Khatami blames US policies for terrorism while speaking in Chicago

Fighting crime creates more crime! Fighting Islamic terror creates more Islamic terror!

In other words, we're provoking attacks by not surrendering and falling in line with the jihadist agenda, so it's all our fault.

Its not only the idiocy of this guy saying what so many Mohammedans are saying, its also that he finds a lot of gullible fools who are eager to believe his drivel.

Yes, and there is always Peanut Khadr who wants to meet him. Watch for some real history in the making!

l dont think western governments care much about who they let in, l was stopped and taken over for secondary inspection,the US customs official who pulled me over looked like he just immigrated from Iraq! he could hardly speak English! when l walked in, there were many people of various ages, no one was middle eastern male! the lady who came after l was pulled over was in her 30's with a baby in a car seat. yeah you see we are suspects and need more inspections. yesterday l actually got the same bozo, customs man from iraq, he asked me again, l boldly looked at him in the eyes, and just about dared him to pull me over. l had my working dog who is titled with the highest police European titles(IPO3) with me, boaz sat patiently in his cage, and the idoit asked me if he was friendly, l said only to his friends lol.. he backed off, and let me go.. now how did this idoit ever become American and now a US customs officier?

Me, I'm all in favor of the traitor to the Young Shah and peddler of . . . you know, so long as the FBI is taking color photos of the people who are flocking to listen to It's verbal vomit. I think it will be nice to have good close up shots of It's supporters.

Thoroughly despicable. Known terrorist from a nation that is calling for Israel to be wiped off the map. If these types are let in, can you imagine who we let in and are worse?

Clearly Khatami had assistance in writing his speech from Howard Dean. His talking points are straight from the DNC. Another hit for the American left column! CHEERS!

Mere reporting would require that the speech alone be reproduced or quoted. Much better than mere reporting, however, would have been the analyst who asks, as he reports on the speech, exactly how Khatami thinks American foreign policy explains the behavior of Muslim attacks in the Sudan, against both non-Muslim and non-Arab Muslims, against Buddhists in Thailand, against Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan and Indian-controlled Kashmir and in India itself, against Christians in Pakistan and Nigeria. The same reporter/analyst, rather than merely reporting, would also want to remind readers about, and ask rhetorically for their benefit, what American policies or attitudes have to do with the orchestrated attacks on Denmark and its citizens for one Danish newspaper daring to exercise its rights of free speech, what American policies account for the daily vandalism and expressions of hatred toward not only the forces of order, but to all "brigittes" and male French as well, by the hatefilled Arabs who have made so much of France so dangerous and so unpleasant and for the French so expensive, and one would wish to note, in the same article, what Khatami makes of the expressions of "understanding" for the Underground bombers in Great Britain by many of its Muslims, and the behavior of Muslims in Holland (where two members of Parliament have had to live under armed guard, and where two of the country's most notable figures -- Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh -- were murdered, the first by a tool of Muslims, the second by a Muslim).

There is not, and can not be, a "dialogue" with Khatami. It is only by comparison -- comparison with Khomeini or current Supreme Guide Khamenei, or with the assorted Ahmadinejads and Khalkhalis whom the Islamic Republic of Iran has thrown up in such abundance -- that this awful man appears to be, for some, a figure worth entering into some idiotic "dialogue" with. The same people who would have falled for Putzi Hanfstaengl in the 1930s, the same people who, in good Remains-of-the-Day style, would have been semi-supporters of the Cliveden Set or of the awful Edward and his tarty wife who visited Hitler and found nothing at all wrong with what they saw or heard -- well, they are with us again. They think of themselves as intelligent war-avoiders. They think of themselves as being on the right side. Just because Bush and Company have been such fools in Iraq, does not mean that we are obliged to differ from them in other ways, when they may be right, or may be far more correct than those who automatically despise them.

Khatami should never have been allowed in. This country, like so many countries, has all kinds of fools, just waiting to be fooled, eager to be fooled. Don't make it even easier.

Who gave this monster a two week visa?

Nicholas Burns in the State Department. He seems to be Condi's second in command.

How many guns are in the US and no one's taken a shot at Khatami yet? You're missing your chance!!

Go home and spit your rants you old bastard! The midwest seems to be a hot bed for the jihaders! Illinois,Ohio,Michigan,Indiana,West Virginia. Here in Columbus, there have been stores shut down due to suspicious activity and all the cell phone sales between here and Michigan. Arrests happening about every couple of weeks here in the state. It seems that they are in the core of the US and will soon begin to spread outward.

What I want to know is why hasnt he arrested for aiding and abetting known terrorist groups as soon as he set foot on US soil.

To the FBI, CIA, state department and all those that have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution of the US if you are reading this, WTF are you playing at!

Muslims kill Mulims and non Muslims, that's how they started off that's what they do. They have been doing that for 1300 years and now all of a sudden it's the American's fault!

Grand Alliance of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs

It is time to form a Grand Alliance of Jews, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs to fight and resist the clear and unacceptable Islamic threat to our cultures and our democratic ways. If our governments and leaders won't properly recognize the threat and defend us, then we owe it to our families to rise to our own defencse. Spread the word throughout the internet, and let this idea take root and grow.

Let us ally ourselves, and give those who threaten our safety the jihad they so desire - culturally, politically, and physically - before it is too late.

"Lead, don't appease."

- Rosemont

Anyone heard about this? Seems that they are keeping this very quiet...and it only happened yesterday! Nothing here folks...move on....

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann090206.htm

Much like the quiet reporting on the muslim in California who went on a rampage to kill pedestrians! I believe that was the second time in the past few months. Oh, but he was only 'insane' nothing here folks...move on....

KM, those agencies are overrun with leftist apologists and Muzbot spies. They are about as useful to our national security as an all-day marathon of Will & Grace.

Just think - Khatami does his schtick all around Chicago and then heads back to his hotel to retire for the evening. He kicks back in his bed and, just before ordering the obligatory adult skin flick, he channel surfs for a few minutes. During this time he is exposed to MTV, Richard Gere late night movie reruns, and cable news gushing over how wonderful Muslims are. This must make him chuckle and think, gee, we really just might be able to take down these numb nuts. After all, they did let me in.

hitler lecturing the Brits in 1938 ?

we are demented and we will pay for our stupidity, it's called Karma and it works perfectly.

the liberals who invite these thugs and the muslim fiLth column who supports him will come to the comb too, it's just matter of time.

Fanaticism is short, history is long.

This is what I have been complaining about for a long time. The Whitehouse and the State Department are staffed with spineless cowards or outright enemy agents. Allowing Khatami in to spew his Isalmic Venom is a direct slap in the face and a kick in the groin of every non-muslim in this country. We cannot allow another slap or another kick. But what in the hell can any ordinary person do? Robert S. is doing good work and is risking his life, but the only people listening to Robert are our enemies. Has anyone from government sent an encouraging e-mail to JW/DW? George Bush has his own agenda and it does not seem to be in out best interest. I hope Mr. Bush lives well with his memories and his fortune. When he leaves office, they can build the George Bush library in Riyadh; he's the best president the Saudi's ever had.

Someone, please tell me where I'm wrong?

When November 2008 rolls around, and the candidates do not meet my criteria, I may not vote for the first time since 1968.
Who shall we vote for Tweedle Dum or Tweedle Dee?

He appears to be saying that Muslims do not have the free will of human beings, that their actions are "triggered" by our actions, as if they were merely some explosive chemical in our clumsy brutish hands. Has any Islamophobe ever said a more insulting thing about Muslims?

americaningermany, l cross the Detroit/Windsor border sometimes a few times a week,sometimes once every other weeks, and sometimes more or less. this customs officier asked me how many times l crossed, as my vechile's license plate is logged at the border..l told him l have friends and family in Mich. living by the border legitimate Cdn and Amer. cross over all the time, now it is becoming more of an ordeal. l dont mind the extra questions, but last week when l was pulled over for secondary inspections, l did not notice one middle eastern male! yeah there is a shortage of them in this area! you see how the border officials are wasting precious resources by being PC!

The persons responsible for granting Khatami a visa to enter this country should be examined for their competence to keep this nation's interests uppermost in their deliberations. The things Khatami says do not surprise me and should not surprise any of you. We know what to expect from people like this. He is preening for the American Left and Muslims in this country and the Iranian people. Given his words and where he utters them, shame on this country for letting people like him into the U.S.

The people in the State Department obviously were consulted for this man's visa. More proof that Condi has not cleaned out that filthy enclave of the Leftist holdouts.

What scares me is that a call for a congressional investigation of the how and why the State Department affords visas to the enemies of our country would be totally useless.
See the 9/11 Commission, the "Pardongate" investigation, and others I can't recall right now. Huge amounts of public dollars spent for nothing. The facts "uncovered" during months of hearings and subpoenas and pouring over documents produced nothing that wasn't already known or suspected.

The civil servants who gave Khatami a visa are not "traitors" in the ordinary sense of the word. They just have a multi-culti, pacifist agenda, with a healthy dose of self/America hate
that must be institutional, so much so that Rice's adjunct must have felt wholly entitled and safe in signing her name on the visa approval.

Kofi Annan says Ahmadinejad wants to dialouge, perhaps Condia will have him over for a town hall in Iowa meeting with us American folks ...Jimma Carter can direct the event. W and Laura can cook up some Texas BBQ..

We are at war with resurgent, traditional Islam. Therefore, it boggles the mind that enemy agents such as Khatami are allowed into this country. Would Iran allow people like Robert Spencer, Ralph Peters, or David Horowitz to enter it for the purpose of delivering anti-Mullah speaches? I rest my case. The folks in the State Department simply do not "get it." What is it going to take for them and others who hit the snooze button to finally realize what's going on?

Nice of Khatami to take time out of his busy schedule of hanging (i.e., executing) teenage girls from cranes, and planning world conquest (starting the the annihilation of Israel and "Anglo-Saxon civilization"), to come and lecture the dangerously naive fools who allowed this man into the country (yes, they did applaud his speech).

Quoting Khatami: "He castigated the United States for finding it "more convenient" to deal with despots than democratic regimes that do not serve its interests and he denounced the current "war mongering against Islam and Islamophobia."
"The outcome of such behaviour is the cyclical increase and buildup of hatred towards policies implemented by the United States throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East," he added."

How about Muslims stop their own 'extremist minority' from committing war crimes against humanity, as endorsed by their prophet's 'word of god' Quran? Maybe things can change then?

Does this silly takiyya riddled man understand that our 'foreign policy' is in response to their attacks against us? The only "war mongering" here is their Jihad against the West. Please, oh please, tell them to stop, because it hurts. But we will hurt them in return much worse. Forget about American-European-Israeli 'foreign policy'. How about Iran-Dar-Al-Islam foreign policy with their idiotic suicide bombers and dreams of world conquest for their enslaving Sharia? How about that, Mr. Khatami?

The funniest thing; someone pissed me off the other day with thier cavalier way. I think I'll go out and knock a few innocents off. KIDDING! You get my point.

Antijihadindonesia--I'd rather pelt Khatami with bits of pork offal.

Carter must still have some pull in the State Dept.
how long will it take before it is thoroughly cleaned out. it cannot come soon enough. l did like that picture of Robert with the Carters..its too bad Robert cannot get to Carter with some of his books and tell him to read it and weep.(weep for all his blunders that is) :O )

Anyone heard about this? Seems that they are keeping this very quiet...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/hagmann090206.htm
...Hinsdale Police Chief Bradley Bloom stated: "We're a little concerned, because it was a somewhat sophisticated device......"
************************

Gee, only a LITTLE concerned. Nice. Makes me feel so much safer. What would it take to REALLY concern them, if not a bomb?

So basically he's telling us that ther are NO police forces or military staff in Islamic Nations, WOW , you mean all we had to do was get rid of our Police and the crime would stop.

BTW samhein

In Toronto there was a large explosion
in the parking level of a twin apartment
tower near me, the Media reported a overloaded
Electrical panel .
But, I lived in that area and I didn't see any
Hydro Utility trucks , I did see a mobile Police station trailer and a Ambulance Bus with those smoked-glass windows.
After this Electrical problem there were Police stationed near the towers and private security staff are now present and the doors to the complex get locked at night even though Banking machines are inside the shopping area.

I don't believe this was a Hydro problem, it was a Terrorist problem because the Multicultural make-up of the area and tower apartments existed
during the period of wars and conflicts outside of Canada while people here brought their hatred
with them to Canada.

Although , maybe the Police now handle Electrical problems and Ambulance services
hand around to help the non-victims.

from Hugh: ...exactly how (does) Khatami think American foreign policy explains the behavior of Muslim attacks in the Sudan. (...)against Buddhists in Thailand, against Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan and Indian-controlled Kashmir and in India(...) against Christians in Pakistan and Nigeria. (...)attacks on Denmark...

Excellent post; so logical, so true.

But Khatami would simply argue that all Muslim conflicts in Africa, Far East, Europe, the world, are being manipulated by an evil, worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and American foreign policy supports Israel, so it really is all America's fault. Muslims are always the victim, perpetually "defending" their deity against anything or anyone that doesn't conform to their primitive, deranged view of life.

Logic is a terrible thing to waste on a Muslim.

I managed to get the jump on a busybody at a Barnes and Noble last weekend (while in the process of preordering Robert's upcoming book) who tried to lecture me and anyone else within earshot about "American-imperialistic" Mideast foreign policy being evil. I simply asked: "What would be the excuse for terror- related activity if the U.S. converted to islam and instituted sharia tomorrow?" She literally fumbled some incoherent response and walked off. Delicious! :)

Dear Former Iranian President Khatani

In A.D. 636, when the forces of al Bakr set upon the rural settlements and villages of the Byzantine province of Syro-Palaestina, there was no United States of America or Anglo-Saxon civilization (well, there was a Romano-British civilization barely hanging on in Western Britain against the Saxon raiders). Nor during the ensuing twelve hundred years of jihad conquest. When Tammerlane was slaughtering millions of Hindus and Buddhists, there was no United States of America. During the 8th and 9th centuries, when Islamic armies were slaughtering the inhabitants of Anatolia and Armenia, there was no Uninted States of America. Ditto for your conquests of North Africa, the Iberian Peninsula, Southern Gaul, Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece, the Balkans, and parts of Eastern Europe.

Your justification for jihad is right in your "holy" book, the Qur'an. In the example of Muhammed.

Only fools and idiots believe your taqiyya. Unfortunately, we have plenty of them who are only too happy to oblige your requests and indulge their own multi-culti nonsense.

It is good that these people can come here and speak truthfully. They come from poor countries and just react to our policies. This website seems very prejudiced but I have not been here before. Understanding and offerings of peace will win over everyone.

So much for Homeland Security. he probably walked through airport security with a bloody knife clenched between his teeth, and a ticking briefcase. Next he'll appear on The Daily Show, no doubt.

Word is, Universities are competing to offer Khatami a position as a tenured department head. His distortions concerning the causes of muslim terrorism are MESA approved, and he has the requisite hatred for all things Bush.

He's scheduled to continue his whirlwind tour of the great Satan by squatting in a ditch and sucking down ice-cream with Cindy Sheehan, painting swastikas on the World Trade Center Memorial with Ward Churchill, and appearing on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" to promote his new book, "Death to the West."

Pelayo:

"Someone, please tell me where I'm wrong?"

The Taliban overthrown and 93 terrorists a day whacked in Iraq.

Vulcan:

Thanks for visiting from your home-world. Lie long an prosper, troll.

Khatami blames US policies for terrorism .....

Then why were Muslims slaughtering people LONG before America existed?

More muslim lies, taqiyyah and kitman.
Note that he isn't coming to Texas or any other states that issue concealed carry permits.

Hugh:

A psychopathic, murderous dynasty overthrown, its rape rooms and torture chambers closed, a representative government created, and former refugees have been returning home. The economy has doubled, unemployment is down, the currency is up, business and agriculture are flourishing, and free presses and television stations now exist. Best of all, an average of 93 terrorists a day are being removed from this Earth.

Yes, "Bush and Company have been such fools in Iraq." (Pasted with tongue pressed firmly in cheek.) If only they knew you existed, and were to seek your sage counsel.

Pathological hatred for President Bush is not a coherent foreign policy. Criticizing aspects of the Coalition's mission in Iraq is rational; criticizing the entire operation is not.

Tell me. Do you honestly believe the policy suggestions you've offered on this site concerning Iraq would have produced better results than the ones achieved by Bush and his "fools?"

Jeff, the Democrats and liberals do not have any coherent strategy for defeating the President in the upcoming elections. They do not have anyone to challenge Bush, so the only thing they can do is try to paint the current administration with a broad-brushed series of slurs and attacks to attempt to make them look bad for winning the war and deposing Saddam and the Taliban, hoping that by comparrison they will somehow look good.

vulcan says: "This website seems very prejudiced but I have not been here before."

Stupid Westerners. How arrogant to believe that everyone must think, feel and experience emotion as you do. Islam is a cult of opposite. You profess love, we worship hate. You praise compassion, we praise torture. You enjoy intellectual discourse, we enjoy sex with children. You like pornography, we live pornographically. You want leisure and pleasure, we want destruction and pain. You love family, we love to breed martyrs.
Islam has no feeling. To follow islam is to dedicate oneself to satanic priviledge. We will win as you are weak. Negotiate while we build bombs. Believe that your logic will win while we plant more martyrs in your lands. You will never understand. We live to die, you want to die to live.

To JW from my friend Khalid.

Posted by: vulcan [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 22, 2006 12:05 PM

Not just a troll, but a sick lying troll. Live long in phosphorous Muslim.

Jeff Bargholz, The Afghan constitution is Taliban Lite. Democracy in Iraq? Bah, humbug!

Khtatmi is living down to my expectations, nothing more.

C'mon people. If vulcan isn't pulling our legs I must have a shark attached to my ankle.

Jeff, I believe it would be much better if the US had not gone to Iraq, or left after we smashed Saddam. Muslims are violent, it's been bred into them and pounded into them everyday - revenge! justice! honor! kill the infidels! Why? Because with infidels around, Islam remains polluted, imperfect and that is why the Muslims have failed to be the top dog in the world with a world of infidel slaves. Thankfully, we have spent $500,000,000,000.00 to help the Muslim world in Iraq alone. Now I wonder, just wonder, $500 billion for the Iraq War. Now what could we have done with $500 billion to improve our country interally, to seek energy solutions. Now what have we gotten for our $500 billion? Anything lasting? Or will Iraq turn out years after we leave to be another Afghanistan, Palestine, Egypt (such good friends), Iran.

As for Condi, of course, she had to say YES! to allowing this snit Khatami into the US. Brilliant, I say. Her brain is a like a turnip, hanging on for dear life as the truck rounds that curve.

vulcan,

Since your handle is supposed to convey your romanticized version of the Vulcan, I invite you to deepen your "rationality." And by that I mean get really rational about this topic. Until you have at least deeply perused the Qur'an and some ahadith, and read a biography of the Prophet's career, you have no idea of the motivations of this enemy. Furthermore, you have ignored my above post. There were no "American foreign policies" in the 7th century, when the ideology of jihad was born. Furthermore, neither the Byzantine Empire nor the Persian Empire "provoked" with their "policies" the bedhouin razzias and invasions upon their lands.

The tired, old Leftist cant about "grievances" simply does not apply to a phenomenology of jihad, either in its contemporary form or in its incarnation during the prior fourteen centuries. You need to get up to speed in this subject before you sanctimoniously pronounce on the justice of jihadi grievances.

Pay attention to what happened to the Communist, socialist, and Trotskyist allies of the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1978-79. They faced the downswing of the scimitar, hanging, torture, and exile - despite being useful tools for the Islamic masters. That is what's in store for the Left, even if it gives useful, loyal service to Islamic jihad.

"Tell me. Do you honestly believe the policy suggestions you've offered on this site concerning Iraq would have produced better results than the ones achieved by Bush and his "fools?
-- from a posting above

Yes.

John Sobieski so you do not like the Bush plan, what does the other side of aisle propose... mm l am waiting,, oh yeah they hate Bush,they hate Bush, they hate Bush, he lied and lots died.. ok.. what elese do they say.. oh have dialogue with the iranians.. get the Euroweinnies and UN on board,, and do what? mmmmm yeah how has the UN done so far for Christians being slaughtered by muslims..mmmm l am waiting..
well you might not agree with Bush, you dont like how he is not fully on board about islam.. well at least he does notice islamofacists, and does actually say it.. Bush does say Hizbollah are terrorist.. Now the Demorcats.. like the loser in Mich.. did not want to take sides with the Israelis or Hizbollah.. yeah the Democrats,ie JohnKerry, Algore, Clinton, Carter... will sell the country to get favour with the UN and EU types..
how much money did it cost to free Europe during WW2? how many fronts were fought? now your saying the US with best military cannot topple Iran because they are in Iraq? my God, leftist have not trust in the US military...Look what the liberals did to the Cdn military it is sickening..Cdn liberal governments are lazy, expect US to spend money on our protection.. Cdn liberal government are lazy, and love to spend your money.. Finally we have a PM who like Bush labels "Hizbollah" a terrorist group.. yeah Hizbollah, Hammas, kill civilians, hide among women and children, and for some reason the EU and UN cannot see this? Bush for all his faults can see through the UN/EU smokescreen, enough of peace talks.. actions speak louder than words..

Pelayo:

I'm not sure what Afghanistan has to do with my comments about Iraq, but the Afghan constitution, while execrable, is no "Taliban-lite."

Women aren't required to be covered from head to toe and banned from schools, Music and movies aren't banned, citizens can vote, and the national sport is no longer beheadings in soccer stadiums. Afghans are still flea-bitten troglodytes, but "democracy" doesn't work on a genetic level.

You scorn the representative government in Iraq. Would you prefer a theocracy, or another sadistic dynasty that trains and pays off terrorists?

What is the real source of your rage? It couldn't possibly be Bush Derangement Syndrome, could it?

Zena; I like Bush as well. But I do not think that history will look kindly on his idealism. How many tens of thousands of American troops are in Baghdad tonight? How many tens of thousands of Iraqi troops are walking the streets under the operational control of the Americans? Baghdad is not a large City. And the slaughter is accelerating.

When the US boots on the ground leave, the Country will not stand on the democratic ideals that we have tried to install, it will fall to the lowest common denominator, as it has for millennia.

I would like to see my President recognize the signals he is receiving from the field and adapt his strategy. Political cover could be gained by falling back to a powerful base in Kurdistan. This base would allow the projection of power in the region. Control of Iraqi airspace would need to be maintained for missile defense against Iran.

The descent of Iraq into civil war will be an embarrassing defeat to our Country's very righteous vision. It will be made more embarrassing because of the personal and public pledges made to the Iraqi leaders and people. But I think the writing’s on the wall.

John Sobieski:

If the US (and other Coalition members,) had not gone to Iraq, they would not have the excellent tactical staging ground for further regime changes in the Middle East. I don't think it's a coincidence that US troops now surround Iran. Do you? The staging ground in Iraq also borders Syria and Saudi Arabia, which are both hemmed in by US allies and waterways that the American and British navies own outright.

I also believe that Iraq will eventually be handed a bill, whether that has been planned by the Bush administration or not.

Jihadis come from all corners of the muslim world to check into the Iraq Roach Motel, but an average of 93 a day don't check out.

The Middle Eastern status quo had to be broken, and a pogrom against islamopaths was never an option. Neither was forced conversion to a civilized religion.

What are you implying by stating that Condoleeza Rice had no choice but to issue a visa to the former President of Terror INC?

Jeff Bargholz, I give you Article 3 of the Afghan Constitution:

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

All the other statements in the constitution are meaningless. How can Afghanistan allow someone to leave Islam when the Quran and the hadiths forbid it?

Want to talk about Iraq?

From the Iraqi Constitution:

Article 2:
First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation:

A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.

I assure you that in practice, all other platitudes in these two documents will be overridden by this provision. I rest my case.

Jeff; There are somewhere around 30 million Iraqis. If terrorist sympathy ratios are similar to those in Britian (25%), that leaves 7.5 million militants and sympathizers.

If we kill 93 per day, it will take 220 years to solve the problem, assuming terrorists don't breed.

Hugh:

If you honestly believe the policy suggestions you've offered on this site concerning Iraq would have produced better results than the ones achieved by Bush and the Coalition, then you're the one who's a fool.

The situation in Iraq is demonstrably different than you predicted it would be, and your current policy suggestion to withdraw from Iraq would have disastrous results.

If you have a newly updated policy thesis that benefits from hindsight, and would have hypothetically produced better results than Team Bush has, please share it.

An average of 93 terrorists are being greased in Iraq each and every day. Whether this is an intended consequence of the Bush Doctrine or not, that figure exceeds the amount that your past policy suggestions could have realistically produced.

Criticizing the President's actions is easy, but nobody can deny that he has done more to combat jihad in the last 5 years than all the previous administrations combined. The Barbary Wars were a police action compared to the so-called "War on Terror."

Do I want to see the President do more? Yeah, I do, but I don't base my criticisms of his policies on a personal animus against the man himself. You obviously do, whether you're willing to admit it or not.

Who let this guy in? Who is responsible?

Answer these questions:

Who is President of the United States?
Who is Secretary of State?
Who chose and appointed the Secretary of State?

Now you know who is responsible, what are you going to do, and who are you going to criticize (Hint: It isn't Howard Dean).

I can see that I need to re-post the fatwa on democracy. Because I don't think Jeff Bargholz has seen it.

From http://islam.tc/ask-imam/index.php

What is the islamic understanding about democracy, Is there any place for it in islam.

Answer 15522

The common form of democracy prevalent at the moment is representative democracy, in which the citizens do not exercise their right of legislating and issuing political decrees in person, but rather through representatives chosen by them. The constitution of a democratic country will be largely influenced by the needs and wants of its people. Thus, if its people want casinos, bars, gay marriages, prostitution, etc. then with sufficient public pressure, all these vices can be accommodated for. From this, it becomes simple to understand that there can never be scope for a democratic rule from the Islamic point of view.

and Allah Ta'ala Knows Best

Mufti Ebrahim Desai

The problem with the Bush doctrine is that the administration has failed to recognize that democracy, as we believe it should be practiced, cannot be a part of an Islamic country, Turkey notwithstanding.

Limes:

When did you first ascribe to the Iraqi civil war doomsday theory? Was it more than 6 months ago? More than a year ago? Longer? seriously, ask yourself when you started to think that way.

Well, the projected (not hoped for, surely,) civil war has not materialized, nor is it likely to while US forces are babysitting in that $hit-hole. Expecting localized strife between Sunnis and Iranian backed Shiites in Baghdad to tear the entire country asunder is irrational.

You're laboring under two false premises. One: an incorrect definition of "civil war," and two: that America will stand by and allow a civil war to rage unchecked.

Posted by Nariz: Now you know who is responsible, what are you going to do, and who are you going to criticize (Hint: It isn't Howard Dean).

What do you mean? Is Islamic terrorism our fault or are you criticizing our dissatisfaction with the Bush Administration?

Pelayo:

We're all aware of the problems with the Afghan constitution. Those problems do not refute the situation on the ground in any way. Things are better there than they were under the Tallywhackers. Note: No Al Qaeda training camps.

You are operating under the false assumption that America will allow Afghanistank to descend into a muslim theocracy again.

Ain't gonna happen.

The flaws in the Iraqi constitution are likewise common knowledge. What are you basing your assurance that "all other platitudes in these two documents will be overridden by" islamic provisions? Certainly not on present conditions in Iraq, which demonstrably do override the islamic provisions.

Again, you're operating under the false premise that America will allow Iraq to slip into a theocracy.

Ain't gonna happen.

Your 'assurances" are meaningless, and based on false assumptions. Your case is weak, and you're actually resting on your petard.

Limes:

There are not 7.5 million active terrorists in Iraq, and polls in Iraq overwhelmingly show public hatred of the jihadis. Your 7.5 million figure is specious.

Nariz:

Thanks for sticking your nariz in. Yes, Bush is responsible for all the evils of the world. we've heard it all before. Tell it to your therapist.

Pelayo:

President Bush does not expect muslims to practice "democracy" the way Americans do. Nobody does.

False premises, remember?

Khatami ... founded and heads the International Institute for Dialogue Among Civilizations and Cultures

That explains why he was granted a visa - he created a new State Department. He is on a junket to bolster the mohammedan masses' efforts against U.S. policy and maybe as an added bonus, win some infidel 'hearts and minds'. Abracadabra - reverse transformational diplomacy.

One has to wonder sometime who the bigger enemy is - ignorant, arrogant, nonelected government bureaucrats, former presidents, or the former totalitarian leaders invited into this country.

Nevermind, the air will be purer here when he leaves. Maybe he'll even get converted. . . †

From Jeff Bargholz: You are operating under the false assumption that America will allow Afghanistank to descend into a muslim theocracy again.

Ain't gonna happen

So, it looks like there will be a US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq forever.

I'll sat it again, considering the first few paragraphs in these two documents, Afghanistan and Iraq are Taliban Lite. These two documents already have built in conflicts that will most likely be resolved in favor of the Islamic interpretation.

President Bush does not expect muslims to practice "democracy" the way Americans do. Nobody does.

I do not recall Mr Bush ever, ever using the moidifier "Islamic" when he said democracy.

Well, dammit, I expect Muslims to practice western democracy, and we should all expect Muslims to practice western democracy, or else we are wasting our soldier's lives and our treasury.

From a posting above:

We're all aware of the problems with the Afghan constitution. Those problems do not refute the situation on the ground in any way. Things are better there than they were under the Tallywhackers. Note: No Al Qaeda training camps.

Precisely, they have just moved the camps across the border into the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan and into the Baluchistan Province of the same country. Ever heard of permeable borders? And as to whether or not the situation for Christians or women is better now than then, I think we should all reserve judgement given the reports that are coming out of Afghanistan at the moment.

We can see the same type of sharia based constitution emerging in Iraq as we have seen in Afghanistan. Hugh is correct. This whole war is a waste of time and men's lives as long as our politicians let that sort of thing past and try to pretend that it is real democracy as we enlightened people would understand it. Commonwealth, NATO, and USA Troopers are being murdered to no avail and the moslem supremacists get given multiple chances by our PC media to put their 'we-are-the-victims', 'it's-all-your-fault' crude arguments and simply ride the coat-tails of this whirlwind to their own advantage. The sooner we set them all at each other's throats the better. They will then have far less time to attack us.

But then, after all is said and done, this is just the Bargholzs riding their paid for, on their own admission, pro-Bush hobby horse again.

Dominic.

Khatami will speak at Harvard's JFK School of Government on Sept 10 at 4. There's a lottery for seats that evidently allows for some non-Harvard attendants. For those in the Boston area, could be a chance to put some incisive questions to this representative of one of the most odious regimes of the last 50 years. Good luck!
www.iop.harvard.edu/lottery.php?lottery=khatami

Jeff; Because you asked... I'll tell you why I’m not so hot for the prospects for an ‘enlightened’ Middle East. My introduction to the area was in the 1990s, in the Suez Canal. To bring a ship through, you are required to bring on a local Pilot. Our Pilot was from one of our ‘Allies’ in the region. He made the equivalent of a six-figure income in his privileged position.

The man refused to board until we gave him a carton of Marlboro cigarettes (Reds). Upon boarding, this pilot proceeded to the Captain’s stateroom, unwrapped the cigarettes, and threw the packaging on the floor (a sailor would be locked up for a similar offense). He then proceeded up to his job.

This is one personal experience of many. When combining these personal experiences with observations of increasing religious fundamentalism in the region, the text of the Qu’ran (which is memorized by a good percentage of its followers), and the inability to control Baghdad despite the massive resources on site, I’m driven to the conclusion that ‘Realpolitik’ will win over the preferred solution when the smoke clears.

Ronald Reagan presided over the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War.

________________________________________________________________

The statistic that 25% of British Muslims support recent acts is solid, is it not?

From Nariz (above)/

"Who let this guy in? Who is responsible?"

Doesn't matter, really. They obviously can't help being rude, abusive and confrontational (that's their therapist's problem, really - not our's), so just give them enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

Dominic.

limes/

I believe so. It may be higher. I am currently searching for the refernce. Horrible to contemplate, isn't it? And we let the bu***rs in, d*mn it.

Dominic.

where are the women's liberal groups, you know what Rush calls the "nags"... they love to protest..where are they when this iranian ex prez comes to town..he is from the country that hangs girls from the top of cranes for fighting off rapists, where is Amnesty International..or is it anmeisa international.. these liberal groups love to cry foul for those poor killer terrorist in G'Itmo Bay.. they want rights for those non uniformed killers.. but hey when the ex iranian prez comes around,, they are silent..
"where have all the Liberals gone"....

limes/

Try here to start with - the figures are more frightening than you might think - by-the-way The Telegraph is a well-respected mildly right-wing national daily:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

Dominic.

ZenaWarriorPrincess/

I love 'Amnesia International'. Thank-you for that one! I hadn't heard it before.

Dominic.

Thanks Dominic;

limes/

And this:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2340571,00.html

and this:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=19299&only

and this:

http://icevikings.blogspot.com/2006/02/poll-reveals-40-percent-of-british.html

And then follow many of the links given and you will see just how untrustworthy so-called-British moslems really are.

Dominic.

ZenaWarriorPrincess/

From your posting (above):

"where have all the Liberals gone"....

Well, this liberal is still here and still fighting. I hope that we are singing from the same Hymn sheet here.

Dominic.

Well, Khatami's conspiracists rants are just more evidence that there are no moderates in the Iranian government. They're all crying "marg-bar-amrika" in their hearts; so it's time somebody pelted Khatami with bits of pork fat.

Khatami unleashed in America - so the fool will continue blubbering.

The war on islamofascism is messy and uneven, because that is the nature of the beast.

But here Bush has been great and on target with good people behind him - Rumsfeld, Bolton et al.

Islam is a cult of lies hate and deception and we must challenge and pressure the muslims and their lobby here as well as abroad.

Iraq as flypaper is priceless - their fools against the tip of our spear.

And damn you lefties, libs, Democrats, appeasers, self haters, fifth columnists and media fools who are harmful, much less neutral or helpful.

Kepha/

What a waste of good pork fat. I prefer it deep-fried with a tangy sauce-type dip. Why waste good food on the moslems. They can have all the chewy bits - asked Alarmed Pig Farmer what they are - and at least those will keep them quiet for a while.

Dominic.

And here’s why we’re going to win.

Hugh:

In the comments section of the "61 killed in Iraq bombing wave" post, you tried to misrepresent a speech given by President Bush--and I called you on it.

Since then, you've been digging into me with obvious petulance. All I've got from you are snarky replies and petty evasions. You sidestep the gist of my comments with Ernst-like agility and the same sneering elitism.

Am I digging into you? You bet. You gratuitously inject your obvious dislike for my President into many of your posts and comments, and you try to promote a dishonest image of the man and his policies.

You're ready and willing to defend your opinions from foolish or mild criticism, but pointed criticism makes you squirm. If your positions are valid, you should have no problem convincing me that they are. If mine are not, you should have no problem refuting them. Debating disagreements is constructive; avoiding debate is not.

A vague threat to delete my comments or prevent me from posting here is an unprincipled way of dealing with honest criticism. If you're unwilling or unable to face what I have to say, go ahead and "ban" me from this site. That would certainly be easier than standing by your convictions.

I'd prefer it if you took the high road and debated me honestly. healthy debate can only improve the quality of this already excellent website. It's up to you.

limes/

Good one! Well found! I haven't laughed so much in ages. Yep, we're going to win.

Dominic.

dgene/

I'm one of your 'libs' and I'm here and I'm trying to be of help in the fight against the jihad because it threatens me as much as it threatens you. Please don't tar us all with the same brush.

Dominic.

Pelayo:

If you insist on calling a government Taliban-Lite when it does not practice the islamic extremism that the Talban did, I'm not going to argue with you about it.

Again: The Bush doctrine does not call for muslims to practice American style "democracy."

I think we should expect muslims to practice democracy-lite. Expecting anything more is unreasonable.

I have problems with the way Bush has handled Iraq too, but so far, the successes have far outweighed the failures.

I enjoy our discussions, so I'm sorry this one attracted tin-hats like Dominic and Nariz.

Well, I can't speak for Nariz, nor for any of the other posters who have ended up on the foul end of the Bargholzs' juvenile temper tantrums and factual distortions, but I can speak for myself and at least I can say that I am not paid to post here as they, so obviously, are - and that by their own admission, remember.

Dominic.

Limes:

I’m not so hot for the prospects for an ‘enlightened’ Middle East either. In fact, it will never happen as long as Arabs and muslims control it.

Your anecdote was interesting. I had a friend serving in Kuwait who had to put up with something similar. The wogs would loudly say things in English like: "Why should we fight Saddam when we can get our dogs (Americans,) to do it for us." They said this with the full knowledge that any American who looked at them cross-eyed would face a court martial. Ditto for looking a muslim woman in the face, or rather, the eye-slit in her burka. Our soldiers were under similar constraints in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the musworld.

I don't believe the 25% figure for muslim invaders in Britain who support the recent terrorist attacks is solid. Most muslims have enough sense to lie on a poll like that. I'm sure the real figure is much higher, probably closer to 100%.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Sweet video of the terrorist sniper. I'm properly terrified. Terrified that I might piss my pants laughing.

Thanks Jeff; Off to a funeral tomorrow and need to get some sleep. I still hope I'm not paying you.

Well, I can't speak for Nariz, nor for any of the other posters who have ended up on the foul end of the Bargholzs' juvenile temper tantrums and factual distortions, but I can speak for myself and at least I can say that I am not paid to post here as they, so obviously, are - and that by their own admission, remember.

Dominic.

Oooops. Sorry about the double post. D**ned Copy and Paste Functions in Microsoft IE.

Dominic.

Dom:

drop the DNC, Eurotrash talking points. Al Qaeda is a toothless joke. It's unable to carry out the attacks it wants to. Bin Loser and Zawahiri are the only high profile operatives it has left, and they're dead men walking. There are no Al Qaeda training camps operating openly in Pakistan.

Women can go to school uncovered in Afghanistan and that's a fact.

Neither Afghanistan Iraq nor are theocracies ruled by sharia.

Killing 93 terrorists a day is only a waste of time if you like terrorists. Carving out military staging grounds in Afghanistan and Iraq is only a waste of time if you want to see the regimes in Iran and Syria prosper.

A psychopathic, murderous dynasty overthrown, its rape rooms and torture chambers closed, a representative government created, and former refugees have been returning home. The economy has doubled, unemployment is down, the currency is up, business and agriculture are flourishing, and free presses and television stations now exist. Best of all, an average of 93 terrorists a day are being removed from this Earth.

The good guys are being murdered to no avail? The facts say otherwise, but facts are anathema to leftists like you and the object of your desire.

Bargholz #X-7, agent of BUSH (Bush Undercover Spy Headquarters.)

P.S., Stop drinking the bong water. Not even John Hinckley displayed such paranoid dementia.

Is this not the moral equivalent of the wife-beater's screed, "Now, see what YOU made me do!"

Why do we even try understanding these scum? The only thing it does is dirty us by our efforts. Oh well, I guess it IS the Christian thing to do.

Just as it is the moslem thing to do when they splody-dope in a crowd, set an IED on the roadside, or commit any of thier other murderous acts.

Beagle,

Upon further research, you may be correct, I may have had my leg firmly pulled. My apologies to fellow JWers for jumping the gun. What I posted above by vulcan was saved under "TRUE believer" and is now deleted.

Jeff, let me try to answer.

Yes, Condi can't help it. She gave Khatami a visa because she is still in this fog about Islam. She, get this, actually believes having Khatami in the US speading dawa and cheering on the Muslims planning our murder. I bet the woman doesn't even know what taqiyah, kitman or could name three of the five jihad tactics (sword, tongue (taqiya, kitman, tuquoque), money, immigration, demographics (outbreeding the infidels)).

Of course Bush is better than the Democrats and I will vote Republican this fall.

As for Iraq becoming some terrorist state if we leave, who is kidding who. These Muslims fight each other, are obsessed with blood revenge, tribal primitive relations, and killing the other sect (along with all the infidels.) Why not get out, and work behind the scene to get them to kill each other much, much faster. Better for them to be killing each other, wasting their precious petrodollars killing each other than building mosques and opening 'kill the infidel' madrassa jihad training centers in the US.

Do not be mislead by the Bargholzs idiots' posts about women's rights in Afghanistan. See:

http://www.genders.org/g27/g27_afw.html

Uncovered? I think not.

And could somebody, anybody, please tell me why they, the Bargholzs', think "Neither Afghanistan Iraq [sic]nor [sic] are theocracies ruled by sharia." when it is obvious to anybody but a mental defective that all that we have managed in Afghanistan and Iraq is to replace one dictatorship with another and both are of a similar hue - going from 'completely unacceptable' to 'not quite completely unacceptable' is scarcely the outcome that we Western taxpayers expected, wanted or mandated our governments to obtain. It doesn't matter how much the Bargholzs' attempt to hide behind humour (the usual strategy on any blog for those caught out in this lie) supports the President (or PM Blair), nothing can diguise the fact that they are paid apologists for the President.

That they have no understanding of what they are talking about is obvious -

See:

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/world/where/meeca/partners/0411afghan.htm

and look at the photograph - uncovered?

and:

http://www.helpafghanwomen.com/

Uncovered?

and this - most importantly:

http://www.sundayherald.com/47282

Uncovered?

and this:

http://uk.news.launch.yahoo.com/dyna/article.html?a=/28082006/325/music-opens-new-world-afghan-girls.html&e=l_news_dm

uncovered, indeed!

Do you want more, idiots' - 'cos I've got thousands!

Dominic.

P.S.

What the h*ll is 'bong water'? And why does it feature so large in the Bargholzs' vocabulary of insults.

D.

Jeff;
Are you suggesting colonization of Afghanistan and Iraq? The key word in Islam is submission. It seems these populations have accepted repression as the order of the day and seem to enjoy the activity of tribal warfare as a manifestation of their hero, Mohammed. How long do you plan on staying there, 1400 years? When will these people stand up for themselves and demand the freedoms of the West. Or will they creep back to sharia where religion controls every aspect of their life? I think you misjudged the mindset of the people you seek to liberate. I feel the best we can get is a lighter form of tyranny, the rule of force is the only form of Democrarcy they can come to understand. If their religion allowed them free thought, they would not be sentenced to death for leaving it.

Jeff:
Go on the RAWA sight and see what the real freedom fighters think of their newfound democratic warlords in Afghanistan. Also while you're at it, study the reaction of 90% of the poulation and all the clergy regarding Abdul Rahman's apostacy.

Briars/

Precisely, and much better a link than I gave. I wish that I had though of RAWA in the face of the the Bargholzs idiotic assertions.

http://www.rawa.org/

Dominic.

"A psychopathic, murderous dynasty overthrown, its rape rooms and torture chambers closed, a representative government created, and former refugees have been returning home. The economy has doubled, unemployment is down, the currency is up, business and agriculture are flourishing, and free presses and television stations now exist. Best of all, an average of 93 terrorists a day are being removed from this Earth."
-- from a posting above

Much of the above is no different from a column by William Kristol, or some Administration list of talking-points.

Where to begin? Saddam Hussein was “murderous” – a sometimes clever, sometimes very stupid, murderer, but not quite a psychopath. He admired Stalin, collected books about him, also wanted to have a bigger kingdom to rule over, indeed had dreams – just like Nasser – of being the paladin of the Arabs. But he was not psychopathic in the way that Pol Pot or Idi Amin were. As for these “rape rooms” and “ torture chambers” that are supposedly permanently “closed,” I wouldn’t bet on it. The fiendish murders committed by Shi’a militia, and by Sunni militia, are no different in kind from what Saddam Hussein did. He merely had a monopoly on violence; in Iraq today no one does, so various groups share it.

What about this claim that the “economy has doubled” in Iraq? What does this mean? GDP? GNP? What? Compared to what? What is the base-line? Is it last year, or 2003, or 1991, or what? And even if things were going smoothingly in the economy, and you know perfectly well that they are not, so what? What does that do for us, the Infidels? How does that make us better off? I don’t give a damn about the people in Iraq or about any Muslims who willingly adhere to a belief-system that is dangerous for me and for everything that I regard as important. Why should I? Should I believe that people who are better off are naturally less aggressive? Really? When did the Arabs and Muslims really become a threat? When they were poor, or when, after 1973, they began to receive the ten trillion dollars they have received, without lifting a finger, from those OPEC oil revenues? Why should I want Iraqis to be well off? Should I want the so-called “Palestinians” to be well off, or would it be better for us, and for Israel, if they were reduced to having to scramble merely to survive, instead of complacently assuming that soon enough the Jizyah of foreign aid from the Infidels will be turned on again, at rates high enough to permit them to continue spending a great deal of money on smuggled weaponry, on a dozen different armed forces, and of course on all those terrorists and combatants of other kinds who are not living at a subsistence level, which is what Muslim Arabs without oil reveniues, and without the Jizyah, are naturally reduced to? Why should I want people in Iraq – not the “Iraqi” people, to have a thriving economy? So the same comment goes for your assertion that “business and agriculture are flourishing” – an assertion for which you provide no statistics, not the slightest evidence.

But what if it were true? What if the tens of billions of dollars poured into Iraq by American taxpayers did improve things for the people in Iraq? I don’t approve. I think it is a waste of our money. I think there is not a chance that this will win hearts or win minds. We are Infidels. Of course the former Prime Minister, Jabari, started to talk about a new “Marhsall Plan” – “let’s call it the Bush Plan” he said when visiting Washington. Of course Maliki, who denounces American forces for this or that activity, and who has praised the terrorist group Hezbollah, and who has never – not once – ever thanked or praised the American soldiers or taxpayers publicly (I don’t give a damn what he says in private – that means nothing. He has to say it before the people of Iraq – and if he cannot say it, that is most instructive for us, the Infidels).

The only reason to make Iraq more prosperous is if that helps to weaken the hold of Islam. There is not the slightest evidence that that will be the case. All the evidence suggests that Infidels are better off when Muslims do not have any discretionary income, cannot buy or attempt to produce major weaponry, cannot use the “mooney” weapon of boycotts and bribery, must insisted live those lives that they all lead before the two kinds of manna—oil wealth and foreign aid from Infidels – came in. In 1930, in 1940, in 1950, in 1960, the doctrine of Jihad existed. It had not gone away. But what could the Arabs and other Muslims then have done about it? Nothing. Prosperity allowed them to engage in Jihad, as engage many Muslims willingly will.

Then you say that “free presses [sic] and television” exist. So what? If you mean there is a “free press” in Iraq, what you really mean is that there are varied newspapers that express various tendencies or are the mouthpieces of various factions, sectarian and ethnic, and also those who are more willing to speak something like the truth about some subjects. But noit about all. Not about the nature of Islam. Not about the great debt that is owed the United States. And even if Al Qaeda is criticized, other groups – Hezbollah and all the rest – are praised, and not criticizied. Furthermore, many Iraqis are most primitive in their understanding, and only the elites, often those who spent a long time abroad, are capable of seeing through Al Jazeera and the other pan-Arab stations so full of propaganda. A “free press” is not enough. What is produced by that “free press” is what counts – and there is nothing that would win Infidel minds and Infidel hearts – or do thepeople upon whom we have lavished, in past, present, and committed future costs, of $500 billion dollars, not owe us something, not owe us the constant expression – or even an occasional expression, or even just one example of such expresson – of the gratitude that any people who were not Muslim, and not therefore deeply committed to the belief that we are their enemies no matter what seeming could we do them, or what sacrifices we endure for their sake, would certainly express. It is you who mention that they have been rescued from, as you put it, “a psychopathic, murderous dynasty overthrown, its rape rooms and torture chambers clo.” Fine. Then where’s the gratitude? Where are all the brave volunteers fighting, not for the paycheck, but because they wish us well, are horrified when American soldiers are blown up, feel such sympathy for them and for us, and are as grateful as were, say, the people liberated by American soldiers in Itlaly or France during World War II? Why don’t we see any of this gratitude? Because there isn’t any, and you know why.

As for these “93 terrorists” a day who are killed, am I to be impressed? What is the cost to taxpayers and to the military for each of these 93 "terrorists" (which ones are merely Iraqi Sunnis who refuse to acquiesce in the transferral of power to the Shi'a, and which are merely Iraqi Shi'a determined to hold on to their new power, and to let the Sunnis know who from now on will be running the show in Iraq?) Should the entire American military, now being caused such damage, having to lower its physical and mental standards for recruits (raising the maximum age, not requiring the same minimium level of education, overlooking certain things in a recruit’s past that once would not have been overlooked), be stuck to tarbaby Iraq in order to kill 93 "terrorists" a day, when the ranks of those "terrorists" are endlessly replenishable, both within Iraq and even from without? And what is the cost of killing each of those "93 terrorists"? Does it work out to about a million dollars per "terrorist" or is it twice that, or even more? And what do we get for killing 93 people who hate us, because we are Infidels, and who today may be helping kill Sunnis which only pleases the Shi'a (and they don't mind American casualties at all) and tomorrow may be helping kill Shi'a which only pleases the Sunnis (and they don't mind American casualties either) and while Sunnis and Shi'a both us the Americans, and both would gladly obtain whatever materiel or money they can continue to squeeze out of us, neither of them will exhibit the slightest gratitude once our soldiers have left, and our usefulness to them is over. For they feel none.

If every single thing that Bush and his cheerleaders say they wish to accomplish in Iraq were to be accomplished, it would do nothing to weaken the Camp of Islam. The Camp of Islam is only to be weakened, in Iraq, by leaving Iraq, and doing nothing at all to prevent another version of the Iran-Iraq War, one which will put the Sunnis of Iraq and their co-religionists, in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and Jordan, and Syria, against the Shi’aof Iraq, and their co-religionists, especially potential volunteers from Lebanon, Bahrain, eastern Saudi Arabia, and even some Shi’a from Yemen and Kuwait. The ideal situation would be one in which the Muslims of the Middle Easst expend men (“volunteers”), money, and materiel, and are preoccupied with the sectarian – and also ethnic (let’s not forget the potential benefits of non-Arab Muslims, the Kurds, establishing their own independent state, and serving as an inspiration not only to Kurds in Syria and Iran, but also to other non-Arab Muslims such as the Berbers).

Once one stops being a cheerleader for the Administration in Iraq, tarbaby Iraq, and tries to explain that the only result that counts is one that weakens the Camp of Islam and strengthens the Camp of the Infidels. Right now Bush and others insist that we can create a Light Unto the Muslim Nations in Iraq, can show them how to embrace, and deeply believe in, Western-style democracy. The Shi’a voted not because they believed in democracy but because they knew that they would win. Had they constituted, say, 35% of the population, and the Sunnis another 35%, or each had constituted 40%, they would not necessarily have voted with such enthusiasm. Similarly, had the Sunnis constituted 60-65% of the population they would have been out in purple-thumbed force during the elections. That has nothing to do with support of, much less understanding of, what real democracy is.

Those who stick with Bush on the war in Iraq are not only engaged in squandering men, money, materiel, and lowering the morale of both soldiers and civilians, but may be ensuring the political victory, in 2008, of real appeasers, of people who have no intention of trying to defeat the Camp of Islam, or even to begin to understand it. That is one more reason why Bush’s obstinacy is so maddening and so very dangerous for those who recognize the promptiungs, the scope, the varied instruments, and the full and permanent menace of Jihad, over which a “victory” is not to be achieved, but something else – permanent constrains on the spread of islam and on the power of Muslim peoples and polities to inflict harm, by depriving them of major weaponry, bottling them up as much as possible in their own countries, countering efforts at Da’wa, and --- above all – teaching Infidels everywhere of the interests they have in common, based on the same menace, that “Iraq the Model” --- were it to be somehow achieved – would do nothing to diminish.

John Sobieski:

I'm not convinced that Rice is as ignorant as you claim. Highly intelligent people can be uninformed on many subjects, but she's privy to a mountain of daily intelligence on islam. She's also privy to state secrets that would make our heads spin.

I agree with your divide-and-conquer-the-islamoworld in spirit, but not in theory. Internal squabbles and abject incompetence have never stopped them from attacking the West, and they never will. They must be prevented from providing the: breeding grounds, training grounds, physical support, monetary support, ideological support, shelter, and cover story that allows jihad to flourish.

Letting them stew in their own juices resulted in 911.

Hugh/

Thank-you. Cogent, pithy and, indeed, pungent and to the point. However, I doubt that the Bargholzs will catch your drift nor see the points of your argument.

Dominic.

Check this garbage out. The CAIR parade thinks this jerk is wonderful.

Dear Friends:

In honor of His Excellency Mohammad Khatami, former President of the Islamic
Republic of Iran, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is pleased
to invite you to a dinner on Friday, September 8, 2006, from 7 to 9 p.m., at
the Marriott Crystal Gateway (1700 Jefferson Davis Highway) in Arlington, Virginia.

A Private Reception with President Khatami, including a Photo Opportunity,
will precede the dinner at 6 p.m.

President Khatami is regarded as Iran's first Reformist President. He focused
his tenure on the Rule of Law, Democracy and the inclusion of all Iranians
in the Political decision-making process.

In order to confirm your attendance, please contact CAIR--

Could it be our politicians actually envy the control these muslim 'leaders' have over their muzbots? Just a thought...

For those of you who doubt what I have said about the Bargholzs please use your search engine of choice (since we are no longer allowed the 'G' or, presumably, the 'Y' word) and search on the term 'Jeff Bargholz'. When reading the results keep going, way down the pages, reading them all (if you can stand it!). On your way down there, follow a few of the side-links as well. These guys are deeply unpleasant and you can plainly see the way that the Bargholzs insult everybody in sight on every topic all the time and push the current White House line come what may.

Come on, guys, do the research and stop being taken in by this White House paid agent!

If you get as far down as the CIA page (well down) and its links pay special attention to what is said about the 'Jeff Bargholz' blog and its links. Interesting, n'est ce pas.

Dominic.

Well, I think she is stupid. I have chronicled her idiocy and idiotic statements about Islam over the past few years at my site. Just search for 'Condi' and explain away her lame statements about the 'beautiful', 'loving', 'peaceful', 'Islam means peace', 'wonderful' DeathCultReligion also known as Islam. Brilliant, she should be President with that insight. And please don't tell me she has to say those things. Howard and Costello aren't saying those things. So what if the Aussie Muslims bitch about the lack of dhimmitude. Maybe Condi should send Karen over to Australia and give Costello a talking to about that beautiful, peaceful, loving cult. Hey they are her words, not made up. What can I say? I know, I rest my case.

Bargholzs/

Whoa, that was fast! I'm impressed. Never seen anything pulled from the net that fast before!

Just shows you what friends in high places can do, don't it now?

So you can take your spurious and underhand version of honesty and up sticks and go, and stop misleading all the good folks here. Take the money and run now. You're of no further use to them, boy - and you know it now. That's why they are going to stop paying you sometime real soon, don't you know.

Glad to have been of help here, y'all.

Dominic.

Hugh:

your entire verbose rant is based on easily exposed fallacies. I could refute it point by point, but that would be a waste of time. I've already addressed most of your assertions elsewhere on this site. I find it hard to believe that you didn't read them, but if you were to claim you didn't, I wouldn't call you a liar. I'm a generous guy.

Your position is based on these two moronic statements:

Statement #1. "If every single thing that Bush and his cheerleaders say they wish to accomplish in Iraq were to be accomplished, it would do nothing to weaken the Camp of Islam."

That's an easily refuted fallacy that flies in the face of reality.

Statement #2. "permanent constrains on the spread of islam and on the power of Muslim peoples and polities to inflict harm, by depriving them of major weaponry, bottling them up as much as possible in their own countries, countering efforts at Da’wa, and --- above all – teaching Infidels everywhere of the interests they have in common, based on the same menace" would prove more effective than the Bush doctrine.

That's a policy that would be impossible to implement.

Everything else you wrote is just verbal flatulence. I could refute all of it point by point, but what's the use? Your central thesis is clear, as is your conclusion. Refuting those will refute all the tedious, redundant, inaccurate, and utterly pedestrian flourishes you subjected me to.

Before I start, I need to let you know that trying to correct my grammar is a weak polemic tactic. Adding a "sic" to something of mine that you quoted opens the door for me to take a red pen to your work. We both know that your writing contains more errors than mine does, so taking that route would benefit me more than it does you. Cut it out. It's beneath you.

Regarding statement #1: As I've stated ad nauseum on this site, due to the invasion of Iraq, Iran is now surrounded on all sides by American troops. The border with Iraq is the best tactical route for invasion. The threat of a nuclear Iran--which has been stressed on this site as being a dire threat--will require the use of ground troops to be neutralized. Air strikes cant guarantee a regime change from rabid theocracy to popular vote, or any other acceptable substitute.

If you think a popular vote in Iran will mean a continuance of the status quo, you've got another think coming. The Iranian resistance is itching to do away with medieval islamic strictures. If you think President Bush doesn't plan to overthrow the mullahs, you're destined to be as disappointed as I assume you were when your predictions about Iraq didn't come to pass.

Time will tell, and you'll remember what I wrote here. Mark my words.

The terrorist factory in Syria is likewise surrounded. The inevitable air and land assaults are now something that can be easily accomplished--thanks to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. If you also predict that Bush won't overthrow Baby Assad, you're going to be sorely disappointed again--although you should be thankful when it happens.

Saddam Hussein is rotting in jail and awaiting probable execution. Iraq is no longer in the WMD business, whether you believe Saddam had them prior to his overthrow, or was seeking them. Terrorists no longer receive his largess, and they do not enjoy state sponsorship. No terrorist (jihadi,) group is going to be able to buy WMD from Iraq. (Thanks, Big George!)

Khadafi and other islamic leaders have radically improved their behaviour, because they rightly fear being in line for regime change. This site has chronicled Khadafi's many terrorist crimes. How many terrorist atrocities has he been sponsoring since Saddam went down? I'll give you a hint: It's a nice, round, figure.

America is finally waking up to the islamic threat, as is Britain. 911 prompted calls to show suicidal tolerance towards muslims, and to look elsewhere for blame. We had "WE Are The World" P.C. bullshit foisted on us from the usual quarters, and islam was given special privileges it hadn't enjoyed in the West previously. Again, this suicidal abomination of reason has been documented on this very site. After the overthrow of Saddam, President Bush uses terms like islamic fascism, and the general public in America accepts it. (He has a series of speeches scheduled on terrorism, so don't make any premature accusations of him retracting his original uses of the phrase.) Mainstream America (the most powerful bloc on the planet--bar none,) is ready and willing to see regime changes in Iran and Syria. Prior to Saddam's overthrow, they would never have sanctioned such action, and you know it. The President's bold actions have given decent people the strength to stand up to the P.C. forces that tried to keep us from expressing our opinions, much less exerting force against our implacable islamic foes.

Britain refused to pull its collective head out until the plot to blow up 10 passenger planes en route from England to America was foiled, but better late than never. The overthrow of Saddam did not weaken British resolve, no matter what the outrageously left-wing British news media claim.

Terrorist groups are desperate and in disarray, as their internal communications captured in the "failed" Iraq conflict reveal. They just don't have what it takes to counter the Coalition juggernaut, much less the institutionalized wealth, power, and strength of the civilized West--as exemplified by America and Britain. They know that Iraq is the focal point of their filthy campaign of jihad, and they also know that they're getting their asses kicked.

Why do you pretend otherwise?

I could go on and on, but I've already annihilated your ridiculous claim that the mission in Iraq failed to weaken global islam.

Regarding statement #2: Attempts to contain islam would be even more impossible than the attempts to contain communism were in the last century. The practical applications don't even need to be addressed, because the world is unwilling to unite behind such a grandiose plan at present. America and Britain working in conjunction would have no chance of containing islam. The rest of the world would leap on the chance to deal with it. International commerce of oil could be disrupted by America and Britain, but it couldn't be halted. The same goes for terrorism. The economic and social consequences of a boycott for the civilized world--particularly America and Britain--would be enormous, while islam would be doing business as usual. Muslims cannot be contained in their home countries at present. How a Brit living in the heart of Eurabia can assume otherwise is beyond me.

Bottom line. The policies you suggest are politically unfeasible. They cannot, and will not happen at this time. By all means, continue to educate decent people about the threat of mainstream islam, but it it will take far more time before they're ready to act on it.

We're on the same page when it comes to the threat posed by jihad, but you're politically naive when it comes to solutions. The man who has done more than anybody else in history to implement them is a failure and a buffoon in your eyes. WTF?

Bush is not your enemy, he's your ally. Open your eyes. I'm not your enemy either. I'm just the guy who's going to hold you to a higher standard. I may be a rude, crude yank( the most hypocritical and inaccurate national slander on Earth,) but I'm right and you're wrong.

I'm pretty sure you know it, too.

To all concerned, and those who only want to pettifog, I wrote that women in Afghanistan are no longer required to wear burkas by law. The misogyny of their male family members is another story.

By all means, bring back the Taliban because things aren't perfect.

John:

You assume that because Condi made those statements, she actually believes them. You need to know that she doesn't. Not at all. Political necessity is a bitch, and she's bound to it the same as President Bush is.

Howard and his ministers may be more honest about certain subjects, but you know as well as I that they suffer under similar constraints.

Claiming that the incredibly intellectual Rice is stupid--well that just isn't believable. I'm frustrated to,, but let's not stretch the truth so thinly.

Cheers. You have my support when it comes to cleaning your beautiful and unique country of the islamic stain.

americaningermany:

Dude: I started the debate about women's rights in Afghanistank. Why wouldn't I defend what I wrote?

Don't take it personally.

americaningermany:

We've been in political trouble since the day politics were invented.

Just because Condi is forced to whitewash islam, doesn't mean she's an inveterate liar. She tells the truth when it counts. It's the Faggotized American public that forces her to hold her tongue concerning the religion of terror. The PC crowd runs herd on the rest of us, and we meekly allow it.

The other side of the aisle lies as a matter of faith. The Clintons, Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, Dean, Gollum (Harry Reid,) etc.

The vital thing to note is that Rice doesn't want to tip America's hand to the jihadis. If she told the truth about islame, it would prepare accordingly. Her deceit is tactical. She has access to Bush's plan to stomp on islam. Neither one of them can reveal details without jeopardizing the war effort.

Take heart, pal. Not everything is as it seems. This isn't a Clinton or Carter administration. These people care about America.

americandudetteingermany:

Dominic is a flake and a nut-bucket. If you trust him, be ready to hear about the multiple Bargholz's that work as paid operatives of the evil BusHitler.

He's a typical left-wing America hater.

Re: "war mongering against Islam and Islamophobia."

Nice try at indignation, but the problem is too often that Muslims suffer from logicphobia, the fear of facts and logical reasoning based upon the facts.

Congratulations Jeff, you seem to have pissed off a whole range of people in a very sort space of time. You practice a ‘WWF’ form of debate (every rhetorical flourish ends with a smackdown), and you get into a rage whenever someone criticises the GOP. But if as you say the war in Iraq has made us strategically stronger for our next round (against Iran), then you are delusional. To keep with your bong analogies, get ready from some blowback.
For my next comment, please don’t call me an American-hater (I hold the same passport you do + a UK passport).
Many people have cringed at comments made by Bush (‘mission accomplished’ ‘dead or alive’ etc), and from a global perspective, the war in Iraq was the wrong war (it should be against Iran).
I also consider myself leftist, and you seem very keen to castigate Clinton at all as not lovers of America. Again, delusional.
But actually, as I trawl through your numerous verbose comments, the one that stopped me was your comment that the Telegraph survey should have reflected 100% UK Muslim support for 7/7. So you’re talking with UK Muslims, and reviewing what UK Muslims are saying in their Mosques and University clubs are you? Course not.
So here’s a challenge for you, without slagging everyone else off (who are essentially on the same side), try and come up with some practical policies that will reduce the impact of Radical Islam in the UK and USA.

americaningermany

If you were running for President, I'd vote for you too! If you were running against Tex, I'd have to vote twice!

Consider Bargholz statements like:

Just because Condi is forced to whitewash islam, doesn't mean she's an inveterate liar. She tells the truth when it counts.

and

This isn't a Clinton or Carter administration. These people care about America

I truely believe that people like Jeff mean well; want to blieve these things are true; but are now starting to wake up to the awful truths that were difficult for me to face up.

Give them time; give them facts; eventually when they are ready, it will all sink in and hit them like a brick -- unless they themselves are hopeless in denial and really do believe that Amercian politics is a simple matter of "left vs right"; "Dem vs Republican"; this vs that.

Consider the case of CANAMEX; Jeff probably doesn't know that suchs exist and if you mentioned it casually to him at a convention, he'd probably dismiss you as a "left-wing nut job who's simply out to destroy Bush."

If you presented some followup facts, linked together on a website such as:

http://www.canamex.org/Pages/PRESENTATIONS.htm

he might dismiss it as a group of consipracy nuts until he got to something like:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/issues/senate/canamex%20corridor.pdf

Naturally, people like Jeff have the accument to actually read the document and when finished they will come back with an incredulous
"so what?" not even thinking about the implications of CANAMEX or that fact that Mexican Ports built in Kansas will be operated by the Chinese military.

If you show people like Jeff such things as this

Chicago to sport red, white and green to honor Mexico
Prominent buildings will be bathed in national colors to celebrate independence

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51804

they will say stuff like "oh, no wonder; that worldnetdaily.com can never be trusted!"

Even if you were to fly Jeff to Chicago and march him down Monore and Randolf to see for himself -- he come back with something like "what does that have to do with Bush" never allowing for the fact that people like Bush and Daily are instrumental in allowing this to happen.

Imagine all the buildings in downtown Mexico City drapped in American colors! Keep dreamin!

Now visualize, all the buildings in downtown Chicago drapped in Mexico's national colors!

Baby, you ain't dreamin: it's real; it's unstoppable; and it's wrong!

But heck, just like Condi sometimes you can tell the truth, sometimes you don't.

That's politics; that's multicultralism and relative value systems in action; and that's why we have the problems we have; and that's how people like Khatami can get here and how millions of illegals can get here and demand non-existant "rights" under our Constitution while having the luxurary of actively working to destroy it.

After all, most politicians in America swear to uphold it and do every thing they can to create legislation to undermine it!

And say, why are our combat forces who fought for their lives and after doing our bidding in Iraq; no facing death penalty charges in Kentucky?

This too is wrong; but it happens because multicultuaralist and globalists like Bush and Clinton have the power to allow it happen!

The findings (that 40% of British Moslems want Sharia) are "alarming". He added: "Vast numbers of Muslims feel disengaged and alienated from mainstream British society.
--- Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP on the UK 7/7 task force

I'm alarmed that such an unrealistically low estimate as 40% was reported by a major British daily, and with a straight face. I'm also alarmed that they would put a Moslem on such a task force.

We've been hearing this "alienated, disengaged" bilge for years now, as if our ham-handed handling of the Moslem Emotion has somehow made them sad and it's our fault.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

They're not sad, they secretly smile every time they open government checks for free spending money, free rent, free trasnportation, free education, free healthcare, free jobs, even free start-up money. These Moslems are free and they rejoice in their freedom!

They're not alienated, they're self-separated supremacists reveling in what the Allah commands. And why shouldn't they? Just look at all the favors the fawning White Man lays on Moslem Man.

They're not disengaged, they're fully engaged in a scripted process first to take over the Middle East and South Asia, and then Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It only took a few years to take northern Africa, so why not?

The findings (that 40% of British Moslems want Sharia) are "alarming". He added: "Vast numbers of Muslims feel disengaged and alienated from mainstream British society.
--- Sadiq Khan, the Labour MP on the UK 7/7 task force

I'm alarmed that such an unrealistically low estimate as 40% was reported by a major British daily, and with a straight face. I'm also alarmed that they would put a Moslem on such a task force.

We've been hearing this "alienated, disengaged" bilge for years now, as if our ham-handed handling of the Moslem Emotion has somehow made them sad and it's our fault.

* 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 ** 33:21 *

They're not sad, they secretly smile every time they open government checks for free spending money, free rent, free trasnportation, free education, free healthcare, free jobs, even free start-up money. These Moslems are free and they rejoice in their freedom!

They're not alienated, they're self-separated supremacists reveling in what the Allah commands. And why shouldn't they? Just look at all the favors the fawning White Man lays on Moslem Man.

They're not disengaged, they're fully engaged in a scripted process first to take over the Middle East and South Asia, and then Europe, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. It only took a few years to take northern Africa, so why not?

From the MEMRI TV Archives - Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami: 'Difficult to Distinguish Between President Bush & Bin Laden'; America is the Root of Worldwide Terror; 'There Will Be No Change in Relations Between Iran & U.S.'; 'We Will Not Relinquish Our Right to Enrich Uranium'; & Debating Tehran University Students

http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD127906

Jeff Bargholz

I wish I were as optimistic as you are that GWB will act, in the final analysis, unilaterally, to uproot the Mullahs and their nuclear facilities. It would be simply a great project and would save the world an awful war and conflagration down the road. The further this can is kicked down the road the higher the butcher's bill becomes. But, to me it seems that the Bush administration has been so heavily kicked around by the media, a large minority of the American people, and international "allies" that they've become gun-shy. Iran now has, I believe, the correct impression that it can do anything it wants without consequences. Think of what it has going in its favor. Europe: completely cowed into appeasement and endless, meaningless negotiations held to this process by the carrot and stick strategy of Iran, vis-a-vis business contracts and terror threats. Russia and China gladly feed this proxy beast of theirs and give it cover in the U.N. The United States is under unrelenting pressure to conform with multilateralist Europe and the U.N. through internal and external political opposition. Iran gets its way in Lebanon when a perfidious France once again hoodwinks us, by getting us to pressure Olmert's government to agree to a ceasefire without any provision for disarming Hizb'allah. I could go on and on, but you get the picture...

I'm not disagreeing with you about what must be done. I just don't see it happening any time soon. And we will pay dearly for it. The world will pay dearly for it. WWIV is in the offing. Norman Podhoretz called the Cold War WWIII. This one he calls WWIV, and I agree with him.

Jeff Bergholz writes:

"I'm not convinced that Rice is as ignorant as you claim. Highly intelligent people can be uninformed on many subjects, but she's privy to a mountain of daily intelligence on islam. She's also privy to state secrets that would make our heads spin."

Where was the U.S. Government while this disinformation campaign was being waged? Doesn't the CIA have photo interpreters anymore? Doesn't the State Department know what the term "disinformation" means? During the Cold War, the U.S. Government was well aware of Soviet KGB disinformation ploys and tried hard to expose and refute them. But in the current so-called "War on Terror," the Bush Administration has totally dropped the ball on that.

If Hezbollah is waging a disinformation campaign, what about Saudi Arabia, which is far wealthier and has far more political contacts inside this country? What disinformation and subversion is Saudi Arabia spreading?

Again, if you want to know the answer to that, you won't ever hear about it from Bush or Condi; you have to go to private blogs on the Internet. Who work virtually alone, with no support or even recognition from Bush or Condi. Why? Could THIS possibly be the reason:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=11209

The extent to which even the Republican Party has been penetrated by Saudi agents of influence, is not a story you're going to hear about from Bush or Condi. In fact, given that Washington leaks like a sieve, I'll bet they don't even want to investigate it quietly and risk having embarrassing information leaked to the Washington Post. Therefore it remains a taboo subject.

albion writes:

"So here’s a challenge for you, without slagging everyone else off (who are essentially on the same side), try and come up with some practical policies that will reduce the impact of Radical Islam in the UK and USA."

Just curious. You know the UK has got this group of professional agitators who stir up Muslims to violence--and yet most of your fellow Leftists think that's perfectly OK. What say you?

Jeff Bargholz writes:

"As I've stated ad nauseum on this site, due to the invasion of Iraq, Iran is now surrounded on all sides by American troops."

Of course, the notion of invading Iran, a country of 69 million people, with only 150,000 U.S. troops (no matter where on Iran's borders they're positioned) is ludicrous on the face of it. But even if you thought such a thing could work, the fact remains is that our troops cannot be in two places at once. Our force in Iraq, as you yourself admitted, is "babysitting" there to keep Iraq intact. Pull the troops out to invade Iran and then Iraq falls apart. If anything, our troops will face constant attacks from the rear by Shi'a guerrillas in Iraq. Staging an invasion of one enemy country from another enemy country that hasn't been pacified yet is suicidal.

And that's why Iran doesn't appear to be too impressed with America's having "surrounded" them. They're not exactly cowering in fear, are they? Or making major concessions on their nuclear program? On the contrary, Ahmedinijhad knows he has the geopolitical advantage and even the military advantage on the ground, thanks to Shi'a guerrilla units like Hezbollah. The whole world knows that, except you, apparently.

Long ago, the RAND Corporation did a mathematical study, based on past history, of the minimum number of troops needed to successfully occupy an enemy country. They concluded that you needed a minimum ratio of one U.S. soldier for every 100 enemy civilians. For Iraq, a country of 27 million people, that would have worked out to some 270,000 U.S. troops. Bush and Rumsfeld sent only half as many, which is the main reason why the occupation went so badly.

And for Iran, that would work out to some 690,000 U.S. troops. Iran knows we haven't got anywhere near that number--that would be a bigger force than we fielded in the 1991 Gulf War. So Iran doesn't feel "surrounded" at all. Not one damn bit. And it shows in their growing self-confidence and strutting arrogance.

Is the easiest way to get a VISA for America to be a leader of an is-lamic state?

A pithy comment from Mr Bargholz:

"That's an easily refuted fallacy that flies in the face of reality."

A pithy comment from Mr Pelayo:

Then refute it, dammit or shut up and go away.

Witness,

I posted a comment thanking you for backing me up, but I must have said something very wrong, because it's been deleted.

Posted by: americaningermany

You are welcome

what you call "foreign policy", the civilised world call barbaric oppression and aggression on the weak and poor.

And just who would be included in this "civilized world" about which you speak, uncle sham?

At least try to find new buzzwords. "Barbaric oppression" and "aggression" against the never quite defined "weak and poor" were beaten to death by the Marxists a long time ago.

Why don't you socialists/communists just gracefully accept defeat and grow up?

And don't forget, jackass, who gives more foreign aid to the "weak and poor" than anyone else in the world? Here's a hint: it ain't France, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, PRC, or any other country you probably consider "civilized".

On your way, Gramscian dog.

americaningermany writes:

Let me just try to say once again, that if the U.S. does have some secret "plan" to take action against Iran and other "various islamic holy cities" in the near future, we will have problems at home. I will not say what those "actions" are supposed to be, because this post will be deleted.

Bush has had nearly 5 years to prepare for that contingency. And that can't be a "secret" plan, because any major change to America's use of energy can't be kept a secret for very long. So I'm guessing he has no plan for how to cope with that.

Jeff Bargholz' repeated regurgitation of the Bush party line is representative of the entire Bush approach to the War on Terror: the Bush Administration won't take, or even consider, constructive criticism from anyone--even people on their side of the political fence.

Most of us on JW are not "appeasers," nor pacifists, nor do we think that the jihadists can be sweet-talked into peace like some of the moonbats on the extreme Left believe. We have no illusions about the gravity of the threat facing the West.

So if Jeff Bargholz, or the Bush Administration he's supporting, can't convince even us here on JW about Bush's war policy, then who the hell can they convince?

I can understand the Bushies not listening to suggestions from peacenik Democrats or socialistic Europeans. But they even ignore the growing concerns of folks here on JW, of old-style conservatives like William F. Buckley and George Will, and more recently, even of William Kristol at the Weekly Standard. Ever since 9-11, the attitude of the Bush Administration has been "We know exactly what we're doing--leave us alone." The same attitude as the guys who launched the Space Shuttle Challenger or sailed the Titanic.

Well, they didn't know exactly what they were doing, and they rejected inputs that might have helped them out along the way. So be it. I'm not going to support an Administration that refuses to let reality intrude on their theories.

Steven L, Buckley and George Will and other hold overs form the sixties.. one lesson to learn after Vietnam, you let the generals decide on war stregedy, not the pompous politician whose main goal
is to get re-elected, and that includes the "maverick" from Arizona. l trust the military anyday than to any politican.

what you call "foreign policy", the civilised world call barbaric oppression and aggression on the weak and poor.
Posted by: uncle sam
hey sammy boy aka salad bowl, you describing the foreing policy of the countries of the middle east and other muslim countries.. how about the "Sudan" they are killing black muslim, Christians faster than you can say salad bowl.
what about the oppresion of women in the middle east? the killing of girls from on top of cranes in Iran because she fought off her rapists?
how much oppression can you stand from any muslim country? l mean salad bowl you got to move back to your homeland, you can be free..

I once saw an interview of an elderly German who was a lieutenant in the Wermacht when Hitler ordered the re-militarization of the Rhineland. He stated that he had orders to turn back if the French Army showed up. If the French Army had arrived and rattled some sabers, things would be different.

Appeasement will backfire every time.

Posted by DUMBO:

Hey MadrassasippiBurnin
Com[paring Howard Dean to Khatami is a real stupid right wing fascist comment. The trouble with "great Americans" like you is that you hate everyone who doesn't agree with you. You GOPers seem to love fetuses, Jesus, and other robots like you but hate everyone else, really good Christians.
As far as Khatami goes, it was your idol Bush's admin who granted him the visa, but you don't have the spine to trash them like you would some "liberal" Maybe if people like you seren't such fascist fanatics, more regular people might agree, but if wishes were horses......

Dear Dumbopottamus,

First, I have never mentioned Howard Dean in any of my posts. Second, how do you know I'm right wing, Christian, anti-abortion or otherwise? My dislike/distrust of the Left implied above is only that: this does not signal or infer allegiance to the Right. If you've read my prior posts on this site you'll know I am deeply let down by this administration's pursuit of the war on terror. Finally, and I know you'll be disappointed, but Bush is hardly my hero. My heroes don't hold political office.

Also, please try to write coherently and with some grasp of English. Your writing style is pathetic. If you want the credibility you crave, try proper spelling and grammar before launching into one of your immature and sad tirades.

American Islamonazi Justifying Khatami Visit
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/videos/MS090106-2.php
MSNBC - video

Albion:

Iran is now surrounded by battle-hardened American troops and the world's best armament. America's military budget has increased significantly since Hussein was overthrown, and its technology has also improved--especially bunker-buster bomb technology. Americans have grown accustomed to the use of pre-emptive military force and overwhelmingly want to see Iran de-fanged. Iran is painting itself into a corner with its effort to go nuclear and its defiance of the so-called international community.

To claim that we are NOT "strategically stronger for our next round (against Iran,)" is not only irrational--it's clearly delusional. And yet you accuse me of being delusional! Do you and Dom share the same tin-hat?

I haven't seen anyone here criticize the GOP. I have read scurrilous accounts of the Bush administration, and inaccurate statements about it. Distorting my effort to set the record straight by describing it as a fit of rage is a trite leftist tactic. Unfortunately, it only works on other simpletons, so you're wasting your time.

If you're claiming that the Clintons, Ketchup Kerry, Gollum, Pelosi, et al love America, you need to fly back to your moonbat cave. Vital American military given to Imperialist China, treason in three separate wars, aiding our jihadist enemy and weakening national security are not the actions of patriots.

I've explained many times why invading Iran before Iraq would have been folly. Iraq had precedents, Iran did not. Iraq was violating the surrender treaty with America and a slew of UN resolutions. The world believed Hussein was far closer to possessing WMD than Iran. The public and international outcry and opposition to the overthrow of Hussein was bad enough, the opposition to the overthrow of the mullahs would have been overwhelming--and you know it. Iran has far less strategic territorial importance than Iraq.

Your claim that I wrote the "Telegraph survey should have reflected 100% UK Muslim support for 7/7" is simply untrue. Go back and read what I wrote. I have spoken to British muslims, but that's irrelevant. Your claim that only first hand knowledge is valid is a child's argument. You don't believe that only 25% of the muslims in Britain support the recent terrorist attacks (not just 7/7 son,) any more than I do. These are the same muslims who you consistently describe as a jihadist menace bent on conquering Britain.

You've read plenty of my "practical polic(y suggestions) that will reduce the impact of Radical Islam in the UK and USA."

Barring muslims from entering our countries, deporting or executing all muslim citizens preaching jihad, overthrowing the mullahs and Assad, and educating the public would be a good start.

Like most other people, you seem unable to look at the big picture and draw your own conclusions. For instance, you don't recognize that many of President Bush's policies and actions were designed to set the stage for future policies and actions. You rely on others to provide judgement for you. That makes you dogmatic, and sets you up to have your arguments torn apart by guys like me. You should try to look at what's going on around the world and draw some of your own conclusions.

Witness:

Where are these "facts" you're harping on?

Do you believe Bush, Rice, or any other member of the administration should let the jihadis know that they're on to them by describing islam accurately? Maybe they should reveal every state secret that exists to the public and the jihadis? Even after 911, if they had spoken the truth about islam, the left-wing Establishment Media that you seem to think is so harmless would have svaged them. They would never have been able to implement a policy to combat jihad at all, much less the limited one they started out with.

How is Canamex, our one-way open border problem, and all the other evils of the world Bush's fault, and Bush's fault only? More importantly, what makes you assume I support these things?

Your unwarranted attack lacks bite.

Fred:

The American public wants to see the mullahs overthrown, and their nuclear weapons program destroyed. Troops in Iraq are scheduled to be "redeployed" at the end of the year. The congressional election will be over by then. (I predict a great weeping and gnashing of teeth by the Democrat party.) The mullahs are giving the UN and the "international community" the finger over their nuclear program. They are trying to draw America into a conflict in the Middle East. Bush will be President until 2009, and he doesn't have to worry about being reelected. He has said several times that if diplomacy fails (he knows it will fail as well as we do, and I'm convinced he's counting on it, and even subtly pushing for it,) he will use other means to stop the mullahs. "Other means" is a euphemism for military force--the only means that would be successful. He is on a speaking tour right now promoting this policy. His cabinet members and UN ambassador are all promoting the same policy. Most people thought he would never invade Afghanistan. Most people thought he wouldn't invade Iraq.

That's why I'm confident that the mullahs are living on borrowed time.

"They are trying to draw America into a conflict in the Middle East." A posting from what's-his-name above

This just in:

We are already in a conflict in the Middle East.

How is our one-way open border problem Bush's fault?

Let's see, 2006 takeaway 2000 equals six. Yeah, six years, how many more years does Bush need?

Steven L:

Since when was it the White House's responsibility to expose media fraud? Who would they report their findings to--the very media perpetrating the hoax? The media that is blindly adversarial to all Republican administrations?

The very notion is ridiculous, as is your little anti-Bush disinformation campaign.

During the Cold War the Soviets successfully used communist proxies within the US to turn public opinion against the Vietnam War--and the US government failed to expose them. America abandoned the South Vietnamese to the communists. Most people wrongly believe America lost the war.

Some success story you've referenced.

A move against Saudi Arabia right now would be an economic disaster for the United States. Suggesting Bush is corrupt for not doing so is sheer idiocy.

The notion that the Republican party has been infiltrated by Saudis is Michael Moorian in scope. Only the twitchiest conspiracy nuts would even suggest such a thing.

You wrote: "our troops simply cannot be in two places at once." That is an amazingly stupid statement. Following that delusional premise, each and every one of our troops are in Iraq right now. No troops in America, none in Europe, none in Asia, none at sea, and most importantly, none in Afghanistan or Turkmenistan either! Apparently, the American fleet cannot be used in an attack on Iran. The Shias in Iraq who are sent straight to hell any time they try to engage American troops even indirectly, will hand those troops a walloping defeat if they dare to invade mighty Iran.

The mullahs are working so feverishly precisely because they're terrified of an American invasion. They stupidly think whatever puny nuclear capability they may gain can deter an American attack.

Very few people on the planet are $hit-for-brains stupid enough to believe that the puppet President Amahdinejad has a geopolitical and military advantage over the US military. Your inability to tell the difference between strutting arrogance and empty bravado says a lot about your lack of acumen.

The occupation of Iraq has been one of the most successful occupations overall in American history. The Coalition has been accomplishing all of its goals--the terrorists have failed to accomplish a single one of their self stated goals. I've demonstrated this many times on this site. I'm not going to do it again for you.

The notion that a huge amount of infantry soldiers are necessary to conquer a country--particularly a basket case like Iran--is ignorance incarnate. It's also ignorant to assume Iran would require the same kind of occupation necessary in Iraq.

The RAND study is a joke. It's already been proved incorrect. In fact, it was proved incorrect after WWII--before it was even written.

President Nancy Pelosi. Cretins have been making wild statements like that for years.

Bush has been killing muslims in their own counties in unprecedented numbers, and we aren't paying $6.00 a gallon for gas. No, he doesn't have a plan. Only the websights you plagiarize from are able to make predictions. All the contingency planning in the Pentagon and White House has been halted at the insistence of President Bush. Right.

Steven, you have not expressed a single original thought, provable fact, or reliable statistic on this thread--just typical Bush Derangement Syndrome nonsense. Normally I wouldn't come out and say it outright, but you're a moron and an ignoramus. Facts are nothing but obstacles to slink around and ignore for doctrinaire fanatics like you.

I feel stupider just having read your dreck. Don't expect me to waste any more of my time on you.

americaningermany:

The theory that I'm a paid agent of BUSH (Bush Undercover Spy Headquarters,) leads me to believe that you're wrong about Dom. He's a disturbed individual, no matter what his feelings about America are, which I couldn't care less about.

It's not so much that I disagree with his obvious nonsense, it's more a case of recognizing his mental illness.

Fred:

I forgot to address your comment by Podhoretz. I've read the stories he wrote concerning WWIII and WWIV, and I also agree with him. Commentary is one of my favorite magazines, along with Military History, and Military Heritage. I had collections going back years that were destroyed by water damage in my garage. That hurt.

Cheers.

americaningermany:

I didn't mean to imply that Team Bush has a plan to begin dealing with all of islam--just active jihadism. We both know that jihad cant be separated from islam, and I don't want to give the guy more credit than he deserves. I'm not a blind partisan like most people hereabouts.

The American people themselves can deal with the hypothetical problem you described, and probably will. Law enforcement and national guard units are in place to deal with national emergencies.

Speaking personally, I'm not afraid of Muhhamad Khan't Shootsrate.

Pelayo:

"'A pithy comment from Mr Bargholz:'

'That's an easily refuted fallacy that flies in the face of reality.'

'A pithy comment from Mr Pelayo:'

Then refute it, dammit or shut up and go away.'"

Don't know what you're referring to, but I've refuted so many of your claims that should come as no surprise.

"They are trying to draw America into a conflict in the Middle East." A posting from what's-his-name above

"This just in:

We are already in a conflict in the Middle East."

I was referring to a wider conflict involving the Hezb' Allah, Iranian and Syrian war against Israel. Next time I'll try to make that more obvious by drawing you a map.

Here is your deliberate misquote: "How is our one-way open border problem Bush's fault?"

Here is the real quote: "How is Canamex, our one-way open border problem, and all the other evils of the world Bush's fault, and Bush's fault only? More importantly, what makes you assume I support these things?"

Changes the whole meaning, doesn't it Pelayo? For future reference, Congress is the legislative branch of the US government.

I was wrong about you. I thought you were mildly honest.

Witness:

Where are these "facts" you're harping on?

Available to anyone who wants to research them. Which ones would you care to research?

Do you believe Bush, Rice, or any other member of the administration should let the jihadis know that they're on to them by describing islam accurately?

I don't believe that jihadis should be given high level security positions in any way shape or form; and I don't think we should turn over control of our ports to foreign control -- especially, ME countries.

I believe that when software companies that create programs for the military are given to entities that are ME, that this actually provides access to the jihadists.

Short answer -- the only ones in the dark are the Amercian people.

Maybe they should reveal every state secret that exists to the public and the jihadis?

If you say so.

Even after 911, if they had spoken the truth about islam, the left-wing Establishment Media that you seem to think is so harmless would have svaged them.

No, I never said nor believed that the left-wing Establishment Media ...(was/is) ...harmless" They are every bit as dangerous if not more so, than the terrorist that holds a gun to your head.

I think Bush is afraid to say anything truthful about Islamic facism out of fear of losing money from his Saudi friends.

They would never have been able to implement a policy to combat jihad at all, much less the limited one they started out with.

I agree

How is Canamex, our one-way open border problem, and all the other evils of the world Bush's fault, and Bush's fault only?

Bush is part of the collective mindset that is currently running the United States that does not believe in American sovereignty. I have issues with that.

Bush is responsible for Canamex because his is one of the three primary enablers of it.

More importantly, what makes you assume I support these things?

Perhaps you don't. In that case I am glad.

Your unwarranted attack lacks bite.

It was not an attack per se (and if I wanted to attack, I assure you, there would be more "bite" than you could handle), merely an observation about people in general who say the kinds of things you say. I believe your comments as indicative of a kind of arch-type of thought that most well meaning Americans tend to hold. A condition that truly saddens me.

Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at September 4, 2006 09:38 PM

The biggest hole in Khatami's argument (besides the hole in his head) is that the USA had ALREADY been terrorized in the 1780s by Islam and later in the 1790s and again in the early 1800s (the Ottoman Muslims were attacking our cargo vessels in the Mediterranean and massacring the crew and passengers, although some were enslaved in Tripoli). At that time there was NO nation of Israel to lobby for US support, no Bush Doctrine to rail against, no US 'imperialism'. Just Islamic terrorism running amok. History repeats itself.

Islam is designed to kill people, pure and simple. Khatami knows this all too well. And of course, the mullahs--like Khatami-- exist to ensure that Islam keeps right on doing just that all the while spinning out endless lies (as seen most recently in Chicago, where Khatami's newly-spun lies were almonst certainly eagerly lapped up by his largely Arab and Afro-American audiences)to ensure that Islam's killing machinery is lubricated to the max while the world is kept in the dark about Islam's true nature.

Khatami spreads the (Muslim)view that the Americans' view lack legitimacy and are in need of corrections from the Middle East. If this guy hasn't figured it out, I will spell it out for him: No one in the United States is about to forgive Islam for 9-11. NEVER. He can forget it. As for the "American" Muslim community, they are more than welcome to emigrate from the USA to that broad-minded paradise of humanity, the Middle East.

Witness:

Which researchable facts am I unaware of? Are you suggesting that Condoleeza Rice is untrustworthy? That Carter and Clinton care about America? That Bush doesn't? Do you believe these statements are factual?

What jihadi enjoys a high level security position in America other than Howard Dean and his ilk?

What American port is under the control of a ME country? The UAE port deal fell through, remember? What makes you think I supported that idiocy, and what does it have to do with anything I wrote? Is it supposed to be "proof" that Team Bush doesn't care about America? He probably had a quid pro quo reason for backing that deal that we don't know about, although I wouldn't support such a deal under any circumstances.

No software program is going to help a camel country harm the US.

I didn't claim that you wrote that the Estabishment Media was harmless. I only meant to point out that the supposition that Rice should describe islam honestly, presupposes that the Establishment Media would allow her to do so unmolested. I agree that the ideological left, with the media arm of its propaganda machine, is more dangerous than the Jihadis. The islamopaths don't have a rat-bastard's chance of beating us, but the left is trying to make us surrender. If we allow it, that's exactly what will happen.

Save the Saudi buddy comments for Michael Moore.

I also have huge issues with our sovereignty problems, but Bush shares responsibility with many, many others, especially the scum in Congress. If Bush is one of three primary enablers of Canamex, he shares responsibility with the other two enablers.

You did indeed attack me. You attacked me personally, and you attacked my statements. Exactly what kind of archetypal thought do you suppose I represent? Naivete'?

Threats are for punks, by the way. If you want to dish out more than I can handle, go ahead and do it. Don't talk about it. Why you would want to try is beyond me, because your assumption that I support the policies that concern you is wrong.

Carter should have been impeached for giving the Panama Canal away, and that's just the beginning of what I believe.

You're barking at the wrong guy. I don't support the disintegration of our national sovereignty at all.

Witness:

Which researchable facts am I unaware of?

Regarding which issue?

Are you suggesting that Condoleeza Rice is untrustworthy?

I don't trust her or her judgement.

That Carter and Clinton care about America?

No. They are globalists who have no loyalty to America.

That Bush doesn't?

Bush and Clinton are golfing buddies; and fellow globalists who have no loyalty to America or to the American people in general.

Do you believe these statements are factual?

Which statements?

What jihadi enjoys a high level security position in America other than Howard Dean and his ilk?

I don't know specifically about Howard Dean's religious preferences, but I do know that senior members of the FBI told their underlings to stand down on their investigation of Mohammad Atta and the other 911 hijackers, when concern was raised about islamics attending flight school.

I also know of a software company that had links to islamic groups that produce code for the White House, and various branches of DoD.

What American port is under the control of a ME country? The UAE port deal fell through, remember?

Actually, it was put on hold -- it is not completely off the table for ever as it should be.

What makes you think I supported that idiocy, and what does it have to do with anything I wrote?

Perhaps you don't support idiocy -- I hope not.

Is it supposed to be "proof" that Team Bush doesn't care about America?

Bushes actions have undermined the security of the nation in several areas; many good and loyal Americans have been adversely impacted by globalis like Bush and Clinton.

He probably had a quid pro quo reason for backing that deal that we don't know about, although I wouldn't support such a deal under any circumstances.

I'm beginning to like you!

No software program is going to help a camel country harm the US.

I don't like potential terrorists having access to ships communications; missle codes or any such other information. Period.

I didn't claim that you wrote that the Estabishment Media was harmless.

Okay.

I only meant to point out that the supposition that Rice should describe islam honestly, presupposes that the Establishment Media would allow her to do so unmolested.

If she would stand up against them and put them in their place, I might start to trust her.

I agree that the ideological left, with the media arm of its propaganda machine, is more dangerous than the Jihadis.

Now you are talking sense -- I am beginning to like you!

The islamopaths don't have a rat-bastard's chance of beating us, but the left is trying to make us surrender.

Yes, and I think its wrong and should be stopped. The doctored pictures from Reuters comes to mind.

If we allow it, that's exactly what will happen.

Scary thought -- which is why I too want it stopped.

Save the Saudi buddy comments for Michael Moore.

Why? Did Moore make the same observation? Well, too bad. I don't like Kissinger's firm based in New York acting as consultants for the House of Saud -- it puts their interests above those of American citizens.

I also have huge issues with our sovereignty problems, but Bush shares responsibility with many, many others, especially the scum in Congress.

Now this is music to my ears! Continue on fellow citizen -- you are making sense and have renewed my spirit!

If Bush is one of three primary enablers of Canamex, he shares responsibility with the other two enablers.

You did indeed attack me.

Ohhh?

You attacked me personally, and you attacked my statements.

Not you personally, since I don't know -- your statements I noted with a bit of dispair. An all out assult? No, I really hadn't; at least that wasn't my purpose or intent.

Exactly what kind of archetypal thought do you suppose I represent?

That of a typical, honest, and good American who still wants to believe in their country; but who has been betrayed by the people who are supposed to be acting in your intest -- i.e. Congress as you wisely pointed out earlier.

Naivete'?

I sensed that, yes -- perhaps honestly and goodness too; things that I can respect in a person.

Threats are for punks, by the way. If you want to dish out more than I can handle, go ahead and do it. Don't talk about it. Why you would want to try is beyond me, because your assumption that I support the policies that concern you is wrong.

Spoken like a true soldier indeed. Maybe you are a patriot; maybe I was wrong. Good. I am glad if that is the case!

Carter should have been impeached for giving the Panama Canal away, and that's just the beginning of what I believe.

So true! So true!

You're barking at the wrong guy. I don't support the disintegration of our national sovereignty at all.

Jeff, I think you are alright; I salute you! Let us fight the good fight brother for the cause of our country is just -- we are on the same side it seems.

Pleasure to serve with you in the noble and sacred enterprise!