We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Left speechless, almost This remark was made by some individual called jsbachUSA at the Guardian’s Comment is Free site:
But if the Arabs choose to attack Israel with conventional weapons and Israel loses, so be it. As the cliche goes those that live by force die by force. Even if Israel ceases to exist, as long as it doesn’t nuke the world in a spasm of anger in the process, Jews will still be welcome and prosper in many part of the world, just like they did for thousands of years. The end of the Israel mistake will not be a bad thing.
“Just like they did for thousands of years”.
Priceless.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
“Come into my parlour”, said the spider, to the fly….
At least he is upfront about it, albeit not under his real name.
The premise doesn’t seem very likely, so I’m glad to say we really don’t have to care what he thinks.
“as long as it doesn’t nuke the world in a spasm of anger in the process”
This is a big part of the problem here. The over emphasis on Israel, it’s retaliations against the an aggressive entity next door are called war crimes and a holocaust, its lobbying is seen as part of the global influence declared in the protocols. It’s made out to be the crux of the worlds’ problems and idiots like the commenter in CiF are now claiming it can nuke the world. FFS.
There is something perverse to like about this guy’s plan. It must cut both ways, of course.
Just try it this way.
“But if Israel chooses to attack the Arabs with conventional weapons and the Arabs lose, so be it. As the cliche goes those that live by force die by force.”
I’ve never been convinced that Israel should have returned anything she took in the course of defending herself against surprise attacks. Rather, I think those attacking nations losing their own territory is the just penalty for their attempting to steal other country’s territory.
If it weren’t Islam and Multiculturalism we are dealing with, I would suspect this commenter was deliberately pointing out the obvious double standard.
Precisely. It’s the same kind of rhetoric we hear from the left here in the states all the time… I found this later portion even more revealing:
The risk of military invasion of such a sort is minimal whilst Israel maintains military control over the Golan heights and the East bank of the Jordan river. The arabs, of course, would like to end both as a preliminary to the destruction of Israel, but are powerless to do so.
Hence, the major, indeed the only immediate, threat to the state of Israel and the Jewish people as a whole is the U.S. State Dept and its puppets in Kadima.
Ah Mid,
The Arabs have never “got” the idea that starting a war has serious and unpleasant consequences if you go on to lose it. The Germans “got” this after two goes. The Japanese appreciate it now. It’s fairly universal piece of common-sense, a quality in remarkably short supply in the Mid East. Allah may have gifted the Arabs oil, he forgot the common-sense.
Oh, they know all about those consequences Nick, at least from the winning end: all those Arab countries were not original Arab, you know. You cannot blame them for being delusional now, as the West has been busy for years perpetuating these delusions.
If attacked and in danger of being wiped out, Israel will not nuke the world, they will nuke the capital cities of the aggressors. Because Israel has repeatedly kicked Arab ass, these countries know and respect this. (For this reason alone, I see no reason Israel shouldn’t give the Golan Heights back to Syria and call their bluff. Israel has already amply demonstrated that they can hit any target inside Syria with impunity.)
I think they get the idea, and the idea is not to give up, but to keep trying until you win. It’s a can-do attitude that I’ve got a lot of time for.
Compare with the Japanese, who, the very first time they lose a war properly say “Wah!!! We lost, we’re not playing this stupid game anymore” and promptly spend the next 50 years dying their hair red and putting butterflies and kittens all over inappropriate consumer items.
The Germans became depressed and re-directed their martial prowess into recycling stuff and building cycle lanes and efficient manufacturing processes.
But the Arab people? No way! They keep on coming. If at first you don’t succeed, wait 15 years for your losses to be replaced, and have another go. They kept it up for two hundred years during the crusades, and in the end we got bored launching expensive, controversial campaigns that had no obvious benefit to the people funding them except for some flag waving guff about helping our fellow Christians in some place no-one had heard of. Our heavily armed knights had no trouble taking cities, but found themselves unable to hold them for any length of time. Plus ca change, eh?
Besides the specifics of the Diaspora/Israeli/Palestinian issue that the person misunderstands, there’s also the general point that’s being made here – that it’s OK to watch your friends and neighbours fed to the crocodiles so long as it doesn’t inconvenience you in the process.
You can have that attitude if you like, but you’d better hope that it’s never you that needs the help one day, because you’ll probably be on your own. It’s a long step beyond the defence-of-the-homeland-only isolationism that some espouse, but not all that much of one.
J, no idea where you’re coming from. But seeing as the Arabs got whooped in 1948*, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982… you would think that they’d realize this was a game they weren’t going to win. They remind me of folks who after losing umpteen hands of poker throw their car keys into the pot on the strength of three cards to a flush with a discard left. Do you know what the odds on making a flush from that position are? They are not good.
*The fledgling IAF illegally obtained de-gunned, commercilized, illegal B-17s from the USA and on the way to Israel managed to bomb Cairo with the gun turrets covered in plaster of Paris. Moxie is a Yiddish word, why am I not surprised? In ’67 they mobilized the entire IAF against Egypt. I can think of no other ballsier air-strike in history. There was like a dozen fighters kept behind. The IAF make me misty eyed. Wow! Just wow! They twisted and pulled off pontoon.
You know, how about the USA and UK decide not to intervene this time when the Serbs and the Kosovars start kicking the shit out of each other again? Would that wake the Europeans up to the reality of how lonely they really are?
J………
More or less spot on…more more than less.
…..and what were the, more or less, peaceful religious beliefs in the Mediterranean basin before the religion of peace imposed its holy writ?
History is, as always, selective….
Expat: some of them were Christian.
So the Arabs conquer Israel,loot the greenhouses and burn anything flammable,what next? They are going to get bored with jumping up and down waving flags,painting slogans on what remains of the walls and killing each other.They are going to look out over the Mediterranean and wonder what is on the other side.
Of course one small diversion will be aiding their co-religionists in the Balkans in smoothing out the Serbia anomaly.But then what? Eradicating countries is habit forming.
Yep.. truly priceless. The way he euphemises and leaves out the details of Israel being defeated is kind of sickening.
A few million dead Jews.. he doesn’t care. It would be a happy ending.
Yep.. truly priceless. The way he euphemises and leaves out the details of Israel being defeated is kind of sickening.
A few million dead Jews.. he doesn’t care. It would be a happy ending for him.
And if Israel actually tried to retaliate with nuclear weapons, then he uses it as a justification for not welcoming the Jews anywhere else in the world. Let them die as refugees.
What a compassionate and progressive soul.
Alsia – as you know, few of the Arabs in the Holy Land are Christian these days.
Although I accept that there are still some about – they are trotted out every so often to complain about the “wicked Jews” when, in reality, it is the Muslims who are driving the Christians out.
My favourate example of a deluded Christian Arab was the late Edward Said. He used to tell a story about how a mob of wicked Jews destroyed his family home – it turned out that the family home had been in Cairo, and the mob was made up of Muslims.
Still one could expect no better from a man who reversed the meaning of “Orientalist” – in reality an orientalist was a Western scholar (and/or administrator) who RESPECTED the cultures of the orient. Orientalists were those people who argued against the view that these cultures were worthless and should just be replaced wholesale by Western Culture.
J
The Crusader states lasted for many years – however, I accept your point, the other side could just carry on and on. The Crusdaders could win a thousand battles and the sea of Islam would still be there – lose one and the Realm was lost.
Perhaps this is why Saint Louis wanted to change the basic situation by liberating Egypt – in those days the Sudan was still mostly Christian Kindoms, so if one punched through Egypt (libertating the Copts) one would link up with other Christian Realms, and cut the Islamic world in two (as well as remove an enemy on the southern flank of the Holy Land if this land was recaptured).
However, the enterprise ended in failure.
Guy Herbert.
It is not the view of one person – the desire to exterminate Israel (to drive the Jews into the sea) is a meanstream one.
Sadly it is also shared by some of the modern left in the West – even some Jewish leftists in the West wish to see the Jews exterminated.
Partly this is due to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” thinking. Radical Islam is the enemy of the West – the “capitalist” West is the enemy of the left, therefore, in this odd way of thinking, radical Islam is the friend of the left.
However, many radical Muslims (both Sunni and Shia) talk about “social justice” a lot – endless government spending and regulations (especially price controls).
Mohammed may have been guilty of many things, but he was not guilty of supporting credit-money bubbles and price controls.
In economics the radical Muslims, who claim to follow the holy writings of Islam alone, are really following doctrines that have nothing to do with Islam.
Perhaps it is this stuff that attracts the Western left.
Hey, Paul Marks-
Muslims obey the Koran, AND the life of Mohammed. At one point in his life he raided caravans. Is it any wonder that warfare seems so attractive to his followers? The ‘radical Muslims’ might just be following the example he set, not what he said.
I should have said – a mainstream one in the Islamic world.
Indeed even the Arabic language media and education system run by the “Palestinian Authority” (the enemies of Hamas) still teach that Israel should be wiped out – it is only the English language stuff that accepts Israel’s right to exist.
Of course such a view MAY become mainstream in the West.
Even the new Chairman of Sky is supposed to be (unlike his father) very anti Isreali – expressing his hated in obscene language.
He is also supposed to be very “Green”, which is also very “modern”.
Jew hating and “Green” ness as “modern” – modern as in the regime that ended in 1945?
Sadly Jew hating is ancient – and is found in both the Islamic and the Christian worlds.
Caliph Mahdi (775-785) may have invented the laws that demanded that Jews wear special cloths and badges – but a few centuries later Christians like Innocent III were copying them.
There were gettos in both cultures.
And the mass killings in places like Morocco (for example in the 15th century – although the conquest back in the 7th century had destroyed a Jewish tribal federation) were matched by mass killings in the West.
It is unfortunate.
I suppose the best Christians can claim is that Jesus did not go around killing Jews (being a Jew has not stopped other people being Jew haters) and Mohammed did.
But actually this casts Muslims in a good light – as many of them have ignored both the example and the teachings of Mohammed and been good people.
Whereas many Christians have ignored the example and teachings of Jesus (whilst claiming to be devoted to both) and been very wicked indeed.
If a Muslim ignores the teachings and examples of Mohammed, is he/she a Muslim, or an apostate?
Actually seems a little mild for anything associated with the guardian. The author at least thinks the evil Joooz should be allowed to live somewhere else. This concession is probably just an attempt at seeming moderate, however.
only about 30 miles to the Jordan River from Jerusalem as the crow flies. Israel is around 10 miles across at its narrowest (excluding the west bank) damn well better let the arab nations know there’s a very itchy finger on the nuclear trigger.
About the only thing Israel could do to make itself more vulnerable is to elect some land ceding asshat like Olmert…..DOH!
Israel compared to Oregon
The Arabs have never “got” the idea that starting a war has serious and unpleasant consequences if you go on to lose it. The Germans “got” this after two goes. The Japanese appreciate it now. It’s fairly universal piece of common-sense, a quality in remarkably short supply in the Mid East. Allah may have gifted the Arabs oil, he forgot the common-sense.
Good eye.
The moment they allow that unpleasant fact to sink in, the moment they notice what modern warfare really means, is the moment Islam dies.
I don’t think they’re going to accept that until they’ve been nuked a few times. At least once for the sunnis and once for the shiites.
It has to be both because when the Shiite bite the big one, the Sunnis will just assume that they’re being punished by God for picking the wrong succession to the prophet, and vis versa.
In fact that’s why they’ve never learned from history, because they can’t look at what happens to other people and apply it to themselves. We’re all infidels, doomed to hell, hated by God, and slated for invasion and genocide – we don’t count. God will make them succeed doing the same idiotic things that brought disaster to the rest of the world, because Muslim’s wars (and genocides) are blessed by God.
Compare with the Japanese, who, the very first time they lose a war properly say “Wah!!! We lost, we’re not playing this stupid game anymore” and promptly spend the next 50 years dying their hair red and putting butterflies and kittens all over inappropriate consumer items.
That’s so funny.
Yeah, having an imagination is so much less cool than trying for genocide again and again. Ganbate, eh?
“The moment they allow that unpleasant fact to sink in, the moment they notice what modern warfare really means, is the moment Islam dies.”
Well, therein lies the problem. Modern warfare focuses on destroying the enemy’s ability to fight, not his will to fight, as von Clausewitz would have advised. The Arabs have seen modern warfare many times; what they have not seen is modern weaponry used with pre-modern objectives – the WW2 kind of warfare, with the fire-bombed cities, etc. It’s hard to develop a distaste for something without experiencing it. The Iran-Iraq war was heading that way, but the USSR and the US ensured a stalemate. Sure, bombed cities are hard to stomach for the modern westerner, but does Gaza City look much better than 1945 Berlin, without having been subject to aerial bombardment? (Please Google-Images, links are too numerous to clutter this thread).
An uncanny parallel to modern taxation comes to mind: if the government confiscated a house from every household outright, soon enough that government would be out; if it taxes each household to the tune of the equivalent of one house over 30 years, that’s smart, commendable policy.
Well, therein lies the problem. Modern warfare focuses on destroying the enemy’s ability to fight, not his will to fight, as von Clausewitz would have advised.
Funny, that’s not how we fought the last couple of world wars.
I think a bunch of academic Utopians rewrote the history of warfare without understanding the principle of unintended consequences.
Warfare lite fails on too many levels. If the result is eternal warfare – if wars can not end, then the result is more suffering not less.
Anyway, it also ignores the fact that from our point of view the highest good is always for our side to win and end it in the shortest possible time, before the enemy gets a chance to really hurt us. For God’s sake that isn’t rocket science – every damn street fighter knows that principle.
So when I said “what modern warfare really means,” I was talking about what we actually do when we’re faced with a serious enemy, not the hypocritical, “we’re oh so saintly” costume we wear between serious wars.
You know, the one where we firebombed Dresden (actually it was the British who wanted to punish Germany and firebombed Dresden, but that’s “us” enough for me), and where we firebombed half of Japan because we were willing to do any damn thing, kill any number of civilians, to end the fucking war.
Anyone with the power to do that would do the same when threatened. And we have what, 10000 nuclear missiles? It’s not possible to attack and win a war against someone with 10000 nuclear missiles. They’ll figure out the obvious, eventually. But they may have to learn it the hard way. That God is not on anyone’s side, you know?
Nick M,
I read your posting and immediately thought of that Monty Python skit with the knight .
Really, people. You can see the wisdom of this jsbachUSA’s thinking if you try. It’s like this: the Arab world sweeps Israel away. Iran (and for that matter, Pakistan) can now happily give up wanting nuclear weapons, thus liberting hundreds of thousands of upright, decent folk from preparing for war and thus able to help mankind with altruistic gifts of knowledge and understanding. Peace instantly breaks out all over the middle east with Muslims leading the way as befits the religion of peace (as they never tire of reminding us). The Muslims, inspired by the Taliban’s generous example, go on to convince the world that their way of peace is far superior and the world happily falls in with it all, glad to finally admit they never did think much of gays and women anyway. Isolated, America retreats before this tide of kindness, resenting accepting a couple of million Jewish refugees as every one can see how right and proper Islam is…
No, wait, I think there might be a flaw in all this but I can’t quite pin it down…
Josh,
“The Decisive Battle” is actually the key to this. If you destroy just the enemies means it is possible if both parties tacitly agree that they are fighting battles of decision to obtain victory. I don’t mean a gentleman’s agreement or anything, more just a shared meta-context.
Hence Admiral Doenitz threw in the towel in ’45 when Hitler offed himself because Germany had so clearly lost (it’s means of waging war were destroyed) the Japanese, who were similarly on their uppers, were training schoolgirls how to use spears against the Allied invasion. It took the awesome spectacle of the B-29 raids to convince them that Japan wouldn’t just be beaten but destroyed utterly.
This is because the decisive battle is basically a Western invention. And that’s why we’re still fighting the bloody Taliban. They just don’t give up. The folly of Israeli “Land for Peace” ideas, or “roadmaps” or whatever is the Palistinians (and their Arab, er chums*) would consider this merely as a hudna, a ceasefire enabling them to consolidate their forces for the next big push. Anyone who has witnessed their histrionic capability at grievance theatre or seen Rage Boy must know deep-down that there will always be something down the line for them to get upset about.
Now I’m not saying that some of their grievences aren’t real, or even justified (and some must be justified or at least rational) but the problem is that they see everything through the prism of Islam. Most of their issues (like the fact Gaza is an unmitigated hell-hole) aren’t explicitedly religious in nature but they see it that way. That’s what I meant on another thread that the problem is Islam. They view everything through their Islamogoggles. Little Ahmed doesn’t have shoes, cousin Mahmoud is unemployed, the hospital is worse than an NHS one… Whatever. These are real problems and the solution is always in the Qu’ran. And that teaches continual jihad till the day of the global caliphate comes or the Mahdi or Doomsday. It is also deeply antisemitic and antichristian. That’s the problem and it won’t go away until uncle Ibrahim realizes little Mahmoud is barefoot because he himself spends all his time trying to kill Jews and none of it doing anything economically useful. 60 years in the “refugee camps” and the place is a pig-sty with spectacular levels of unemployment. I’d say that was problem meets solution but Uncle Ibrahim would beg to differ.
They don’t have education, they have indoctrination. We have the Tellytubbies and they have Farfur the Martyr Mouse who got tortured to death by Mossad. Seriously, that’s kids TV Pali-style…
*Oh yes, their chums in the other Islamic states who seem to revel, in the suffering of the Palis. You know the types who want to remove Israel from the page of time and are prepared to fight to the very last Palestinian to do that. Heroes aren’t they?
Here’s a way to remove the Muslim will to fight without killing hundreds of thousands.
Tell them that we are thouroughly pissed off with them and then remove their will to fight by demonstrating the faslsity of their religion by announcing that in 2 weeks time ( or some other timescale) we are going to obliterate Mecca and Medina, ‘Inshallah’ i.e. if God wills it.
Then , at the end of the warning period, go ahead and drop the bombs.
There might be a few tens of thousands of suicide ‘bombees’ waiting at the Holy sites; too bad.
Maybe after the Kaaba and the Prphet’s Mosque were destroyed, without Allah doing anything to prevent it the millions who were not suicide bombees would see sense.
The Israelis nuking large swathes of the ME would be the best thing that could happen in Global terms.
Mean? Un-nuanced? Oh yes, absolutely.
The ‘slims understand one thing and one thing only – superior force; any reading of history leads to this inescapable conclusion, islam respects superior firepower and overwhelming force.
Reconquest of Spain? The Spaniards threw ALL of them out, the moors understood that very well. Battle of Lepanto? Don John massacred the Turk, beheading the Turkish admiral on his own quarterdeck, the Turks understood that. We lost Rhodes, but De Lisle Adam made sure the Grand Turk left fifty thousand dead men before he raised his flag. History is full of too many examples to list here; freeing the Greeks, siege of Acre (stop raiding for Christians – or we’ll obliterate the rest of your cities), two sieges of Vienna, on and on.
Until they suffer another absolute Wrath of God style visitation from the West, they will continue to believe that they are somehow ‘winning’, and we are not good with attrition.
Sorry if this offends, yes it would be terrible to see the fathers searching through the rubble beneath the red skies for the burned remnants of their children; but not as bad as I would find it searching through the rubble for the burned remnants of mine.
Robert, James,
Yeah, right and we’d have and the millions of muslims in the Western World would go nucking futz. You think the suburbs of Paris are bad now… You ain’t seen nutin yet!
Well, there’s a way around it. We round ’em all up and kill ’em. I hope the death camp next to you house won’t really take too much off you house value…
And Islam gets ’em young and in the madrassahs they keep hitting ’em with it. So it wouldn’t just be the adults you would be gassing.
It’s just not going to happen and it’s unthinkably evil. It makes us at least as bad as them.
Although I do think it would be cute to fit up a hog carcase with Paveway gear and piggy-squash Amadinnerjacket. from a B-2 during his regular hate-fests.
Nick –
Sorry, but I’d rather be “at least as bad as them.” then dead, and in the end that will be the options that you have. And I speak as someone who has been working in the ME since 1983 – with good friends there who are followers of Islam.
Muslims are easy to control/rule/subdue. Ask any Ottoman. Just go to the Turks, digitize all their old archives, read through ’em for twenty years, and you will learn exactly how to keep the restive natives in line. Nobody messed with the Grand Signior. Well, not for long. The whole religio-social structure is based on submission and obedience – they will just have to be retrained to obey US.
Pres. Bush is doing, IMHO, a great thing by attempting to treat them as equals, or if you will, trying to raise them up to our level (of social functioning). It would be much easier, where the rubber meets the road, to simply use Ottoman methods. But that defies the whole proposition on which the USA is based: that all men are created equal. So it would be better, in theory, not to do so.
THe other thing is that the best way to eat an elephant is: one bite at a time. Arab elites are not bone-stupid and are capable of recognizing or at least noticing the handwriting on the wall. If we want to trim Islamofascism one piece at a time, we have to provide, how shall I say, a ‘safety net’ for these elites, a ‘glide path,’ or whatever euphemism you like for a relatively graceful way out.
Many criticize Bush for coddling the Saudis, for example, and for tolerating their various excesses (some lethal). But true righteous fullbore action against KSA would certainly lead to the demise of all those buggers, and as certainly would be opposed in all possible ways. And KSA is as close to friends as we have typically had over there.
So not only would it become a knock-down-drag-out fight, which if we could avoid we would be wise to, but quite possibly the survivors and future elites of a defeated KSA, an Egypt, a Jordan, etc., would be radicals and we would just have to pound them some more.
So we need to deal with them last, later, or in the fullness of time. Iraq by ths standard is low hanging fruit, and scientific method teaches us to deal with the easiest first. Likewise it is prudent to deal with Syria before Iran. Eventually, when it is time to tell KSA to come correct, they will have gotten to the point where they can either lead their people to a compromise with modernity, or at least escape with their lives.
Or we can just plunge the region into chaos. The dark half of me would watch them all die with equanimity, but in fact follow-on effects to the West, such as problems with oil, allow the better angels of my nature to hold the con at present.
Ah, here’s the phrase I sought: ‘controlled crash.’ Yes, the Saudis, Egypt, the Paks, and other semi-stable tyrannies will have to go, but better for all concerned that it be a graceful exit, stage left, or that King X suddenly learn what a free and secret ballot is, and how to run at least a constitutional monarchy, with a subtle religious influence, a tail that does not wag the dog.
If that fails we can always nuke ’em, or put sterility drugs in the water, or something. But it would be nice not to go all massacre-y at the outset, if there is another way.
…thoughts on the Arab-Israeli struggle another time.
Nichevo: ladno.
Which means: “agreed”. Right?
Googled it. Didn’t ask my wife, either!
I would argue that Pakistan isn’t even semi-stable mind, and they have nukes and Warrizistan is tribal and full of Taliban and the whole place is an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.
Damn it Nick, had to spoil the mystery, didn’t you!
Hit “post” too early. Literally “agreed” is the closest, but what it really means is “OK, I hate to admit it, but your plan makes more sense than mine, so I’ll grudgingly go with it”.
BTW, “nichevo” is an even better one, as it is one of those words whose meaning can heavily depend on intonation and body language. Literally it means “nothing”, but said in a certain way it can mean something like “he who laughs last, laughs best”.
Da, eta pravilno ;>
Sure, look at Pakistan. On the one hand they have a few nukes and a lotta Muslim fundies. OTOH they have no oil or anything to steal/anything the world really needs, and they have a really big existential enemy next door, India, which would probably like nothing better at any time than to go stomp on them.
I mean this not to justify their actions (though since both sides of Indo-Pak got nukes, they seem to have quieted down), but to note that they are pretty readily checked, on a global scale.
On the day-to-day stuff, Musharraf correctly realized after 9/11 that not to obey the US would be unsustainable. I would like to think that we have the keys to their official nuclear arsenal or infrastructure, but at least I am pretty sure we have good dope on it and can make a grab should chaos arise.
Speaking of chaos, on the semi-stable tip, yes, we have believed that Pak/Musharraf is one bullet, IED or bad clam away from anarchy or fundie takeover. However, so far this has not happened, with all the motivation in the world for it to do so; there are hints of a stable change of government going on now; and other than the fact that Waziristan is indeed apparently an uncheckable badlands, we SEEM to be getting more or less what we want from them.
Pakistan may not be doing all we could wish, but they are indeed taking casualties in this fight. As for ISI, well hell, they seem to differ from our own rogue CIA only in degree and inclination.
…
Meanwhile, none of the above seems to suggest that we have a good reason to gratuitously annoy the Paks. In fact Bush essentially told Musharraf to stand down. And he seems to be doing it. I really can’t say much for Pakistan but it seems to be a manageable crisis.
With the sole exception, yes, that the consensus of intel says that OBL & Co are ensconced in the Wazir mountains thumbing their noses at us. Okay. Distasteful (if true) but…
Would you rather have OBL in chains, or a red smear on a cave wall – and a half-dozen PAL-less Pak nukes loose in the hands of his cadres? For we all know, don’t we, that AQ, that Islamofascism, doesn’t die cleanly with Osama’s death or captivity.
I think the British have a saying: Softly softly catchee monkey.
“It makes us at least as bad as them.”
History tells us that eventually we will have to be worse than them. The principle enemy is not Islam but our spinless liberal left elite the cringing ,cowering and appeasing of which has brought us to this pass.The Islamists see us as low hanging fruit.
The Islamists see us as low hanging fruit.
It really pisses off Israelis when I say this to them, because they’ve been trying so damn hard to appease the wrong people, but this is partially THEIR fault for not being tough enough. They make the west look wimpy.
They put up with bombs and rockets – why the fuck haven’t they ever made an ultimatum? Like “send another rocket our way, and we’ll hit you so hard the rubble will be bouncing for days.” That’s what the US would do.
The Israelis should have made every single bit of cooperation with the Palestinians contingent on peace, no water, no electricity, no border crossings, no hospitals, no nothing until:
1. No attacks.
2. No incitement: no kids being taught to attack israel, or how to write suicide notes etc., no sermons saying that all of creation hates the jews and wants them slaughtered, no maps missing Israel etc.
Israel is the only country in the world dumb enough to enable her enemies – and the Palestinians are the only people on the planet spoiled enough to expect that war has no consequences.
Well, as an Israeli it does piss me off, because it is true. For years Israel was very reluctant to take any action without the blessing of the US, except maybe for Osirak. I always thought of this policy as being misguided, and was always told that I am naive. Maybe I am. Also, speaking of rockets, the first Lebanon war had an effect on Israel similar to the one Vietnam had on the US, which is to say, not a good one.
sigh, I promised I wouldn’t rise to the bait:
Transfer is the answer. All your dreams of retaliation and such are bandaids on the sucking chest wound.
OK, now pillory me.
…Alisa: You got it! In fact I took the nick because of my great-aunt, a Russian lit professor (who came over as a tot in 1921). As she used to say, “Nichevo covers a multitude of sins.” That’s the handle for me!
Don’t worry about the deeper meaning of “ladno.” Of course you assent to my superior vision. An intelligent, sensitive, beautiful woman like you would have to be honest about it ;>
Nichego (sorry, an obsessive-compulsive nit-picker here…): konechno:-)
I used to advocate transfer, but came to the conclusion that it is too early: not enough suffering on both sides yet. (Of course there was a mini-transfer two and a half years ago, but that one did not count, because it was Jews transferring Jews). Seriously though, it will not solve anything as things stand: Israeli Arabs are not the real problem (yet), despite what Liberman would have us think. And even if/when they are, they are a problem separate from the Palestinian one. Say you can convince (bribe) them to move to the PA. What does that change vis a vis rockets/suicide bombings? Palestinians still want TA and Haifa.
Oh no, sladkaya, you misunderstand me, or maybe I misunderstand the proposals you reference. As I said in a long rant I cut before, the Israeli Arabs can stay. A million or so don’t matter. And fifty thousand old men with REAL keys and REAL, VALID deeds don’t either. Five million or fifty million fakes and descendants is pure silliness. The Pals gotta go.
What PA? That’s not a country, it’s a punchline. No, you would have to exile all non-citizens from all WB/Gaza, or if you like, Judaea and Samaria. Maybe you let them keep Gaza? I prefer not to, even if it is a hellhole. It encourages bad behavior, gives them ideas.
Not boxcars – put them on nice passenger coaches and empty them out ten feet inside Egypt or Jordan (probably the best choice, that’s your “Palestine” national home) or Leb or Syria, with all their goods and chattels and no doubt compensation checks. Or if you think that’s too close, put them on remote-controlled airliners and land them in the empty quarter of Saudi Arabia.
No, the Israeli Arabs cast their lot with Israel and can stay. But (not that I’m there and have to deal with it) Israel is already too small and should get no smaller. I regret the Sinai though perhaps it had to be done. If the Arabs don’t like losing land to us, let them not fight us anymore. The next time they should believe they’ll lose something important.
Besides, then the Arabs will probably kill off the Pals and the whole problem will go away. It’s their problem, why haven’t we managed to convince the world of that point?
…
nichego/nichevo – eh? Is one vernacular? Moscow vs. Odessa or some such?
“nichego/nichevo – eh? Is one vernacular? Moscow vs. Odessa or some such?”
It’s spelled “nichego”, but read/pronounced “nichevo”… Similarly kogo-kovo (whom), ego-evo (him), and many others. Ah, the great Russian language, and it’s peculiarities – just try to get a feeling for the exclamation “Nichego sebe!”…
Plamus: bingo:-) Nichego: later.
NickM,
Sorry, dont agree.
If we do not act in quite a surprising manner towards these boneheaded savages, WE WILL LOSE.
As to the Banilieus of Paris, if Sarkozy grows a pair and sends in the army and CRS, that problem will end; at the moment it remains a cheap evenings entertainment with little consequence. A few broken heads would cure that.
Death Camps? You of all people are surely not equating the scapegoating of 6 million innocent Jews with the possibly necessary internment of a similar number of violent medieval thugs?
They can build them next to me if they want, I live on a boat.
Well, nichego, not going to work, not in the ME I know. First of all, forceful transfer is out of the question. Believe me, I have been thinking about your scenario long and hard for many years now, and unfortunately (?) there is no way I could take part in anything like that. Besides, again, even if we bribe them, who is going to take them? Egypt, SA? I know these guys are crazy, but they are not idiots. Jordan had the pleasure of their company back in the 70ies, and so did Lebanon in the 80ies – ask them how did that end. Of course, things might happen in the future that might change the picture beyond recognition, but in the meantime: ne kak.
Intern (UK alone) nearly two million people? Indefinitely? Or you could kill ’em? Neither will work. Not least because it’s entirely permissable, indeed encouraged, for Muslims in certain circumstances (and this would definitely be one) to lie about their faith… It’s just not practical and other than being able to recruit a few BNP boot-boys you’re not going to get anyone to do it.
There are things that can be done and I’ve posted on them at length here before.
Alisa is right. They won’t take ’em. My understanding is that the Jordanians killed more Palestinians than the IDF ever have. I mean hell, don’t you find it a little surprising that Jordan doesn’t want the West Bank and Egypt isn’t agitating for Gaza? You know, their erstwhile territories.
I forgot to add apropos forceful transfer: the big paradox is that eventually the more morally sound solution may turn out to be the less humane one.
Ooops…ni kak.