turn out badly. We are wasting lives and resources while the United States decays and other threats emerge. We led the horse to water.

Importantly, there is no value in pretending that Pakistan is an ally. We should wish the best of luck to the Afghans, and the many peaceful Pakistanis, and accelerate our withdrawal of our main battle force. The US never has been serious about Afghanistan. Under General Petraeus we were starting to gain ground, but the current trajectory will land us in the mud.

The enemies will never beat us in Afghanistan. Force on force, the Taliban are weak by comparison. Yet this is their home. There is only so much we can do at this extreme cost for the many good Afghan people. We must reduce our main effort and concentrate on other matters. Time to come home.

Again: agreed. The yammering of anti-American, anti-military pseudo-pacifists is not worth heeding. But when you have serious, patriotic, courageous Americans who have been there and seen the elephant up close and personal saying it, it absolutely must be considered carefully.

We started off on the right foot in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and then went off the rails. A nation that lacks the will to not just hold the enemy at bay or pick them off piecemeal from the sky but crush their very spirit and will to resist is not one that has any business going to war at all. That describes us all too well, and the only thing we’re accomplishing now is squandering the lives of our best and brightest, sapping the esprit and reducing the numbers of the kind of men and women we have all too few of to begin with, on a poorly-conceived fool’s errand. Time for that to end, and to rethink exactly what kind of country we have chosen to become, the limitations inherent in defining ourselves as we have, and whether we wish to continue along that dismal path.

Share

Last night’s pack of lies, and how to fight back

March 29th, 2011 2 comments

Didn’t watch, of course. No real reason to; a King owes no explanation of his actions to his subjects, and this one seems to understand his Divine Right better than most. Ace dissects the lies pretty nicely:

My Mistake: He’s not making the case for war; he’s just “updating” on us on what the Europeans have decided our military should do.

“We Took A Series of Swift Steps:” Oh, you mean after you dithered around with the same basic facts for three weeks.

You mean after all that delay, you finally made a decision, and then the military acted swiftly.

I Refused to Let That Happen:” Ah, okay, just as long as I know who the hero is here.

Hilarious: He says that he’s all about getting other countries to bear the burdens. He says, to that end, that he’s transferred command to NATO.

Um, so, if I’m getting this right, our pilots and seamen are still fighting this war, they’re just being bossed around by a foreign general, right?

And that general isn’t actually in the fight, right?

Seems to me that all Obama is doing is distancing himself from any possible failure while keeping our troops in harm’s way.

Furthermore, the US “cannot sit idly by” while a dictator is slaughtering his own people. Unless a Republican is President, and that dictator has been shooting at our pilots enforcing a no-fly zone for ten years, and has tried to assassinate a former president, and is snuggling up to terrorists, offering them safe haven, and throwing money at them, and Congress has voted overwhelmingly to approve using force against him. Then we must sit idly by. It’s the only morally-supportable thing to do.

In another post, Ace makes a most excellent proposal for inducing some cracks in the dictator’s protective wall of propaganda:

It seems to me that if exposing and denouncing violence-tinged remarks is intended to forestall the possibility of political violence, then whitewashing and excusing actual death threats is intended to increase the possibility of political violence. So long as the right people are targeted.

The media is of course a nonresponsive institution; they are fond of saying “X Corporation declined comment on our allegations,” and let the reader draw from that silence the intended conclusion Therefore they confess them by silence, and yet the media itself will not respond to detailed questions on its systematic and deliberate left-wing propaganda.

There is no way to compel them to answer questions. However, there is a way to spur them to do so, and it frustrates me that it’s not done.

Every week, when McConnell or Boehner or whoever is being interviewed on a Sunday talk show, they should have a plan in agreement to ask their questioners about any unaddressed bias in reporting, preferably something entirely off-topic (so there can be no charge made that they are attemtping to dodge the question on whatever they’re being asked about).

I know what the answer will be, because it’s the answer the media always gives– “We covered that fairly and spent resources on that” and et cetera. It’s a lie. They haven’t. When Boehner goes on to ask George Stephanopolous why ABCNews hasn’t covered the death threats in Wisconsin, he should come armed with detailed numbers of how many minutes of reportage were spent on blaming the Tea Party and Republicans for Gabbie Giffords versus how many were spent on death threats in Wisconsin. And, like a reporter, Boehner should then force Stephanopolous to commit to a yes or no answer — is he disputing these figures or not?

He must be made to commit to an answer. That’s what reporters do — they will badger you into taking some position, one way or another, so that you can be proven wrong or dishonest. Allowing someone to vaguely say “I don’t know” or whatever is letting them escape unharmed.

And every major Republican should do this on every show. And yes, it should be coordinated.

It most certainly should. This is a damned fine idea, and if the Repubs are serious about fighting back against these regime puppets, they ought to jump all over it immediately. It’s an excellent way of seizing the initiative and undercutting The Narrative — something they badly need to do — and I’d bet you any amount of money there are many, many people out there who would respond enthusiastically to it. No need to limit the topic to the Wisconsin death threats, either; there are any number of easily identifiable examples of liberal-media propagandizing for regime lies that can be hurled back in their teeth, and should be.

A lot of us have been waiting a very long time for the GOPers to do something positive, firm, and proactive along these lines; it’s one of the reasons Palin is as popular as she is. This is their chance, and there’s no better time than right friggin’ now to get started.

So of course, they won’t.

Share

American power, like it or not

March 23rd, 2011 2 comments

King Barky I may dislike American power, and he may be perfectly willing to let the UN or some other hapless, tough-talking Euro-weenies command American forces in his illegal not-war for European oil. He certainly wants to pretend that he has a big, broad coalition of fully-engaged partners for his little adventure. But reality bends the liberal fantasy over and has its way with it every time.

Indeed, the Libyan war (and an attack on a sovereign country is a war, no matter how many times the White House says it isn’t) illustrates perfectly the proposition that there are no multilateral armed forces any longer. Other countries may contribute a bit of ordnance or a handful of planes, but, in truth, only the United States can project power over any distance for any length of time. Nobody else can even come close.

Although the media keep reporting the Libyan war as though the U.S. is some sort of junior partner, the truth is the other way around. It is an American war, with a bit of support from other players. Here the data are instructive. Remember the opening salvo of the war, those 124 cruise missiles launched against the Libyan air-defense systems? According to the headlines, they were fired by American and British warships. Indeed they were. The Americans fired 122. The British fired two. Many of the U.S. Tomahawks fired so far—probably most, possibly all—were evidently the Block IV model, the latest generation, smart and maneuverable in midair, and a weapon possessed by no other member of the coalition. (Cruise missiles cost over $1 million apiece, and the newer models as much as $2 million. Are we likely to run out? According to National Journal, the Defense Department buys 200 Tomahawks each year—more than any other country has in its entire arsenal.)

The cruise-missile attacks were aimed largely at degrading Libya’s antiaircraft defenses, which were considerable. As several observers have pointed out, no member of the coalition aside from the U.S. possesses the expertise and munitions to accomplish that goal. The U.S. has supplied nearly half the aircraft involved inOperation Odyssey Dawn, including the B-2 Stealth bombers that flew all the way from Missouri to join the war, and has flown the great majority of the actual combat missions. Although the Defense Department insists that this week the allies will begin to take the lead, flying most of the sorties, it is not clear whether they have the money. The U.S. spends more than 40 cents of every defense dollar spent on the face of the earth. The Libyan war is likely to cost well in excess of $1 billion a week. Nobody else can afford it. Thus, the longer the war drags on, the more likely it is to become an all-American show.

France, for example, possesses only one aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, currently stationed off the Libyan coast. Britain has none. The British do have a single carrier under construction, but it will carry only helicopters. Remember the Harrier jump jet, the vertical takeoff and landing craft the British designed and Hollywood made famous? They are a mainstay of the U.S. Marine Corps, but Britain no longer operates any; the next delivery is scheduled for 2020.

Already the countries involved in Odyssey Dawn are sniping at each other over who should head the ridiculous command structure—at the moment, an unwieldy triumvirate—but their battle is really about credit, not about responsibility. The U.S. is running the war, and will continue to do so. The internal battles are a sideshow. Italy, for example, does not want its pilots to fire, except at aircraft that are actually airborne. But Italian pilots have flown no combat missions yet, and the Libyan air force, in practical terms, no longer exists.

There is a lesson here for those who support what are known in international law as humanitarian interventions. Unless the intervention is very small or very swift or both, no country in the world but the U.S. can do it. We alone have the money, the technology, and the trained personnel. We alone have shown the willingness and ability to project power over long distances for a sustained period. Many people, both in America and abroad, are uneasy with this preponderance. But it cannot be wished away.

Oh, they wouldn’t want to wish it away; deep down, they know they can’t afford to. Like Barky himself, they just want to deplore and complain about it, until they want to turn around and make use of it for their own ends.

Update! The liberal way of war: disorganization, chaos, fiasco, and, ultimately, defeat. The sub-hed bullet points really tell the dismal story:

Who’s in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

  • Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
  • French propose a new political ‘committee’ to oversee operations
  • Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign’s direction
  • Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
  • No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes ‘neutralises’ Libyan military machine
  • U.K. ministers say war could last ’30 years’
  • Italy to ‘take back control’ of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
  • Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians – calls bombing a ‘crusade’

The worst part of it: the stupid fucking moron masquerading as our “president” and “commander in chief” has gratuitously put American troops in harm’s way for no good reason, with no plan, no national security interest at stake, under foreign direction, to achieve foreign goals. If even one of our military personnel is killed as a result, he ought at the very least to be impeached for this.

On the bright side, this maladroit misadventure ought to finish him for good as far as 2012 is concerned. His motivations are transparent. His allegiance is clearly to the UN, not the US. He has neither the vaguest clue as to how to properly run a military operation, nor the slightest regard for the rule of law, the will of the American people, or the lives of their sons and daughters who serve as soldiers. He is beyond any doubt the worst president this country has ever been foolish enough to allow itself to be hoodwinked by. He is, in sum, a serious, dire mistake, one that needs to be corrected as soon as is humanly possible. To hell with him and his illegal war.

Share

Going left is the right answer for once

November 17th, 2010 1 comment

Several excellent points from Wretchard:

Wired argues that the problem with a “National Opt Out Day” is that it might actually work. “Some travel writers have expressed concern that the protest, called for the busiest air-travel day of the year, could cause backups and delays for all travelers.” If it works, not only will it short out the air traffic system but it will a message. The problem is: what message is that? That the public is willing to accept some amount of risk for the privilege of hassle free flying? Or the message that the government is going about security in the wrong way?

Policy wonks may answer to the third decimal place, but “National Opt Out Day” is probably less about making a statement of cost/benefit preference than expressing the inchoate view that government is going about airline security all wrong. The scanner brouhaha highlights as no other issue, the effectiveness, or lack thereof,  of the strategy of going after the bomb, not the bomber or the bomber instead of the bombing network.

The process of stopping the bomb before it was emplaced is called “left of the boom”. It is a term used to describe the process of going downstream of the IED emplacement process. According to the Washington Post it was “vernacular developed by the Army in 2003: that is, to attack the bombmaking construct well before IEDs are emplaced. That involves understanding the financiers, bombmaker cells, and other aspects of this, long before a bomb appears at the roadside.”

Going even slightly Left of the Boom brings enormous benefits. The famous Israeli system of airline security which focuses on interviews of passengers by trained profilers is an example of a strategy which frankly goes after the bomber, not the bomb. But Americans in far away places and political “pariah states”  like Israel have the option to act semi-rationally. Washington, on the other hand, is under the obligation to be politically correct, which means it must by definition behave irrationally. In the case of airline security all acceptable countermeasures must avoid the appearance of going after the persons and pretend to go only after the thing.

But the TSA security theater is fooling no one except the New York Times.

They damned sure ain’t fooling the Muslims who wish to kill us, and who are laughing their asses off at us over all this. The simple fact that we’re focused so completely on airport security — as Fernandez says, last-ditch point defense — while allowing wet-brained political correctness to cripple our efforts to even name the enemy, much less defeat him, makes clear that we’re losing this fight…and we’re doing so on purpose.

Share

The religion of fascist murder

September 10th, 2010 7 comments

What mainstream Islam is, and what it does:

Qur’an (47-4) – “When you encounter the unbelievers on the battlefield, strike off their heads until you have crushed them completely; then bind the prisoners tightly.”




Qur’an (4:89) – “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks.”



Qur’an (5:33) – “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement”



Qur’an (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”



Qur’an (9:29) – “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.” 



Bukhari (52:177) – Allah’s Apostle said, “The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say, “O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him.”



Bukhari (8:387) – Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.”

Tabari 7:97  The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, “Kill any Jew who falls under your power.”




Ibn Ishaq: 327 – “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’”



Ibn Ishaq: 992 – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.”



“The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a Religion of Peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, women’s rights, sexuality, warfare…) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be absolutely devastating.  Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism.”





needless to say, if you ever saw the Towers…




…you know how dire things must have been up there to make anyone think the better solution was “jump”



…I try never to grumble about a slow news day because the alternative is horrifyingly worse


Never forget. Never forgive. Never surrender.




It’ll take way more than you lot of vile, barbarian scum to defeat us. Count on it, fuckers.

Share