re: "Ogabe Administration Makes it Official: Terror and Islam are Non-Related"

Emperor Misha at The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler ("HQ of the Rottweiler Empire. An Affiliate of the VRWC.") has no tolerance for those who would use political correctness as a weapon to disarm us.

Money quote(s):

"(I)t’s henceforth not permissible to use the words “muslim” and “islam” in anti-terror training (h/t Protein Wisdom)"

This sort of thing is going to lead to a seriously messed-up "The-Emperor-Has-No-Clothes" moment. Pres. Bush's "religion of peace" pronouncement has been renewed and expanded under his successor administration to the point where it's impermissible to even consider that perhaps, in just this one little thing, Pres. Bush may have been wrong.

(Pres. Bush may have even known he was wrong, but in CAA's opinion #43 was attempting to head off the Huntington-esque "clash of civilizations" that UBL so desperately wanted to spark.)*

"What “muslim groups” are offended that a “religion” closely tied to 99.99999999999% of terrorism attacks might be mentioned in materials used to train law enforcement to combat terrorism attacks? "

Can you guess?

"The move comes after complaints from advocacy organizations including the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and others identified as Muslim Brotherhood front groups in the 2004 Holy Land Foundation terror fundraising trial."

CAIR. What a surprise. Which reminds me. I need to make sure the Holy Land Foundation documents are linked in my sidebar.

10/21

* It occurs to CAA that #43's understandable reluctance to make this an us-versus-them fight in the near-term with the entirety of the Islamic world, but at the risk of handicapping our efforts in the longer-term, somewhat parallels #41's decision, after 100 hours of combat in Gulf War I, to accept Saddam's ceasefire rather than take Baghdad and inherit the mess that was/is Iraq.

In other words, an understandable and justifiable decision in the short- and near-term timeframes which ends up costing the nation even more dearly over the long run.

re: "Showing contempt"

David Warren at DavidWarrenOnline ("Newspaper columns") wrote a column, the whole of which should be read.

Money quote(s):

"Perhaps we are all getting sick of the word "terrorism." The word is misused as if it represented an ideological faction, rather than a method for getting one's way; and at that, it is used evasively, to avoid naming one's enemy, which, under current strictures, counts as a faux pas." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Terrorism is a noun. It's not an enemy. Terrorism is how the U.S. was attacked on 9/11; terrorism isn't who attacked on 9/11.

"What the Iranian apostate Shia-Muslim revolutionary regime is accused of having plotted - an atrocity in a high-class Washington restaurant, whose focus would be the murder of the Saudi Arabian ambassador - was not exactly terrorism. It may never have been meant to work; it may have been meant to be discovered. In which case, it was pure diplomatic gesture, the meaning of which takes a moment to sink in." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

It's basically flipping us (the U.S.) the bird, and doing it so the Saudis can't help but be forced to see it.

"We have to believe that Barack Obama's people are saner than Ali Khameini's people; or else, where would we be?"

By "people," our Canadian friend (Mr. Warren) seems to mean all of us in the federal departments and agencies, not just the White House or the Democratic Party.

(Which is quite correct, regardless of how individual civil (and foreign) servants may choose to vote.)

"Yet here was an unambiguous act of war, against both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia, that traces to Iran's "supreme leader" Khameini, according to State Department sources speaking anonymously but purposefully to the media. Perhaps not, they say, to the Islamic Republic's malicious clown of a president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (leaving an opening for one of their pet "Iranian factions" theories)." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

As I read earlier today:

"the phrase "act of war" is really a political, rather than legal distinction."

Oh, and there are factions a-plenty in Iran, even within the Iranian government and power structure (which aren't quite congruent).

But evidence that any of these are particularly "moderate" (in Western terms) belongs primarily in the eyes of the beholders.

"(T)he U.S. is now showing the FBI evidence in foreign capitals; presumably to confirm what everyone long suspected: that Iran's leaders are (as we say in Persian) "Majnun."Unhinged they may be, but even a detached wooden door should understand the consequences of an unambiguous act of war. For that would be, war.

Did the Iranians think they wouldn't be caught, or did they think that, if caught, nothing would happen?

The first proposition is crazier than the second; for sad to say, "bad guys" all over the world have been learning that, since the last Stateside election, they can do anything they want to the U.S. with impunity. Unless, they are not actually heads of government, in which case they must watch out for drones." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

This problem goes much further back than the last election; it ebbs and flows with the political vicissitudes. Even Pres. Reagan, he of sainted Conservative memory, isn't remembered for getting much in the way of payback for the Marine barracks bombing (Beirut 1983).

"When the ayatollahs learn that senior figures in their elite Quds force may be denied visas, I'm sure they laugh. They probably laughed harder when Susan Rice, America's UN ambassador, marched into their New York mission Wednesday to deliver a solemn letter. They know the U.S. has no leverage, short of military force, and that for the foreseeable future, force is off the table.

They even know that the U.S. military is about to be asset-stripped, when the current congressional budget-cutting exercise fails: for huge defence cuts automatically kick in when the Democrats decide they don't like the Republicans' alternatives. America has been quitting its thankless old job as "world policeman," with the whole world watching.

The greater risk is now being on the U.S. side, as the Saudis have been nervously discovering."

Denying visas to unsavory corruptocrats is a form of "soft power" that has legs in some parts of the world, but not-so-much in a country like Iran. And anybody who thought that it was a sort of "magic bullet" might consider tendering bids on a certain bridge.

"That Iran has international reach, through agents that can sometimes act competently, should be part of general knowledge. There is, for instance, an under-reported Argentine dimension of the plot."

Iran, or at least "factions" therein, has seen itself as the vanguard of a worldwide (Shia) Islamic revolution since their fundamentalist takeover in 1979. And parallels between their post-revolutionary behavior and that of the Bolsheviks are not accidental, they are deliberate, studied, and intentional. And that includes fielding a revolutionary "international" to do their dirty work abroad.

"(T)heir primary target was the Saudi ambassador. That is the key. The fact this mission was to be carried out on U.S. soil, was meant as a gesture of contempt for American power."

10/15

re: "How Will It End?"

Dymphna continued hosting Zenster's guest-posting, Part the Third, at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war.").

(Advisory to readers: The following excerpted passages incorporate several prime examples of "thinking-about-the-unthinkable." Old "Cold Warriors" will be familiar with the concept. Others may have difficulty wrapping their minds around the idea that not thinking about something may actually increase the likelihood of that "unthinkable" something actually coming to pass.)

Money quote(s):

"Islam has cozened its way into Western civilization and, parading under false colors as an alleged religion, it flies a counterfeit Liberal standard of interfaith Multiculturalism. Besotted with its own temporary successes and newfound “purity” ― through a recent reformation leaving it even more violent, intolerant, misogynistic and puritanical ― Islam is in the process of infiltrating Western civilization to an unprecedented degree."

More and more in the West the reality that Islam more than simply a religion, as we in the West have come to understand what a religion is.

"Islam imprudently brings itself into proximity with danger and eventually this will prove its own undoing. Suffused with delusions of adequacy, Muslims think nothing of constantly antagonizing Western powers who long ago perfected industrialized warfare to an extent that Islam can only dream of, despite its supremacist fantasies."

Writers and thinkers such as Ralph Peters ("Uncle Ralph" would smile to see himself so characterized.) have explored the possible consequences of an Islamic "misunderestimating" of Western ruthlessness in the scientific application of industrialized violence.

"Islam casts outsized shadows which too many in the West mistake for genuine military potency. The exact opposite is true and it is only by using the asymmetrical warfare of terrorism that Islam holds any sway."

Terrorism, like sarcasm, is the weapon of the weak.

"One glimpse of how Islam remains almost entirely reliant upon Political Correctness to drive its Western agenda reveals that this parasitic entity’s success wholly depends upon the frailty of a civilization debilitated by Multiculturalism and self-doubt. This is underscored both by the physical compulsion and violence that lies beneath so much of Islamic doctrine and the fact that no nation in history has ever voluntarily adopted Islam without an application of force being involved."

Don't believe that last part? Read history.

"Little do Liberals understand how they will be among the first who go to the wall should Islam prevail. Nor, in their haste to disarm the world, do they understand that such military ineptitude on their part will see them left with few responses other than nuclear Armageddon when confronted by WMD terrorist strikes. Through appeasement and facilitation, Liberals are Islam’s most dangerous “friends”."

Conventional warfare, particularly if waged on a global basis, is simply too expensive a proposition (for even a continental power with a population in the hundreds of millions) if it has the already developed and weaponized a nuclear capability.

The start-up, R&D, and production infrastructure costs are huge, but once they become sunken costs, the unit costs for nuclear weapons are, relative to mass conventional armies, smaller for a larger "bang."

"This inordinate cost of conventional war needed to obtain even a modicum of peace is, perhaps, the grimmest thing about Islam’s future. As the mask slips and “radical” or “fundamentalist” Islam are revealed to be mainstream and fully compatible with regularly accepted Islamic doctrine, Total War ― something Muslims continue to boast of declaring against the West ― looms evermore probable. However, the economic factors alone point directly away from conventional war.

Truth be told, in the absence of that $96 trillion dollars, there is only unconventional warfare left as a survival option. Nuclear weapons represent the sole existing and cost-effective way of managing hostilities with some 1.6 billion people. Like a proverbial trout in the milk pail, this one simple fact is difficult to ignore. Basic economics dooms perpetually hostile Islam to utter annihilation.

Any expectation of Islam pacifying, moderating or reforming itself must be dismissed out of hand. Islam has already undergone a recent reformation from which it emerged as an even more intolerant, more violent, more puritanical and more misogynistic creed. Those Muslims who do seek any pacification or sincere moderation of Islam’s violent doctrine are usually put to death by more devout believers." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

The figure of "$96 trillion dollars" is arrived at by Zenster through a calculation, based upon the costs of the conventional campaigns waged in Iraq and Afghanistan, if extended to the other fifty Islamic countries.

(CAA does not vouch for the math either way.)

Those hoping that Islam will, in a parallel with the history of Christianity in the West, undergo a moderating reformation have obviously missed how Islam's reformation had already taken place within the past two generations, and representated many awful steps backwards.

(CAA's knowledge of Orthodox Christianity is, alas, somewhat spotty and imperfect. Did the Eastern Orthodox Christian churches undergo anything paralleling the Western Reformation?)

"Recent events in Norway show that long before Muslims manage to demographically displace native Europeans there will begin a serious backlash against the Multiculturalists who have imposed this lethal burden upon the West. It is rather doubtful that American and European culture will go quietly into the Politically Correct Islamic night.

Ironically, as Muslims continue to financially drain the West ― through exorbitant military campaigns, increased security measures, petroleum sales and abuse of social benefits in host countries ― they only increase the eventual appeal of cost effective measures that will be required to subdue Islam. There will also come a time when Western nations begin to recoil at the prospect of sending any more soldiers to die for the sake of letting Muslims erect yet another shari’a government and terrorist production facility.

Complicating all of this is how the concept of military deterrence is essentially nonfunctional as regards Islam. A culture that glorifies and worships death is more than difficult to deter. For every bit that the West shrinks from waging Total War, the necessity of posing an existential threat to Islam only increases. When it comes to the ineffectuality of deterrence, no better example exists that of modern day Iran. The ramifications of Ahmadinejad’s tutelage under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini pose some serious issues."

CAA does not fall into the analytic bias that suggests Iran (more precisely, Iran's governmental and non-governmental leadership) is an irrational actor.

Nonetheless, CAA holds that any deterrence analysis of Iran must consider that the rationality of Iran's leadership is not based upon the sort of academic and think-tankery games theory so-beloved in Western capitals.

Mirror-imaging is not your friend!

"(M)ost of his cabinet have little to no military experience. With their being so unlettered in war fighting doctrine, could it not be possible that these appeasers might abruptly discover ― after repeated military budget cuts ― that massive nuclear retaliation was their sole playing card? Again, pro-disarmament Liberals rate as the most dangerous kind of “friends” that Islam could have.

Repulsive in the extreme is how truly avoidable this looming Muslim holocaust really is. A far less costly program of “wetwork” style targeted assassinations directed at the top echelons of Islam’s clerical, political, scholastic and financial aristocracy could see global jihad quickly screech to a grinding halt." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Here you really see some more of that "thinking-the-unthinkable" about which CAA cautioned, over and above considering the nuclear possiblities.

Statecraft, and strategy, ain't beanbag.

The United States' proscriptions against assassinations are, essentially, self-imposed.

Furthermore, in light of the increasing popularity of "targeted killing" within the closed circles of our national decision- and policy-making elites, do not represent so much of a policy-reversal as a nearly-natural progression.

"It is more than safe to say that an industrially and militarily unlettered Islam is not going to take over the world using such a feeble tool as terrorism. As was also noted in Part II, Islam is assembling too many enemies too fast and that pace far outstrips any ability of theirs to perfect the mass production of intricate nuclear weapons nor muster fighting forces of even marginal proficiency. Chronic overreach is a hallmark of Islam and its habit of poking at the Western nuclear dragon with its terrorist pointed wooden stick bodes especially unwell for Muslims everywhere." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Like those who see declining fertility rates in North African (and other majority-Muslim countries) as signs that the Western demographic collapse need not mean replacement by an Islamic majority within the next several decades, this estimate may be overly optimistic.

"Remember that for eight long years, Iran and Iraq fought to a bloody stalemate using chemical weapons and even ten year-old boys as human minesweepers. Less conservative estimates cite up to a million Muslim fatalities with both nations sending the flower of their youth into an insatiable meat grinder. Now, consider how America rolled up Iraq’s sidewalks in two weeks. This is the “reality gap” confronting Islam and its delusory vision of world domination. No such thing will ever happen.

Given that the global caliphate is forever out of reach, whither Islam? What of its obsessive quest for global supremacy? Handily, Israel provides us with a micro synopsis of the macro global problem. Imagine a tiny nation like Costa Rica routinely beating America’s military posterior like a cheap dime store drum. That is the equivalent of Israel defeating the combined military might of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. Please remember that, in Arab culture, humiliation is worse than death. Abandoning conventional warfare in favor of terrorism, the Arab nations intentionally selected a strategy of low-intensity conflict whose upper limit would not trigger direct intervention by the global community." (Emphasis in the original text. - CAA.)

CAA would quibble about that "upper limit." A repeat attack against U.S. targets on par with the death tolls from 9/11 seems to me to be as likely to invite a devastating and disproportionate response as one whose casualties were orders of magnitude higher.

CAA suspects that the American public's reaction, even in the face of presidential pronouncements about Islam's inherent peacefulness, would be more on the order of "fool-me-twice, shame-on-me."

"Few people understand that any sort of “negotiated peace” with Israel would serve to unravel the entire Islamic Arab consciousness. Reaching even the least sort of peace agreement would be a frank admission that jihad had failed. Furthermore, any recognition of a Jewish state would contravene the genocidal doctrine that is a cornerstone of Islam. Acceptance of Israel’s continued existence contradicts Islamic canon on so many levels that any such thing is unimaginable.

Piled on top of this is Israel’s continuous string of military victories against often overwhelming Arab forces. How then to explain that away without an indisputable annihilation of Israel tucked under their Islamic belt? Deprived of any concrete proof that Islam actually can prevail against the eternally hated Jew, please do not begin to imagine that there will be any near term cessation of hostilities, if ever.

Thus we are presented with the micro model of global terrorism. Withdrawal, surrender, in fact, peace of any sort with Islam is simply out of the question. In reality, Islam offers nothing that remotely resembles an actual “peace treaty”. Instead, there is only hudna, a temporarily cessation of hostilities that is specifically designed to permit Muslims the rearming needed to then break that “truce” at their convenience. Whither Israel … whither the global community where Islam is concerned.

So long as the West does not pose an existential threat to Islam’s continued presence on earth, there will be no accommodation of any sort. This is the bottom line. That degree of political will is sorely lacking in the West and, even if it existed, there is little likelihood that anyone involved would appreciate how any such pact with the unbelievers would be broken at the first instant of advantage for Islam."

9/21

re: "NBC: Israel and MEK Responsible for Murdering Iranian Scientists"

Kevin Jon Heller at Opinio Juris ("a forum for informed discussion and lively debate about international law and international relations") explored the legal and political ramifications.

Money quote(s):

"(P)recisely because it is a blockbuster that makes Israel and the MEK’s vast number of Democratic and Republican supporters in the U.S. look bad, (it) has been basically ignored in the “liberal” media"

A surprising number of very prominent politicians and former high government officials have come out in favor of "de-listing" the PMOI. It's something of a puzzlement to me.

"(I)n a rational world it should complicate efforts by the MEK’s U.S. friends to have the MEK de-listed as a terror organization"

So one would imagine.

As I've mentiond, I think, before, one of my major objections to de-listing the PMOI is that it's never come clean about the terrorism that it's known to have committed; in particular the assassinations of U.S. personnel in Iran.

"(B)ombings conducted by a civilian intelligence service such as the Mossad are not excluded from the Convention’s definition of terrorism. So yes, the Mossad’s actions in using MEK to kill the Iranian nuclear scientists qualify as terrorism."

Prof. Heller is referring to something called the "Terrorist Bombing Convention," of which CAA is completely (if momentarily) ignorant. To which the U.S. is a state party.

2/11

re: "When Will It End?"

Zenster guest-posted at Gates of Vienna ("At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe.We are in a new phase of a very old war."), courtesy of Dymphna, with Part one of an essay series.

Money quote(s):

"When Will it End?

Short answer ― It will end when the tipping point is reached.

This tipping point can be defined as follows:

When living with Islam becomes more trouble than living without Islam." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Zenster goes on to develop this idea through a cost analysis.

"If it was possible to set aside terrorism-related loss of life ― and it most certainly is not ― the financial cost alone of combating it is absurd. Let us examine just one single factor; increased waiting times at airports. An extra hour or three doesn’t seem like much until you start doing the math.

Some 1.5 million passengers per day originate from American airports. Domestic flights have a one hour minimum wait time and international travel requires an early check in of at least three hours. We will split the difference and use an average of two hours wait. Even though a majority of domestic flights are not international, please rest assured that this slightly top-heavy coefficient will barely compensate for many other downstream factors.

Two hours of wait time multiplied by 1.5 million passengers equals 3 million working hours lost due to increased airport waiting periods. Airport WiFi services do not begin to counteract these losses in productivity because of how fax machines and other appurtenances of regular business life are usually inaccessible near the tarmac. That represents 3 million hours of lost productivity each and every day just in America alone." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

Zenster continued totaling up this cost estimate for a worldwide expense of over a trillion dollars.

"In a sense, it is as if Islam has found a cunning way of forestalling its own dismantling at the hands of increasingly vexed Western powers. Those one trillion dollars in annual airline security-related waiting times could finance the overturning of yet one more Muslim majority nation per year. Recall, how this is just the global expense of increased airport waiting times that is being discussed." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

There are many other costs, including those of opportunities lost.

"The overall cost burden of Islam’s culture upon Western social benefit structures, law enforcement apparatus and ― via incessant and frequently frivolous Islamic “lawfare” ― its judicial system, is orders of magnitude higher; as will be shown in the subsequent parts of this article. Taken together, these otherwise unnecessary monetary outlays could finance punitive military campaigns against Islam or, as a less bellicose alternative, sponsor all of the needed scientific research into alternative fuels that could render MME (Muslim Middle East), control of oil production moot and unprofitable."

These are all "hidden costs." That is, except for the occasional statistical report from one of a few Western European countries that notes how much of their crimes are committed by, or other prisons inhabited by, those of an Islamic "immigrant background," the increased costs get overlooked. But they are not insignificant.

"Not even the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ― both of which were directed at proven sources of international terrorism ― can be counted as truly effective responses to Islam’s assault upon the West. These so-called “liberations” have gone on to see each country cheerfully adopt shari’a-based constitutions which guarantee they will once again revert to being terrorist manufactories the instant that Western troops depart."

Afghanistan and Iraq are/were only individual theatres or campaigns in the larger war against the enemy only identified as "Terror." We will continue to see the fruits of our reluctance to properly identify and name our adversaries.

"Islamic terrorism will end. It is both unsustainable and an intolerable burden upon the civilized world. Ending it is a matter of obtaining sufficient political willpower and an educated electorate that will no longer put up with ineffectual Politically Correct politicians who continue to ignore, obfuscate or simply deny the need to eliminate such a monstrous drag on global progress."

9/21

re: "Norwegian Lessons"

MikeM at Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") drew some lessons from the Utoya Island shootings in Norway.

Money quote(s):

"Dressed in a police uniform, he called many of the youngsters on the island at a summer retreat to him and opened fire, eventually killing 86 and wounding—at the bombing and on the island--more than 90. His rampage was stopped when he was shot—he survived--by a police SWAT team, but it took approximately 90 minutes from the first shot until the police were able to find transportation and travel to the island."

As Mr. McDaniels notes further down in his post (see red bold type below), when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sometimes lots of minutes.

"There was immediate speculation that the attack was another Jihadist outrage, which these days is far from an unreasonable assumption, but it seems that this attack was most similar to that in Tucson: the act of an evil man, acting alone in response to whatever demons pursued him."

Apparently SJS is not limited to those of the jihadist persuasion. There is no ideological or religious monopoly, after all, on either evil or madness.

"I'll provide only three primary lessons, though there are surely more.

(1) Gun free zones are deadly. In this case, the entire nation of Norway is essentially a citizen disarmament zone. Even though many Norwegians own firearms, even the police do not routinely carry handguns. Utoya island was very much like American schools: isolated, vulnerable, and completely unarmed. In school attacks, and in the attack on Utoya Island, the final body count will depend on the lack of marksmanship and the humanity of the killer(s), who will be stopped only by the intervention of armed police. Even in America, it takes far longer for the police to respond to such attacks than most people realize. When seconds count, it will take the police tens of minutes to arrive and longer to react. On Utoya Island, the killer—exploiting a dream Socialist gun-free zone--had approximately 90 minutes to roam the island at will, killing at a truly leisurely pace." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

In our own fair land, whose federalism has fostered over fifty (don't forget D.C.!) jurisdictions with their own particular interpretations of the Second Amendment, it's more than clear that the easier it is for ordinary law-abiding citizens to arm themselves, the lower the incidence of violent crime.

"(2) Evil exists. The left sees all things through a political lens. All motivations, all meaning may be found in political ideology. Socialist/Statist/Leftist ideology is infallible, so it can never be mistaken. It can never be wrong. Any problems along the way must be attributable to the existence of Conservatism, which keeps Socialism from working properly, or to the fact that not enough time has passed for a given Socialist policy to work properly, or as in the case of gun control issues, insufficient Socialism has been applied. Not until all firearms are in the loving hands of the state can the state protect individual citizens, despite the fact that the state has no obligation—or intention—to protect individual citizens.

Because all is political, morality—to the small degree that leftists recognize its existence, exists only in service to the preferred political narrative. Concepts such as good and evil have no meaning unless they are politically useful, such as evil being applied to those who oppose righteous Socialist policy, which is inherently good."

While I cannot personally vouchsafe the existence of Satan as an individual manifestation and personification of evil, it's more than clear to me that there is evil abroad in the world. The presence and persistence of evil acts, evil men (and women), and evil governments makes this inarguable.

"One need not be a Christian to believe in evil, for evil is manifested most meaningfully in acts, not words. The most revealing evidence of evil in despotism is not in the despot's writings and pronouncements, but in the millions of innocents they slaughter. On Utoya Island, the killer dressed as a policeman, and knowing that kids would not be alarmed by an armed policeman, called them to gather around him and betrayed their trust in the loving state by shooting them. He spent 90 minutes, taking his time, calmly walking about the island and shooting everyone he could find, killing 86 and wounding a great many more. He reloaded multiple times. If this was not evil, evil has no meaning." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

"(3) One indisputable fact remains: If a single, capable innocent on that island was armed, the killer could have been stopped and nearly two hundred children would not have been wounded or killed. Life could have been preserved and evil defeated. Evil cannot be appeased or reasoned with; it must be confronted and destroyed.

This was not possible because of what Socialists would surely consider one of their greatest accomplishments, an achievement they would see as indisputable evidence of more advanced evolution, of more enlightened humanity: the more or less complete disarmament of an entire nation, including its police.

The media and Norwegian and American politicians sharing the same political and social views will be unable and unwilling to recognize or accept this final, simple truth. They will argue instead for even more disarmament of the law-abiding and innocent, and the suppression of political ideas with which they disagree, even in a country that has no First or Second Amendments, for all must be made to serve the narrative."

I can't improve on Mr. McDaniels words above.


7/25

re: "Homegrown Terrorists Love al Qaeda, But Not As Much As You'd Think "

Rusty Shackleford, Ph.D. at The Jawa Report ("Sand people. Get it?") commented on a piece at by J.M. Berger at The Atlantic.

Money quote(s):

"From an academic point of view the distinction between targeting civilians and those in the military is important."

In the realm of warfare, the distinction is critical, since targeting civilians can be a war crime.

(Note: Combatants who do not wear uniforms are not necessarily civilians, which also touches on the subject of war crimes.)

"Perhaps the distinction is important only because the most apt description of these 'homegrown terrorists' has fallen out of use, mostly for PC reasons.

In the past we didn't call them terrorists, we just called them traitors." (Emphasis in original text. - CAA.)

One popular terrorist activity of the 1970s was the hijacking of passenger aircraft. This is still termed, occasionally, "air piracy."

Let's go down that road. If terrorist hijackers are air pirates, perhaps other terrorist activities are better classified as modern-day versions of the age-old phenomena of piracy, banditry, and brigandage?

The common thread here? Terrorists, by their acts and their nature, place themselves outside the normal course and protection of civilized law, as pirates, bandits, and brigands always have done.

They should be dealt with accordingly.

7/19

re: "We all know Saddam had no WMDs"

Uncle Jimbo at Blackfive ("the paratrooper of love") understands that the major media (and much of your government) has been in major denial for years.

Money quote(s):

"The author got this info from the Duelfer Report and notes that most people only read the exec summary. There was plenty of nastiness, and while he wasn't linked to the 9/11 attacks he played with plenty of terrorists. The left loves to whine about WMD lies, false reports and no ties to terror. Yeah well that is just BS. He was a menace, murderous tyrant and a known user of chemical weapons. We were and truly justified in taking him out and the world ought to be thanking us."

If you have the opportunity to chat with anyone in, for instance, the EOD community who served in Iraq, you can get an earful about all the "no WMD in Iraq" they disabled.

9/15

re: "Saddam, WMD’s, and Terror"

Jim Lacey at The Corner ("a web-leading source of real-time conservative opinion") explained what's actually in the Duelfer Commission Report.

Money quote(s):

"The Left said this document proved there were no WMDs — of course, they only read the executive summary. The commission was put together to look into what went wrong with prewar intelligence, and that is what they reported out on. However, in the two volumes no one bothered to read, the commission members detail all of the stuff that was actually present. You have to read almost to the end of volume three to learn about the real bio-warfare labs.

As for Saddam’s links to terror, here is a short version of a report I co-wrote. All of the information in volume one of the report comes from captured Iraqi documents"

This is the sort of thing that explains why I begin to get so exercised whenever the party line about "no WMDs in Iraq" gets trotted out.

9/15

re: "Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) backs Purple Heart for soldier murdered in Arkansas jihad attack"

Robert at Jihad Watch ("dedicated to bringing public attention to the role that jihad theology and ideology plays in the modern world, and to correcting popular misconceptions about the role of jihad and religion in modern-day conflicts") spotted a superb example of constituent service by one of our congressional representatives.

Money quote(s):

"Carlos Bledsoe, also known as Abdulhakim Muhammad, is serving a life sentence without the chance for parole after pleading guilty and admitting his motivation for the shootings stemmed from the United States’ presence in the Middle East. Bledsoe converted to Islam, became radicalized in Nashville, TN and travelled to Yemen in 2007 where he was arrested by Yemeni authorities in 2008. Following his deportation from Yemen in 2009, he attacked the Little Rock recruiting center, killing Long and wounding Ezeagwula." (Bold typeface added for emphasis. - CAA.)

Bledsoe (a.k.a. "Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad'") traveled to Yemen where he spent two years learning to become a "mujahid." The year (give-or-take) spent in jail wouldn't have been all that likely to isolate him from even more radicalizing influences. The argument that Bledsoe's murderous actions had no "international terrorism" character holds little water thereby.

12/9

re: "No Foe, No Friend"

Richard Fernandez at Belmont Club discussed having it both ways (or not).

Money quote(s):

"Walter Russell Mead, writing in American Interest, believes the root of the problem is that the President wants to fight terrorism in two potentially contradictory ways: as a war and a non-war; as combat and as law enforcement. In his view the Al-Awlaki operation highlights the problem of trying to have it both ways at once."

It's interesting how this circle has been squared. Rightly or wrongly, then-presidential candidate Sen. Kerry was vilified for comparing international terrorism for comparing international terrorism to a law enforcement problem such as prostitution (IIRC). But keeping one's options open is generally thought to be a good thing.

"(W)hat Walter Russell Mead believes and what Barack Obama believes are two different things. While Mead may want clarity, Barack Obama is following the time honored political tradition of creating two sets of rules which he can separately invoke as convenience demands. When it suits him to act the “law enforcement officer” in order to mollify his left wing base and European opinion, then he will don that hat. When it suits him to act like a Commander in Chief to prevent the eventuation of a threat (which would lose votes), he will don the other other hat."

We should be thankful that sufficient motivation exists for acting like a commander in chief.

"The basic cultural problem is the media has conditioned the public not to be able to handle the truth. Certain segments of the public want safety but don’t want to be told how it is obtained."

"You can't handle the truth!"?

Well, judging by what we've seen of the Occupy Wall Street phenomena, Solyndra, and other stories, there's no desire on the parts of many to be told the truth, at least not by those who those many are likely to be listening.

"But trying telling the truth on the air and a whole line of pundits will queue up to call you a bigot and warmonger; except when the same set of people aren’t demanding that you do the opposite to be kept safe. Walter Russell Mead is right. You can’t have it both ways. But it is politically incorrect to say so. Therefore people like Judyth Hill of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation can say with a straight face that our response to September 11 should be to “make soup … Breathe in terrorists and breathe out sleeping children and fresh mown fields”. This passes for wisdom and if you disagree you’re a bigot.

And since logic like that can stand as public policy, we will inevitably reap its logical conclusion. We’ll get fantasy for fantasy. A fantasy strategy will eventually result in an imaginary victory for the protection of imaginary rights. Because what goes around comes around. You get what you pay for. So what does US citizenship count for? What in a war or under law enforcement? It is ironic that no one realized that when the clear bright line between enemy and dissident was muddled that everyone would wind up in the same pot. When there are no enemies — except sometimes, then there will be no rights — except sometimes."

10/2

re: "Obama Continues to Ignore Iran's Arming and Training of Shiite Militias as American Soldiers Die"

Confederate Yankee ("Because liberalism is a persistent vegetative state.") defines an enemy.

Money quote(s):

"American soldiers in Iraq are being attacked and killed with increasing sophisticated weapons provided by Iran"

That statement has been true since at least 2004.

"Training is being provided by the Revolutionary Guards, which supports Shia terrorism worldwide.

A stern response in the form of a series of "accidents" at Iranian Revolutionary Guards bases or among IRG commanders might get Iranian attention, and if carefully targeted, could decapitate the leadership authorizing the attacks without overt war. It would be fighting Iran on its own terms, in the kind of guerilla warfare fighting Americans have excelled at since Major Benjamin Church led the first American ranger units in King Philips War a hundred years before we were an inkling of a nation.

We know how to defeat Iran at their own game. We simply need the political will to engage in this kind of conflict and win.

Of course, there doesn't seem to be the political will to counter Iran"

A truly lovely idea.

re: "China: Please Repudiate Your T-Bills That We Own And Impose Trump-Level 1000% Tariffs On The Shoddy Crap We Sell You"

Ace at Ace of Spades HQ knows (as does China) that warfare is fought in many dimensions.

Money quote(s):

"This was sort of inevitable, and it's pretty bad. China has long supported every indecent country in the world, because America has alliances with most of the decent ones."

China has, and has had, for decades, a Non-Interference Policy (NIP). That essentially meant that it would do business with you and not worry overmuch about your internal affairs. Sort of the stance China would like the rest of the world to take regarding China's internal affairs.

"China has now made it official: an attack on Pakistan (terrorist hunting) is now to be taken as an attack on China.

They have extended their own security zone to the terrorist state of Pakistan, which means China is now officially a terrorist sponsor."

Ace is, as usual, a few steps ahead of the rest of the United States, including with regards to treating the state of Pakistan as an actual enemy of the U.S., rather than as a partner in the war on terrorism, &tc.

I'm not saying he's necessarily wrong, but perhaps prematurely right.

"(L)ucky us. We just found a trillion and a half dollars we thought we were in the hole for, but now we're not."

Chinese strategists plan for assymetrical operations in all theaters, all dimensions, of war, particularly against peer or near-peer opponents. Included in those battlefields will be the financial and economic dimensions. Being prepared to return fire effectively isn't the worst idea I've ever heard.

re: "Empower Iranians vs. Tehran"

Daniel Pipes at DanialPipes.Org ("a fast way to comment on many topics") has news from and about Iran.

Money quote(s):

"How should Western governments deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which Washington labels "the most active state sponsor of terrorism"?

Iranian aggression began in 1979, with the seizure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the holding of some of its staff as hostages for 444 days. Major subsequent attacks included two bombings in Beirut in 1983: at the U.S. embassy, killing 63, and at a U.S. Marine barracks, killing 241."

And that's just hitting some of the high spots. Essentially, they have been waging war against the U.S., albeit mostly at a lowish sort of intensity, since 1979 to the present time (and presumably more to follow).

(My apologies to those whose personal experiences with, por ejemplo, explosively formed projectiles, were undoubtedly highly intense.)

"American responses fall into two main camps: tough and diplomatic."

"The diplomatic camp, which generally controls U.S. policy, accepts the permanence of the Islamic Republic of Iran and expects Tehran to respond to diplomatic overtures.

A main battleground in this dispute is the question of whether or not the most prominent Iranian opposition group, the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MeK), should remain on the U.S. government's terrorism list. The tough camp generally views the MeK, founded in 1965, as a lever against the mullahs and (with a minority dissenting) wants it delisted. The diplomatic camp argues that delisting would anger the Iranian leaders, hampering efforts to improve relations, or (contradictorily) would limit Washington's ability to reach out to the Iranian street.

The pro-MeK side argues that the MeK has a history of cooperating with Washington, providing valuable intelligence on Iranian nuclear plans and tactical intelligence about Iranian efforts in Iraq. Further, just as the MeK's organizational and leadership skills helped bring down the shah in 1979, these skills can again facilitate regime change. The number of street protestors arrested for association with the MeK points to its role in demonstrations, as do slogans echoing MeK chants, e.g., calling Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i a "henchman," President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "dictator," and shouting "down with the principle of Velayat-e Faqih" (that a religious figure heads the government)."

There are merits to both arguments. Since the PMOI doesn't even own up to its past terrorist record against U.S. targets (i.e., murdered U.S. servicemen in 1970's Iran), they don't get a pass from me on this.

"The anti-MeK faction does not address the benefits of delisting but argues that the U.S. government must continue the listing on the basis of allegations of terrorism. Their indictment notes that the MeK killed six Americans in the 1970s. Whether or not these allegations are accurate, a terrorist incident must have occurred within two years to continue with the terrorist-group designation—rendering discussion of the 1970s completely irrelevant."

The "two years" rules is news to me. I followed the link and, admittedly, didn't read the whole Public Law, but when I went to the 8 U.S.C. section that appeared to be amended, the only "two years" that seemed to apply were purely procedural in nature (having to do with a petition period that occurs two years after an organization is designated for the list) and had nothing to do with the length of time since an organization last committed a terrorist act.

"The pro-MeK side points to three main U.S. terrorist databases—the RAND Database of Worldwide Terrorism Incidents (RDWTI), the Global Terrorism Database (GTD), and the Worldwide Incidents Tracking System (WITS) -- and notes that in each one the MeK comes up clean since 2006 or earlier."

See above. If they won't even admit to what we know they did against us in the past, why would we trust them in the future?

"(C)apabilities and intentions? The State Department's 2006 "Country Reports on Terrorism" accused the MeK of maintaining "capacity and will" for terrorist acts but the 2007, 2008, and 2009 reports omitted this statement. Britain's Court of Appeal derided proscription of the MeK as "perverse," and the group was removed from the U.K. terrorist list in 2008. The European Union cleared the group of terrorism charges in 2009. The French judiciary dismissed all terrorism-related allegations against the group in May 2011."

This is where Mr. Pipes makes some sense. The West and the U.S. specifically are very much not the PMOI's enemies and have not been so for years. In fact, their military arm at Camp Ashraf is very much dependent upon the U.S. for protection.

He concludes:

"In brief, the argument to maintain the MeK's terrorist designation is baseless."

Nah, there's still a base, it's just not getting any younger; just like the families of the U.S. servicement killed by PMOI assassins in Iran all those years ago. An admission of responsibility, an apology, and some reparations to the families would go a long way in cementing the PMOI's credibility.

"Following a court-mandated review of the MeK's terrorist designation, the secretary of state must soon decide whether to maintain this listing. With one simple signature, the Obama administration can help empower Iranians to seize control over their destiny—and perhaps end the mullahs' mad nuclear dash."

For more on that, see Lex's latest here.

re: "Invasive TSA Procedures WIll Get Worse Until We Recognize the Threat"

Dave Reaboi at Big Peace understands that the first step is not only admitting there is a problem, but in correctly identifying its nature.

Money quote(s):

"A massive bureaucracy, by nature, accumulates data points– if only to prove its usefulness and justify the money spent on it. What’s more, this tendency is exaggerated by our civilian and military leadership’s obstinate refusal to understand the source of the problem.

It’s in the nature of DHS and the TSA is absurdly invasive precisely because they’re not looking at the actual threat indicators, beginning with examining the ideology that’s responsible for nearly all of the world’s intentional terror against civilians today, Shariah. Instead, political and bureaucratic leaders view this great ideological battle through the lens of theoretical models of antisocial behavior often based on gang violence. As we have seen, they will do anything but try to understand the methodology and characteristics of the jihadist movement like its practitioners understand it themselves."

Most tactical and operations level folks, I firmly believe, understand this. And at the level of strategy, at least some of our flag and general officers get it, even if they don't speak openly. But at the level of grand strategy, we're clearly getting played.

re: "Ending America: The Slaughter of Free Speech, Congress to "explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech" "

Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs ("Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction.") takes her (and your) freedom of speech seriously.

Money quote(s):

"The very idea that our legislators would restrict free speech and impose the sharia (blasphemy laws) as a response to inhuman barbarity is an act of sedition and treason. When did we ever shred America's golden, historic principles in submission to bloody savage totalitarianism? If America really understood what was happening here and was not psy-oped by an enemedia, they would take to the streets with pitchforks and torches."

Whoa. She had me at pitchforks and torches.

(Everyone always forgets the hayrakes.)

"The idea that this will threaten American troops is just another terror tactic. This is based on the assumption that they are fighting us because we are doing things they don't like. Actually they are fighting us because of imperatives within the Islamic faith. They will never like us unless we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. If we stop doing things they dislike, where will we draw the line? How far will Sharia advance in the U.S., with Americans afraid to stop its advance for fear of offending Muslims and stirring them up to violence? This is incompatible with American freedom. We have to draw the line."

It helps if one takes into account what ones enemies claim they are doing, and why. Attributing some other set of motives (poverty, anti-colonialism, environmentalism) based upon ivory tower precepts generated in Western think tanks betrays some serious mirror-imaging cognitive bias.

"Limiting free speech won't stop the jihadis from killing people. It will have just the opposite effect, but serve as reinforcement of their murderous actions. More people will die. Many more." (Bold type in original. - CAA)

re: "Ground Zero Imam: Islam is a Religion of Peaceful People Who Fly Off the Handle Over Mere Speech"

Aaron Worthing at Patterico's Pontifications ("Harangues that Just Make Sense") is watching the pre-game before the King hearings.

Money quote(s):

"Mind you, they haven’t actually happened yet, but for some reason the mere fact he going to have some kind of hearings justifies shutting it down. Why? Because his utterly peaceful co-religionists might go all terrorist over this."

What's that cliche from the first few months after 9/11? Something like: if you shut down the hearings then the terrorists win.

"I have long identified this as freeloading on terrorism, where a supposed “moderate” Muslim tells those of us in the West, don’t draw cartoons of Mohammed (pedophilia be upon him), don’t criticize his faith and so on. Because, you know, if you do, one of us Muslims are going to go and commit terrorism.

In short, don’t actually exercise and enjoy your freedom. Live your lives limited by intimidation. And then we will get along famously."

Nice little Bill of Rights you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.

"(I)nstead of trying to talk us out of exercising our freedom, if you really think your co-religionists can’t be expected to control themselves, why don’t you work on that instead? That seems like the bigger problem to me.

It comes down to this. Either Islam is compatible with freedom or it is not."

That is the key question. We already know that the Judeo-Christian West is compatible with freedom, because they essentially invented it. And they're not exactly stingy about franchising either.

"(I)f you can’t expect Muslims to deal with criticism, blasphemy, etc. without going on a killing spree, then Islam is not compatible with American freedom. And I don’t think you want to see where that road takes us.

But I know for a fact this isn’t true. I know of and work with Muslims every day who would never resort to violence over that kind of thing. They rightly consider statements like Imam Feisel’s as a betrayal of those millions of good Muslims who believe in freedom and Allah.

But it is hypocritical, Imam Feisel, to try to reap the benefits of terrorism without admitting responsibility for terrorism. It is hypocritical to pretend to denounce terrorism while simultaneously enabling it. And It is hypocritical to say that your people will murder over mere words, but to simultaneously pretend that Islam is not a problem in America."

One of the strengths of Western Civilization is its reverence for reason, for working things out, and for being unwilling to overlong tolerate the holding of mutually exclusive ideas and ideals. It took nearly a century and then the bloodiest of civil wars but the United States worked out the slavery vs. all-men-are-created-equal inconsistency. (It only took another century to get to the Civil Rights Act that took that logical contradiction another lap closer to resolution.)

So given our history, Americans aren't all that likely to be unendingly patient with this sort of cognitive dissonance.

re: "PJ’s Poor Judgment"

Greg Gutfeld at Big Hollywood is experiencing an increasingly common symptom of distust.

Money quote(s):

"(W)hen I hear of an act of terror, an internal clock starts clicking.

I wonder, how long before we find out the suspect is a radical Islamist.

And then, how long before that affiliation is rejected as vital to the crime.

Witness the murderous acts against our military in Frankfurt: it was only a matter of hours before the killer’s links to radical Islam were exposed.

And it was only a few hours later, that we saw an Administration official dismiss that notion."

A/S Crowley (Colonel, U.S. Air Force Retired) has an unenviable job. I wouldn't take it at gunpoint. Well, not that anyone's likely to ever offer me any job anywhere near the assistant secretary level, but he has to walk a very fine line between needing to put lipstick (our lipstick) on a pig (our pig) and uttering any actual untruths.

Diplomacy can be like that.

Remember that we don't want the GWOT to devolve into an actual civilization-level all-out total war between the West and Islam. That's what UBL and Al-Qaeda would like.

(After all, an ideology designed to thrive in the 7th century might be just the thing to dominate the rubble remaining after such a conflict.)

Pres. Bush (43) got that (and several other big things) right.

"(A) killer can shout Allahu Akbar – just like at Ft. Hood – and the Administration still won’t “commit.” They only see a man with no affiliation–because decades of ingrained political correctness have taught them to be fearful of pointing out that affiliation. It’s bigotry, after all.

Look, making no mention of terror won’t make terror go away."

This is one of our American cultural blindspots, and it's something we can't afford to persist as a mental default position. At this point, short of firing squads the most effective remedy for this sort of knee-jerk political correctness is to ridicule it. Hold it up to the light and laugh at it; once enough comedians are poking fun at it and enough Americans realize what a laugh-line it is, it's bound to change.

re: "Obama Promises Inquiry on Airmen Attack—Huge Sigh of Relief"

Robert J. Avrech at Seraphic Secret ("blogging his way to... What?") echoes a growing sentiment of exasperation.

Money quote(s):

"Now come on, admit it, the first thought that popped into your head when you heard about an attack on American servicemen in Germany was that it must be a Mormon, a Catholic priest or a right-wing Evangelical who pulled the trigger."

Actually, the first thing I thought was to check my watch so I could start the countdown to the official FBI announcement of there being no connection to terrorism.

Then I had some thoughts about how this sort of attack, of people just outside of an airport's security screen, were recently projected as the next most likely targets.

"(I)t's really a mystery why this German-born, devout Muslim slaughtered American soldiers.
And as long as it remains a mystery—or a man-caused disaster—to Barack Hussein Obama and his clueless administration, we in the West will continue to be sitting ducks for the jihadists who are determined to destroy Western civilization."

re: "Backlash"

Lex at Neptunus Lex ("The unbearable lightness of Lex. Enjoy!") notes a development in Switzerland.

Money quote(s):

"Aging liberal democracies valued their social schemes more than their national identities, and imported vast numbers of aliens to buttress the ranks of working classes too content in the arms of an all embracing state to be bothered reproducing themselves. Attracted by the opportunities of liberal economies, too many of these immigrants brought with them the seeds of the same destruction that had wrecked their homelands, along with their carefully nurtured resentments. An unwillingness to fully assimilate to their new homes brought class stratification and economic stagnation, compounded by the burdens of unfashionable birth rates. Thus was born a permanent, self-isolating lower class, steeped in the legend of their own cultural superiority, always denied the sweeter fruits of the societies they had attached themselves to, whether out of poverty or puritanism. Thus agitation, crime and even terrorism. Thus reaction."

&

"(T)he peoples of Europe have begun to see what cannot be hidden any longer. It was illuminated by the burning wrecks of automobiles in France’s zones sensibles, where even the police fear to tread, and given voice at last by Germany’s Angela Merkel, who was forced to admit that her country’s multicultural experiment had failed. In England it has been underlined by rape gangs and a series of women falling to their “accidental” deaths from apartment buildings.

If centrists political parties will not speak about the elephant in the room, the people will speak of it among themselves."