Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

Pull ’em out, bring ’em home

Do Afghanistan next.

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is pulling all 2,000 U.S. troops out of Syria, officials announced Wednesday as the president suddenly declared victory over the Islamic State, contradicting his own experts’ assessments and sparking surprise and outrage from his party’s lawmakers who called his action rash and dangerous.

The U.S. began airstrikes in Syria in 2014, and ground troops moved in the following year to battle the Islamic State, or ISIS, and train Syrian rebels in a country torn apart by civil war. Trump abruptly declared their mission accomplished in a tweet.
“We have defeated ISIS in Syria, my only reason for being there during the Trump Presidency,” he said as Vice President Mike Pence met with top leaders at the Pentagon. U.S. officials said many details of the troop withdrawal had not yet been finalized, but they expect American forces to be out by mid-January.

Later Wednesday, Trump posted a video on Twitter in which he said is “heartbreaking” to have to write letters and make calls to the loved ones of those killed in battle. “Now it’s time for our troops to come back home,” he said.

It most certainly is. Naturally, the invade-the-world-invite-the-world bunch are having themselves a hissy fit:

A senior administration official, speaking to reporters on condition of anonymity, said Trump made the decision based on his belief that U.S. troops have no role in Syria beyond combatting Islamic State, whose fighters are now believed to hold about 1 percent of the territory they did at the peak of their power.

Well, what else would their role be? Removing Assad from power and replacing him with…what, exactly? Should we countenance another disaster of a mess of a trainwreck along the lines of Obama’s and Hillary’s stupendously boneheaded move in Libya? What exactly does anybody think a mere 2000 troops are going to be able to accomplish, anyway?

You want to fight a war on Muslim terrorism, hey, I’m all for it; establish clear goals, define what victory will look like, send overwhelming force, establish reasonable ROEs that put our soldiers first and foremost, and go through the entire Middle East clusterfuck like shit through a fucking goose. Abjure not one single tool of America’s war-fighting capability: SpecWar, airmobile, armored cav, heavy artillery, strategic bombing, even tactical nukes if needed (they wouldn’t be— leave NOTHING off the table, EVERYBODY has a role. Hammer the place flat, kill people and break stuff, leave not one brick standing upon another. Make the rubble bounce.

Then get the hell out. Oh sure, we can send “humanitarian aid,” help rebuild (as long as it’s US contractors first in line for doing the job and making the money off of it), all that. But let the Muslim world know, without possibility of contradiction or doubt, that America’s days of sending its sons and daughters to bleed and die in godforsaken hellholes to piddle and diddle about in a never-ending conflict where nobody, neither military Higher nor the political “leadership,” has the vaguest clue what winning might mean and aren’t at all fussed about it anyway, are fucking-A OVER.

When we fight, we do so because the outcome matters. Because vital national interests are threatened. Because we have a serious problem with another nation that absolutely must be resolved without delay, after having tried everything else short of war without success. From now on, if we must fight wars, then we fight them to win—in terms absolutely no one can mistake or deny. When the leadership of some pipsqueak ratbag of a failed nation thinks itself feisty enough to make war on us, they must stagger away afterwards knowing for sure they’ve been kissed.

If your little pet hoped-for half-a-war doesn’t meet those terms and conditions, then you don’t get one. If your cause isn’t clearly worthy of the total commitment of this nation’s resources and the lives of its precious soldiers—if it’s another petty, half-assed, half-fought “police action” or some other sort of confusing resource-suck—then hire your own goddamned army and go have at it yourself.

Our military personnel swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Nowhere in that oath does it say a single damned word about any tail-chasing whoopjamboreehoo in far-flung lands where the Constitution is in no jeopardy from anybody, and the whole idea behind the thing is not to win it, but to just keep it going for nobody knows what reason. If we must win it, then we must fight it—totally, relentlessly, without reservation, surcease, or remorse.

No more tar babies.

The cacophonous criticism of the president’s decision within the Beltway may be the best evidence of his wisdom. Syria is not America’s war. Washington’s security interests always were minimal. The humanitarian tragedy in the country has been overwhelming, but it is beyond America’s ability to fix it.

Most directly, the president’s critics complain that the Islamic State is not yet eradicated from the earth. Wrote the New Yorker’s Robin Wright, “long-term stability is still far from guaranteed against a force that remains a powerful idea—both in war-ravaged Syria and throughout the volatile region—even as its military wing is decimated.” However, the United States can’t fix the underlying causes of radicalism. Moreover, the Islamic State’s long list of enemies—Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Gulf States, Iran, Russia—should be able to handle the aftermath. America should not do everything for everyone forever.

Congress has not authorized military action in Syria, even against the Islamic State. The authorization for the utilization of military force passed after 9/11 was directed against Al Qaeda, not new groups which did not then exist and did not participate in the attacks. That AUMF cannot be stretched to cover Syria, Iran, Russia, Turkey, or anyone else.

Of course, Congress had no reason to authorize force in Syria, which is not a security problem for America. The U.S. prospered for decades while a hostile and even stronger Syrian Arab Republic was allied with the Soviet Union. Would it be good if Bashar al-Assad was a warm, loyal, devoted ally like, say, Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman? Sure (well, probably). But the fact that Assad is not isn’t a cause for military intervention. As a superpower, America has interests all over the world. As a superpower, most of them aren’t particularly important. Very few are worth war.

Of course, Trump’s critics play the usual rhetorical games. Withdrawing means “turning over” the country to one or more bad actors, as if Syria was America’s to give away. Those who demand a permanent presence conveniently ignore the lack of a legal basis for even temporary intervention. And objectives—such as thwarting Iranian, Russian, and Syrian misbehavior—are stated without explaining how a couple thousand Americans would achieve them. The ever-hysterical Sen. Graham complained of “devastating consequences for our nation, the region, and throughout the world.” Actually, the Mideast matters far less these days, and would diminish in importance still further if Washington did not make that dismal assembly of nations central to American foreign and military policy.

Washington’s overall objective should be to bring peace to America, not to micromanage the conflicts of other nations. Lister complained that the president “just told Iran and all of our regional allies we don’t believe in sticking it out to achieve our foreign policy objectives.” Sometimes those objectives are not worth the cost of what would essentially be a permanent war. Withdrawal from Syria would be the president’s first practical application of a true “America First” foreign policy. It has been long overdue. Once the president finishes with Syria, he should turn to Yemen and Afghanistan.

Amen, to every word of it. If after a costly seventeen-year slog we haven’t won in Afghanistan, I’d suggest we aren’t going to, and should either reexamine what we mean by winning and get busy rejiggering our strategy and tactics both, or just admit we never did know from the beginning and walk away quietly. Ours would by no means be the first empire to have broken its back on the Hindu Kush. It’s kind of a tradition, really. Plus, bin Laden is dead and al Qaeda is gone and pretty much forgotten, so what the hell are we still expending ordinance over there for anyway?

And, I mean, seriously, you guys: Yemen? Fucking Yemen? What the hell is our objective, our purpose there? Do we even have one? How vital could our presumptive national interests in Yemen really BE, considering the no-doubt miniscule percentage of Americans who even know we have troops there at all? I don’t stay on top of everydamned thing, I admit, but I AM a reasonably well-informed guy, and I couldn’t tell you right off the top of my head how long we’ve had troops there, or go into any great detail as to why; I’d pretty much be limited to mumblemumble al Qaeda mumblemumble our allies the Saudis mumblemumbleAHENH, and that’s about it.

Anyways, Porter notes a scorching irony with all of this:

The first indictment of a war criminal is losing the war. Some generals understand this innately and so endeavor to keep their morality pristine by plowing over as many corpses as their infantry can burn. By this measure William Tecumseh Sherman may have been the most ethical fighter of his age. One of his most famous assertions was that War is Hell. It was a quote he strived to uphold.

Yet while war may be Hell, Hell has never been vacated by American troops. So Satan is hardly in the best position to gauge whether war or no war is the more lurid horror. Now perhaps the people of Syria can. Because according to the Carlos Slim Tumblr page Trump is planning to completely de-occupy that ravaged country. As you can imagine, the anti-war left is livid.

I suppose liberals have every right to be angry. Trump pulling out of Syria means one less American appendage stuck in the Levantine sand; it means fewer brown refugees streaming into Europe; and it means more Southern white boys having birthdays instead of funerals. You can see why they would be furious.

But not wanting to just speculate on the source of their discontent, I went straight to its expression in the combox. The performances therein featured more emoting than a production of ghetto Shakespeare. At times they were quite entertaining. Though that’s not to say they were lean, logical, or concise. Most were so blubbery from high-fructose preening that I had to jettison quotes in favor of paraphrasing, lest readers’ eyeballs expire from overuse.

Of which paraphrased rationales for irrationality my own favorite is this:

Finally, the dismount was struck with this solemn lament: we should keep our troops in Syria and get them off the US border where they don’t belong. Where do troops belong? That’s actually a fundamental question more than a political one. As such, why does a country form an armed forces? To defend foreign ethnostates? I mean, an additional foreign ethnostate? Is it foreign democracy? Foreign freedom? Foreign trade? What does the military do for us? Given the Pentagon’s $676 billion price tag, it’s a question to which many more non-foreigners should be demanding an answer.

The obvious fact is that the core function of militaries is to prevent invasion of their sponsoring nation. If they do nothing else, they have served their purpose. If they do not serve this purpose, then nothing else they do matters. Thus troops on our border is precisely where they belong. The Japanese emperor has been subdued.

Butbutbut TRUMP!!

Which, really, is what all the furor comes down to for the libtards, and at least some of the neocons too.

Update! Walsh chimes in:

This is not to denigrate the heroism of our troops, nor their skills. They may well be, as many say, the best warriors we’ve ever put in the field. But, just as in Vietnam, they’ve been allowed to fight, but not to win. Essentially, they’ve been told to play to an eternal draw, just enough to keep the lid on things over there, but not to materially affect the political structures in place. Thus, by mouthing the liberal pieties in Bush II’s second inaugural address about how the desire for freedom is the natural human condition (it plainly is not) and that America’s duty is to spread the gospel of liberty throughout the world (ditto), our rulers have obscured the lethal realities of our presence overseas.

These are not easy, or happy, conclusions to reach. But we must ask: what have we gotten from our misadventures?

Saddam may have been a tyrant, but he was just one of many, especially in that part of the world. Whether he abused his own people (what tyrant doesn’t?) may have been cause for editorial-page fretting, but not for bellicosity. In effect, both Bushes made the same mistake JFK and LBJ made in Vietnam: thinking that inside every foreigner was an American yearning to get out, when even a cursory glance at the history of Southeast Asia or the Islamic ummah should instantly have disabused them of that notion.

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, nothing has changed and nothing ever will change. The last outsider to have any effect on the region was Alexander the Great, and he did so at the point of his sword. Since then, Islam has come and gone and come again, the British fought two wars there, and the Soviets first signaled their systemic vulnerability by not being ruthless enough in their attempt to conquer the “country.” Had they applied the same tactics they used on Hitler’s Germany to Afghanistan we might be living in a very different world today, but they did not. And so now the Soviets have vanished while the Afghans live on in their remote and savage land.

As for Syria, the last foreign occupiers to have a positive effect on that parlous place were the Crusaders, who established the Principality of Antioch, which included Aleppo, in the late 12th century; it collapsed about a century later. Since then, Syria has been the plaything of various warring Muslim factions but offers no menace to American national security, and is far too weak seriously to threaten Israel. As in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, we have no strategic or economic interests in those areas, especially as the United States has emerged once again as the world’s leading energy producer.

The way to deal with these places, therefore, is to withdraw and leave them to their own devices. Sure, the Russians will fiddle around the edges if only to keep their hands in the game and to create an object lesson for their own restive Muslim minorities. So what? The “kingdom” of Saudi Arabia in all likelihood won’t last much longer than Bohemond’s did. As for the religious clash between Sunni and Shi’a Islam, represented on the chessboard by the Saudis and the Iranians, we can only hope that they both lose, and lose badly.

I’m down with that. The Middle East, Israel alone excepted, is a tribal, barbaric sinkhole ruled either by grubby despots, raving madmen with delusional ambitions, self-serving kleptocrats, or a distasteful combination of those qualities. It is inhabited mostly by irredeemable primordial savages inflamed to near-madness by a vicious, totalitarian, wholly destructive pseudo-religion. Very little real good has ever come of civilized peoples mucking about with the place; very little ever will.

Share

A little pre-Halloween horror

I’m aware, as most of you readers are or should be by now, of the esteemed Aesop’s take on all this. But I don’t think he’s spelled it out quite as completely and concisely as he does here. It amounts to an excellent precis, and I couldn’t agree more.

The conventional wisdom and polling data say the Dems are going to pick up 10 House seats for sure next month, but whether they can flip the majority (23+ seats) is still an open question.

If they do, it’s all impeachment and investigation, all the time.
Which will almost certainly lose them the House again in 2020.
(And FWIW, I consider trying to undo 2016 by impeaching Pres. Trump, like trying to undo the 2nd Amendment, to be an actual revolution-inducing act, in a kill-them-all-and-let-God-sort-them-out way. And not metaphorically. YMMV.)

If they don’t get the House in the mid-terms, they’ve already turned the crazy up to “11”, and they have nowhere left to go there, except actual, regular, political violence. I expect them to do that, because
a) they’re really that stupid
b) they have no other choice
c) they lack the common sense or insight to recognize the result of that course of action beforehand, and lack the self control among their idiot minions to stop it anyway even if they wanted to.

That will be an extinction event for them, because the Right will declare open season on them, and the Moderates will sit back and watch approvingly.

Because once you yell “Play ball!” on killing your political opponents as a viable course of action, Americans have a long and distinguished history of shoving that bat right up your ass. And then, going after your family for good measure. 

And both sides know that after the first killing, all the rest are effectively free, so this promises to be a short but ugly spasm of violence. To start.

After that, any bets or prognostications enter a fogbank of epic proportions, because once you uncork that genie, things will get out of hand and we’ll all be lucky to live through this, as Fred Thompson warned us.

As he says, that’s it in a nutshell. My one quibble, which is minor: personally, I don’t think they’re going to even be able to gain House seats. In fact, I expect them to lose some there too; their Kavanaugh debacle will cost them, but it’s just one of many self-inflicted wounds they’ve suffered, eye-openers all for anyone paying even slight attention, with the Kavanaugh mess being the moldy cherry on top of the whole flyblown shit-sundae. Executive summary:

The Leftards have lost their minds.
Before they can regain their senses, you’re going to have to get their attention first.
The only thing that will do that, amounts to large numbers (Antietam/Gettysburg-large, not 9/11-large) of them stacked up like cordwood, or hanging from lamp posts.

Sadly—tragically, for all of us—it would seem so. A clarifying quote from the first time around:

“War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.”
—William Tecumseh Sherman

I also remember a quote from Grant, which I can’t find online: “If we have to fight, I’d rather do it all at once and then make up and be friends.” Don’t know how relevant that one is now, but it came to mind for some reason.

Share

The Great Divide

Then and now.

In 1860 free state voting populations were larger than those of slave states so these states, as a total, had more Electoral College votes than slave states. One of the catalysts to the U.S. Civil War was the election of Abraham Lincoln over John C. Breckinridge. Lincoln took office in January 1861 and the war started in April of 1861. Abraham Lincoln was not on the ballot of ten slave states but still won the election of 1860 because he won the largest number of Electoral College votes. Seven of these slave states, unwilling to accept the results of the election, decided to secede from the United States.

Several states considered seceding from the United States over the 2016 presidential election. Oregon, California, and Silicon Valley threatened to secede after Hillary lost. Texas was discussing secession if Trump lost. Canada offered to make several U.S. States part of Canadaif they left the United States.

Since the election of Donald Trump to President of the United States, we have seen an escalation of violence. Therapists have increased business because progressives did not have their way in the 2016 election. Many progressives are unable to cope with reality and instead choose to live in a fantasyland. Even before the 2016 election, we witnessed how nasty, aggressive, despicable, and violent progressives have become and these behaviors have escalated since Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election.

The election of Donald Trump has brought to the fore the stark difference between ideological, economic, political, and social ideas. His election exposed many politicians as the traitors they really are.

There are more divisions now and larger divisions in the United States than in the 19thCentury. The philosophical lies of progressives did not have a strong following until the 20thCentury. We are witnessing the division and the weakness these progressive ideologies create. Progressive ideologies make people weak and afraid.

That being the whole idea behind the evil ideology, of course. Lots more here; read it all.

Share

Happy 9/11 Day!

17 years. Aesop remembers:

We (you, me, Western civilization, etc.) haven’t delivered to them the Third Punic War level of recompense they richly deserve, because reasons. Mostly bullshit ones, at that.

It’s too much.
Hey, fuckwit, they wiped out international air travel for months, vaporized billions in the economy of every nation in the world, including the ones least able to absorb that, not just ours in the U.S., engendering a decade-plus series of wars and thousands to tens of thousands of casualties, that really hasn’t stopped since they started circa the 7th Century, and won’t until we end the problem, by ending the problem children.

Sorry if that unvarnished reality spoils your breakfast, but shit happens.

It’s mean.
Really, dipshit? Meaner than destroying the lives of thousands of strangers in the service of your child-molesting leader, and his fanatical devotion to an imaginary death-cult deity?

Meaner than setting buildings on fire, and subjecting thousands of strangers to slow torture by fire, smoke, and worst of all, the time to contemplate the full hopelessness of their situation, such that they’d rather, in hundreds of cases, try flying from the 80th floor of a skyscraper rather than burn to death, or wait to be crushed under hundreds of tons of smoking rubble, screaming all the way to the impact at the bottom?

Okay, you win. I hereby concede that justice demands that every fanatical follower of theirs, including their bomb-toting children, should only be lit on fire, and kicked out of an aircraft at altitude, to scream in unspeakable agony the entire way until impact. Call it Hammurabi 2.0.

Happy now?

That’s not who we are.
You got a mouse in your pocket, soy-boi?

Who we are is a disgrace. Who we should be, are the guys who nuked Mecca and Medina, same day, then slaughtered everything left after that, in a feat worthy of Genghis Khan, and then introduced endangered species to graze there in perpetuity, so as to have enough lions and crocodiles handy to feed any stragglers to for the next few centuries.

Remember 9/11??

You must be joking.

The half-assed, half-witted, half-stepping pseudo-response to 9/11 has ensured that every day is 9/11.

Yep. It’s all gone pretty much exactly as Glenn predicted on the very day itself; there’s a reason that he and I both re-run his dismally prophetic post every damned year. To wit:

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.

For now, the terrorists have won. They’ve shut down the U.S. government, more or less. They’ve shut down air travel. They’re all over TV. But whether they really win depends on how we deal with this; hysterically, or like angry — but measured — adults.

As he says: “SADLY, my predictions made on 9/11/01 turned out to be pretty accurate.” Only “pretty accurate”? My God, there’s not ONE WORD in it that misses. It’s a marker of Glenn’s genius—and it IS genius, pure and simple—that he could see so clearly on a day and in a moment that the rest of us were shocked and horrified damned near out of our wits.

And he just keeps on keepin’ on, too. Day after day, month after month, year after year, he hammers out nothing but pure quality. Reynolds says more—and says it better—with his characteristic short, pithy bursts of inspiration than many of us can in a thousand words. His occasional longer posts are if anything even better. His work in the wake of the 9/11 attacks inspired a great many of us OG bloggers to take it up too; he continues to be both an inspiration and an example, showing us how the thing is properly done. Guess it’s no accident that he teaches for a living.

There’s a reason they call him the Blogfather. It still applies, with bells on. The coveted Instalanche is still a much-sought-after symbol of blogging success, proof positive of having finally churned something out that was worthy of serious note. Hats off to ya, Glenn, on this day of days; long may you wave, whether America at large remembers how and why it all came to be or not.

Update! The monkey speaks his mind.

September 11th 2001 was a singular event in American history, and one that should be respected, not used as a facile and inflammatory analogy for other events. “This silly and culturally unimportant event is like 9/11” should be stricken from the style guides of every columnist and pundit and assorted ass-hat who chooses to trivialize the murder of 3,000 Americans. And part of me suspects that the construction is purposeful, to shrink the attacks down to a forgettable size, to make them just another bump in the road to the new world order that so many enemies of America desire.

Too much of our current recognition of the attacks are a maudlin paean to loss, rather than a cold and brutal reminder that we are in a war for our very existence. Perhaps “9/11” should be more closely aligned with “Remember Pearl Harbor,” with its martial connotations and call to arms.

This date evokes in me a cold fury, that we were attacked, that we have not yet brought the full weight of our culture and might to bear on those who would destroy us.

Which is EXACTLY why this blog is named what it is.

Yes Mr. Schlichter, we are still killing them, and we are not beaten. But a renewed attention to our martial spirit is in order. I am confident that our armed forces are up to the task, especially with the cataclysmic shift in the oval office, but the focus is still on surgical strikes and guarding the delicate sensibilities of the soft and effeminate West, at the expense of American blood. Too many Americans have died because of this attitude, and it is long past the time at which we move to a real war footing. The lives of Americans must be considered more valuable, and must be preserved. If that means that more civilians in far-off lands are killed as a result of actions against our enemies, then so be it. It is time to take to heart the phrase, “America First,” not as the isolationist organization that collapsed just days after Pearl Harbor, or as a KKK slogan (which is just what the media wants), but as a reminder that we have the right and obligation to defend our national interests against all attacks, and to place the well-being of Americans above all others.

Problem being, that would first require acknowledging a basic fact that way too many of us are damned skittish about facing: that we were attacked in the name of Islam, by primordial savages using our own modern technology against us in perfect accord with the unholy scriptures of their vile pseudo-religion.

9/11 was wrought not by any phantasmagorical “perversion” of Islam, contrary to the convenient dodge deployed by people in the West enthralled by the wishful thinking that posits the existence of a great mass of “moderate Muslims”…somewhere. Which is not to say that there are no “moderate Muslims” out there at all; there are. It’s just that they’re known to their stricter, more rigid brethren as “apostates.” Which, according to Muslim scripture itself, is entirely correct.

Until we can bring ourselves to confront the ugly truth about Islam—a monstrous, oppressive belief system responsible for mind-boggling acts of savagery and murder throughout the entire world—we will never be either safe or secure, and any “war” we fight against “terrorism” will be costly, never-ending, and bootless. Period fucking dot.

Share

Man with a plan

Bill does some pretty deft analyzin’.

Remember, Codevilla never said it was necessary to destroy the nations that supported Muslim terror, just the regimes that did so. He also said the way to do that was to empower the native enemies of those regimes to do so, because who would know better who, and how many, needed to be killed (and where to find them) than those native enemies of the regime?

And so the very first stop on (Trump’s) very first foreign trip was the capital of Saudi Arabia. And, hmmm. A few months after that, seeming arising out of nowhere, Mohammed bin Sultan becomes Crown Prince, and initiates a massive purge against the very elements of the Saudi regime that supported Islamic terror gangs like Al Qaeda and ISIL (the head of the bin Laden company was among those arrested).

This is getting very little play in the American media, because MbS is using the massive influence among American elites developed by the Kingdom over decades to sort of hide what he is doing in plain sight. Some of his actions are being reported, but our media claims that his motivations are surrounded in mystery. They aren’t at all, if you can connect the dots and read between the lines a bit.

So…Trump now has the enemies of the old theocratic regime housecleaning them right out of the regime and onto the dustbin of history. Amazing enough, ISIL was utterly destroyed as a force on the ground during the same period, and its “caliphate” reduced to smoking rubble. They probably really missed all the financing, sheltering, arming, training, and so on they used to get from the Saudi theocrats before MbS decisively shut off that spigot.

I believe that the Saudi regime is now out of the Islamic terror business, thanks to President Donald Trump.

Next item:  I’m still trying to flesh this out, but I very much doubt that it is either coincidence or accident that seemingly out of nowhere a flash revolution against the Iranian Mullahs seems to be brewing. I assume that the Israelis (and the Saudis) are involved in that. Both have far more assets on the ground in Iran than we do. If so, we see another page in a now-familiar playbook being turned: The Iranian regime has a plenitude of internal enemies. If we and our allies like SA and Israel can give them the upper hand, you can rest assured they will know who to kill, how many, and where to find them. Nor will they be much hampered by international disapproval. Whoever emerges on top, they will still have all. that. oil., and nominal control of the Straits of Hormuz.

And finally, yet another aspect of the challenge: Pakistan. It is the largest Muslim nation on the planet, and it is a full fledged nuclear power. However, it is generally acknowledged that their nuclear arsenal was financed by Saudi Arabia, and Saudi money plays an enormous role in the economic and political life of that impoverished nation. In other words, if the Saudis are willing, we have an enormous lever that can be used to pry the Pakis away from their taste for terror gangs like the Taliban.

And, lo and behold, just yesterday Donald Trump began tweeting about…Pakistan, and threatening to remove US aid because the Pakis are a “terror aiding” nation. You bet they are. And if both the US and the Kingdom pull the money plug, the Paki regime will be in a world of hurt, nukes or not.

I don’t expect our national disgrace of a media to ever put these pieces together, not, at least, for public consumption, because crediting Trump with what would effectively be victory in the war against Islamic terror would be far more than they would ever wish to give him.

But I think it is real, I think it was gamed out maybe even before Trump made his final decision to run, and I think it is playing out right under our noses.

And I think the chances are good that Bill is onto something here.

Update! Think the notion that Trump is enacting a canny and well-thought-out strategy against Muslim terrorism, rather than getting lucky here and there amidst a bunch of clueless floundering about, might just be a bridge too far even among diehard Trump supporters? Might want to reconsider that.

I, frankly, came to despair that we would ever awaken from and escape that crushing Obamista incubus. Then, of course, a November miracle; in that month in 2016, despite the polls and the sneers of the MSM and Hollywood, despite the fabulously financed Democrat Party machine, and an epidemic of fake news and phony “dossiers,” the most improbable thing happened: brash, loud and bold non-politician Trump won the election. He ran what was, in essence, the only successful third-party candidacy in the long history of our Republic since, perhaps, Lincoln. The GOP leadership was as befuddled by the Trump phenomenon as was that of the DNC. As we have commented on in this humble blog, that event led to the greatest meltdown of the left since, since…well, I don’t know since when. His election revealed the leftist rot in the US and global elites that many of us had long suspected and perhaps commented on, but had not realized the full extent.

The resistance to Trump’s nomination and election started with prominent Republicans, such as Romney and the Bush clan, and continued with brave talk of riots in the street, “pussy hats,” vote recounts, electoral college challenges, Russian “collusion” investigations, and ended with ISIS on the run, US oil production roaring along, a new tax scheme, thousands of regulations slashed, the economy booming, Hollywood in a tailspin, Jerusalem recognized as the capital of Israel, illegal alien criminals rounded up, UN budget cuts, a teetering EU, riots in Tehran, the “deep state” exposed, the Supreme Court turned around, the Maduro regime on the ropes, and lefties fighting over first class seats on United Airlines (BTW: I know the “teacher” who got booted from her first-class seat by that whacky leftist Congresswoman; she’s a hard-core leftist “activist” who made my life and career very difficult many years ago. Lefties like to travel first class.)

That’s a pretty damned lengthy list of solid successes for an incompetent moron, seems to me, and it is by no means comprehensive. Nothing speaks louder than results, and Trump is undeniably getting ’em. The exposure of the Leftist rot Dip mentions, and especially the public psychotic break on the Left it helped nudge along, is by no means the least of Trump’s many achievements. I believe the long-term impact of that alone is going to be…umm, YUUUGE—most especially when you consider the related revelation of the complete failure of their entire program right along with it.

No wonder they’ve all gone bug-fuck nuts right out in front of God and everybody.

Share

New day dawning?

I dunno, call me cynical, if you will—jaded by the starry-eyed, hopeful foofaraw over the stillborn (murdered in the crib, more like, whatever fraction of it was ever going to yield positive results to start with) “Arab Spring,” which I’m proud to say I never bought into for a second. But methinks Walsh is being a little, shall we say, excessively optimistic here.

The end is near for the mullahs of Iran, which is bad news for the Islamic Republic of Iran, but good news for the Persian people, who have a chance to free themselves of the baleful effects of the Arab conquest and — finally — join the community of Western nations by casting off its imposed Islamic theocracy and, it is to be hoped, Islam itself.

Okay, it ain’t just me then. He is DEFINITELY going overboard with the optimism. Mike, I love ya and all, I really do. But that’s one hell of a lot to hope for there buddy, don’tchathink?

Continue reading “New day dawning?”

Share

“Can’t Kill Enough to Win?”

Well, can we at least TRY?

Those given the awful task of combat must be able to act with the necessary savagery and purposefulness to destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide. In 2008, then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Navy Admiral Michael Mullen said, “We can’t kill our way to victory.” Ever since, many have parroted his words. But what if Admiral Mullen was wrong? The United States has been at war with radical Islamists four times longer than it was with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in World War II. And those previous enemies were far more competent and aggressive than the terrorists. It is time to kill a lot more of them.

Okay, we’re off to one hell of a good start as far as I’m concerned. But there’s a problem right out of the gate here—a big one—and I suspect a good many if not most of you can already guess what it is.

In addition to the overabundance of ill-trained lawyers in the force, leaders are giving too much credence to people and organizations (such as Amnesty International) with distorted views of how wars ought to be fought rather than how they truly are. For instance, the concept of proportionality under international law has nothing to do with making war a “fair fight” or using “minimum force.” Sadly, however, such human rights law language has crept into U.S. military standing rules of engagement (SROE), despite warnings from sage counsel such as international and operational law expert W. Hays Parks.

In the mid-1990s, a small cadre of combat-experienced officers began to militate against overly restrictive rules of engagement and tactical directives. They advocated that if U.S. military forces must fight in such environments these warriors should at least have the same protections that U.S. constitutional law provides police officers in the United States. This still has not happened. Sixteen years and thousands of U.S. military lives have been lost, and the military still is plagued with obtuse rules of engagement and soul-crushing investigations into every action.

While the United States may not be following the full-on nation-centric strategy of Alfred Thayer Mahan to fight terrorists today, it ought to use the military primarily to forward its national interests. And that ought not be a strange or unsavory concept to any U.S. warrior or citizen.

The military’s leadership has a responsibility to push back hard when told to do anything that would dilute the fundamental responsibility to win wars. For the past two decades, the U.S. military has put more effort into combating climate change and training to prevent sexual harassment than it has into training warriors to kill the enemy.

I wrote a post the other day lamenting the sad state of the “most powerful military in the world,” which Aesop responded to at length in the comments. It’s worth examining the arguments he makes out front here a bit, I think:

We now have an army and navy nearly as small as what we had on hand around the Great Depression.

And the armed might we wielded as recently as 1990 was barely a patch on the machine we dismantled in 1946, after doing the heavy lifting to win two world wars.

That’s what happens when you cut defense spending precipitously, plow the money into stock bubbles, housing welfare, etc., and in the process crash the economy hard twice.

And between the two bubbles, we squandered a serviceable but barely adequate military on adventurism and asinine you-break-it, you-bought-it “nation building” in two of the most illiterate and utterly worthless sh*tholes on the face of the earth. We traded a family cow’s worth of military power for the magic beans of Middle Eastern democracy, and we don’t even have a beanstalk to show for it afterwards. Just a dead giant.

But we burned out the troops, burned up their airplanes, wore out their weapons, and mothballed our rusted navy, because affirmative-action generals like Colon Powell never read Alfred Thayer Mahan.

What you see now is what happens when you entrust leadership to idiots, in an organization dedicated to the Peter Principle as a promotion tool.

Militaries cost money and brains, and both Congress and the Pentagon have been short on both for decades. And there’s no easy fix for that, either place.

This is all perfectly true, sure enough. But it seems to me that the biggest problem of all is the American people, or all too many of them at least. They seem to lack the will to commit to backing their military forces all the way to complete victory; they’re soft, coddled, and insulated from the realities not just of war, but of military service itself. The concept of what victory in war might even amount to is foreign to them, and it’s near certain that the sacrifice, the real price, of victory is too.

In fact, most Americans are almost completely isolated from their military, from the soldiers themselves; a historically low percentage of the populace is personally acquainted with someone in uniform, or even with someone else who is. The idea of putting on a uniform and picking up a rifle for a hitch in service themselves seems wholly alien to them, and ludicrous. One might as well suggest that they grow gills and flippers and swim the Atlantic without coming up for air. Y’know, tomorrow morning.

As has been pointed out here before by other commenters, this state of affairs goes beyond lamentable and crosses handily over into being outright dangerous. Naturally, it’s not true of everyone; I suspect that this alienation is most prevalent by far in the big-city enclaves of the Left, and the college campuses that breed and nurture Progressivist drones by the thousands. I’d guess it would be a lot less so out in the great heartland of the country, the South generally, and the towns surrounding military bases. Such locales generally have a great respect and a high regard for their soldiery, and became far less circumspect about expressing those sympathies openly once 9/11 sort of granted permission to harbor them again.

All of which indirectly brings me to the problem I mentioned up top, which is with this statement: “…destroy those acting as, or in direct support of, Islamic terrorists worldwide.” That’s fine as far as it goes, and would amount to at least a good start if nothing more. But what of the millions upon millions of Moslems who are supportive of jihad without openly declaring it; who believe in the supremacy of sharia law, but who aren’t necessarily willing to commit acts of terrorism or offer material support themselves beyond, say, financial contributions to their local “moderate” mosque, from whence the money make its circuitous way into the hands of the jihadists who depend on it?

These are the “moderates” touted endlessly by our media and politicians, but according to poll after poll after poll, their beliefs aren’t anything most of us would label “moderate.” While they may not constitute a clear majority of Moslem “immigrants” just yet, they are nonetheless legion. And they have deliberately been seeded throughout the West in unsuspecting communities who are carefully kept in the dark as to the nature of their beliefs and activities, and are oblivious to the threat posed by them.

None of which even begins to address the additional problem of “refugees” from the Middle East, who ain’t necessarily coming because they dig them some freedom, tolerance, and democracy, bub (been a good, long while since I saw any of that “Democracy, whiskey, sexy!” signage being waved around by anybody at all, I’ll say that much). We aren’t told how many of them there are; that’s something our rulers don’t think we ought to know. It’s doubtful anybody, in government or out, knows where they all wind up. The government is probably way more meticulous about tracking YOUR whereabouts than they are theirs.

So considering all that, how much chance do you think there is of our ever making effective war on Moslem terrorism, and of truly winning such a war? How would we even go about such a thing? The ideas presented in the first linked piece above are good ones; I’m wholeheartedly in favor of all of ’em, and plenty more besides. But I bet Hell will freeze over good and damned solid before we ever see a one of ’em done.

Share

Happy 9/11 Day!

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

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!

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?

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!

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

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”

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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

CF Comments Policy Statement

Comments appear entirely at the whim of the guy who pays the bills for this site and may be deleted, ridiculed, maliciously edited for purposes of mockery, or otherwise pissed over as he in his capricious fancy sees fit. The CF comments section is pretty free-form and rough and tumble; tolerance level for rowdiness and misbehavior is fairly high here, but is NOT without limit. Management is under no obligation whatever to allow the comments section to be taken over and ruined by trolls, Leftists, and/or other oxygen thieves, and will take any measures deemed necessary to prevent such. Conduct yourself with the merest modicum of decorum, courtesy, and respect and you'll be fine. Pick pointless squabbles with other commenters, fling provocative personal insults, issue threats, or annoy the host (me) and...you won't.

Should you find yourself sanctioned after running afoul of the CF comments policy as stated and feel you have been wronged, please download and complete the Butthurt Report form below in quadruplicate; retain one copy for your personal records and send the others to the email address posted in the right sidebar. Please refrain from whining, sniveling, and/or bursting into tears and waving your chubby fists around in frustrated rage, lest you suffer an aneurysm or stroke unnecessarily. Your completed form will be reviewed and your complaint addressed whenever management feels like getting around to it. Thank you.

Categories

Archives

Notable Quotes

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

"To put it simply, the Left is the stupid and the insane, led by the evil. You can’t persuade the stupid or the insane and you had damn well better fight the evil." - Skeptic

"Give me the media and I will make of any nation a herd of swine." - Joseph Goebbels

"Ain't no misunderstanding this war. They want to rule us and aim to do it. We aim not to allow it. All there is to it." - NC Reed, from Parno's Peril

"I just want a government that fits in the box it originally came in." -Bill Whittle

Subscribe to CF!

Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix