UPDATE: Frist denies that he surrendered to the Taliban. Captain's Quarters (thanks to Bill) has this email from him:
First of all, let me make something clear: The Taliban is a murderous band of terrorists who’ve oppressed the people of Afghanistan with their hateful ideology long enough. America’s overthrow of the Taliban and support for responsible, democratic governance in Afghanistan is a great accomplishment that should not and will not be reversed.Having discussed the situation with commanders on the ground, I believe that we cannot stabilize Afghanistan purely through military means. Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes.
National reconciliation is a necessary and an urgent priority … but America will never negotiate with terrorists or support their entry into Afghanistan’s government.
Saying the war can't be won is one thing. It is certainly true that a Wilsonian democracy initiative in Afghanistan is doomed to failure and always has been. Those who believe Sharia is the law of God are not going to exchange it readily for a legal system based on human consensus. But to say that the Taliban should be brought into the government -- that's a slap in the face of the American fighting forces who have been fighting and dying for five years now to keep them out of the government.
Both Karzai and the Taliban, and all the rest, should be put on notice that the jihad ideology will not be tolerated, and nor will a Sharia state that institutionalizes restrictions on freedom of conscience and oppression of women and religious minorities. But not tolerated in what way? America would have to occupy Afghanistan with a much larger force, and for a much longer period, in order to ensure this. Our forces would be better deployed in other ways, after an intelligent evaluation of the reality and magnitude of the jihad threat. And Afghanistan? It would get not a penny of American aid as long as it allowed the preaching of warfare against and subjugation of infidels.
"Frist says Taliban can't be defeated," from AP:
QALAT, Afghanistan -- U.S. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Monday that the Afghan war against Taliban guerrillas can never be won militarily and called for efforts to bring the Islamic militia and its supporters into the Afghan government.The Tennessee Republican said he learned from briefings that Taliban fighters are too numerous and have too much popular support to be defeated on the battlefield.
"You need to bring them into a more transparent type of government," Frist said during a brief visit to a U.S. and Romanian military base in the southern Taliban stronghold of Qalat. "And if that's accomplished, we'll be successful."
Without knowing anything about the nature and goals of the global jihad, you can't possibly know what success even is in this conflict.
What was the point of fighting the Taliban if we invite them to be a part of the government? Does this idiot really think the Taliban will become civilized by doing so? Not likely-they'll only laugh in our faces and proclaim that it's the first step in a total victory over the infidels.
Somebody needs to slap some reality into this clown because he's being totally irresponsible. No wonder fighting these maniacs is almost an impossible task given this kind of appeasing "leadership".
Frist is a dangerous idiot.
The President should have him kicked out of the party. Today.
I can't believe he has said this.
I think Frist is just telling it like it is. He realizes that we're failing in Afghanistan just like our enemies keep telling us.
The solution, however, is not to "nation build" with or without the Taliban. The solution is to set up "American Free Enterprise Zones" inside Afghanistan--large, US established and protected garrison states (geographic areas)where American forces (and their allies) can operate at will against muzlim extremists in the area.
No point in investing in infrastructure for Afghanistan as a whole when over the coming years we will have to blow up pretty much everything.
Wait til the people in Afghanistan hear about this-I'm sure they'll be delighted that the US wants their oppressors back in power. The US will look to them the way Pakistan looks to us in this struggle. This nutty statement can produce only bad things and makes the US look ridiculous.
I was talking to a fellow republican at the gym I work out at about who might be a good candidate for President in '08, and we tossed a few names around. The guy suggested Bill Frist, and I responded by saying that might not be a bad choice. After seeing this, I am afraid I am going to have to retract that statement! Newt Gingrich for President in '08!!!!! Please Lord, Please!!!!
We're stupid.
Talk of "defeat" and "victory" is itself missing the point. Talk of containing the threat of Islalm, of bottling it up or limiting it, does make sense. In the Lands of the Infidels, this means limiting the Musliim presence, with a minimum first step being a halt to all further Muslim immigration, and the expulsion of Muslims who have not yet managed to acquire citizenship in Infidel nation-states. In the Lands of Dar al-Islam, this means that Infidels should do nothing to prevent or diminish the threat of internecine struggle within the Camp of Islam, of resentments and hostlilities based on sectarian, ethnic, and economic divisions and rivalries. Finally, the best way to limit the appeal of Islam, both to Infidels (including those who might otherwise end their Spiritual Search with a permanent layover at the site marked "Islam"), and to those born into Islam, is to help create, or at least do nothing to discourage, the conditions which will force Muslims themselves to make certain connections, between the political (despotism), economic (inshallah-fatalism), social (oppressions of women and non-Muslims), moral (ditto), and intellectual (the suppression or discouragement of free and skeptical inquiry, the violence directed at all apostates, the imposition of a system of Total Regulation of Life, the severe limits on most forms of artistic expression, including painting, sculpture, and music) failures of Muslim societies, or societies suffused with Islam, a task that will require at least many decades, is there hope for the non-Muslim world to not have its own existence, its art, its science, its guarantees of individual freedom, severely threatened or ended.
That is what should be discussed.
Not "winning" in Afghanistan. Not "losing" in Afghanistan. Not winning hearts and minds, nor surrendering to the Taliban. Simply keeping the Taliban and other Muslims constantly off-balance, subject to attack at will, deprived of useeful resources and outside aid, and always exploiting local rivalries and hatreds, among Muslims, to weaken the Camp of Islam. The so-called "inevitable" here is the entirely avoidable "inevitable."
What is required most of all is thinking without the phrases-on-tap that get in the way of thought, and without the assumptions (such as: "all religions teach the same thing") that hinder or even cripple Infidel efforts. Thinking requires the leisure to read and to study. It requires the willingness, and aptitude, for mental work. In this case, it requires a detailed knowledge of both a belief-system and of the history of that belief-system, as the doctrine was put into practice over 1350 years. It requires low cunning. It requires the ability to frame things correctly: to usee words as a weapon. Apparently not only the Administration but also some members of Congress, who between them share the duty to instruct, and the duty to protect, us, do not generally possess theskills necessary. They have, instead, shown their unfitness, their failure to be well-prepared, even five years after the attacks in New York and Washington should have made them quick studies, should have sent them back to school.
This failure, now recognized by many members of the public, does more than disappoint. It alarms.
Not winning the War in Afghanistan is not an option, period. We will end up with the most humiliated country in the history. Can you imagine that most advanced and mightiest power ever could not defeat a bunch of stone-aged jerks?
In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" there's a semi-permanent, uncivilizable mass of people who live in zoo-like conditions, caged in, unthreatening to their civilized keepers.
I say we establish mini-American garrison states(American Free Enterprise Zones), just as we did in the Kurdish area in Iraq before the 2003 invasion. From there we can cherry pick our targets and missions. We can rain hell on Waziristan from there or on any other regional targets at will.
Forget nation building with muzlims. FUGGEDEDABOUTIT!!!
I suppose that now we will have to fight them in Tennessee. What a loser. If he had been in power during WWII, we would have had Hermann Goering as Reichspresident in 1946. I thought it was the Taliban who made it possible for bin-Ladin @ co. to train, go to the U.S., hijack aircraft and blow things up. Who would want to die to keep Hamid Karzai Mayor of Kabul? Which one of you would want to send a son or daughter to face death to make certain that Kandahar has electricity and public water? What a total load. If this is the best we can do, we need to leave today. Don't even think about Iraq, Iran, etc. We might as well prepare to fight the battle of Jersey City ourselves.
As usual, our leaders make one true comment ("Afghanistan will not accept democracy"), leading to us all oohing and awing, followed by a long exposition in exactly the wrong direction. Very frustrating situation.
I was thinking about Tom Tancredo the other day. I voted for him for Non-Dhimmi of the Year, and he is probably still the best choice, but he too is far from what I'd like to see/hear. Talking about nuking Mecca and Medina in retaliation for a WMD attack on the U.S. is nice, and maybe it gets him some national recognition, but if he were in a position of greater power he'd suddenly be hemming and hawing like every other politician. Talk is cheap, and if he's not even in a position to make the decision, it's very cheap. Instead of blustering macho threats, I'd like to see a politician make well-reasoned arguments about the practical steps we could be taking, today, to PREVENT a WMD attack on the U.S. Just tell us what the Qur'an really says so that we know what we're dealing with, and then offer some (non-violent) solutions. Those solutions (see any posting by Hugh Fitzgerald in the past several years) will not be easy or popular, and could only be done if the vast majority of the public understands the situation we are in. We still have the chance to avoid massive bloodletting, but only if we start to act today. Don't tell us how we will turn Mecca and Medina into glass (which we won't anyhow, it's just bluster) if New York is turned to glass. Tell us how we can keep New York (or any other of our cities) from turning to glass. We need a calm, intelligent, thoughtful spokesperson. I can think of one such person.
Frist has been listening to Musharif, the f...ing Paki dictator, who would love to see US out of Afghanistan in order to exert more influence there. He cannot stomach the thought of a potentially progressive neighbor.
In Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World" there's a semi-permanent, uncivilizable mass of people who live in zoo-like conditions, caged in, unthreatening to their civilized keepers
A perfect description of the bulk of 1.3 billion people.
The man was slightly ahead of his time, I'd say.
Frist's statement amounts to treason, IMO. You dont
go to the frontline and make statements that demoralize the troops and encourage the enemy.
Where are the calls for this asshole's resignation?!
Had a Democrat said that, there would be a tremendous uproar in the media.
The entire concept of victory sounds good, but what is it? Bomb em up to the stone age?
The Afghans now have a country . . . as do the Iraqis; let them make of it what they may. We destroyed--for a time--the bases of Bin Laden within his Afghan sanctuary, setting him back operationally, constraining him a bit.
Now he's found a new base in Waziristan along with his foreign troops. A truce between the Pakistanis and the 'native peoples' allows for outward terror against Kabul, but protection against 'inward attacks.'
And what does Bush do? He hosts the Pakistanis. The little rascal from Islamabad is dined, praised, and given a book contract. What do our troops do in Kabul? They die. Assaults are up three(or is it four fold)since this 'truce' this 'Hudna' was signed. Yes, our boys will die, but we won't chase the 'rebels' into Pakistan. Our mission is to 'rebuild Kabul, Iraq, spend lots of money, and, of course, get killed.' Yes, lets bring the Taliban back into the government. But, it won't be the son of Frist or the daughters of Bush or Clinton or Kerry who will do the groaning and croaking.
So the people who loved and gave nurture to Bin Laden now must be brought into the government, we are being attacked but can't give chase accross the border, we die. Am I missing anything?
OneEyedWink (naughty naughty) said
As Hugh said above, define "defeat". We overthrew the Taliban, killed many of their leaders and their fighters, chased them into the mountains, and allowed the people of Afghanistan to vote in elections. Militarily, we kicked their butt up one side of Afghanistan and back down the other.
True, we spent billions of our hard-earned dollars rebuilding the nation that protected and nurtured the group that killed 3,000 of our citizens. True, in their elections the people chose to go back to shariah. True, in almost all regions of Afghanistan except downtown Kabul the Taliban is supported by the people and now are the de facto rulers of Afghanistan.
With the thousands of analysts in our intelligence community, SOMEONE should have studied the history of Islamic jihad, and realized that the people of Afghanistan were not going to break out in paroxysms of freedom and democracy. "Defeat" in that sense would have involved getting the Afghans to forget thousands of years of their own history and to shed their own cultural identity, and somehow brainwash them into accepting Western history and values and cultural identity. That "defeat" was never a realistic goal, and now gives the OneEyedWinks of the world the idea that we are the ones who were defeated.
Biorabbi: you are missing the essential fact that this despicable traitor made defeatist, demoralizing statements to frontline soldiers. This was aiding and abetting the enemy.
Clueless is as clueless does.
How can we even begin to fight the enemy, if our "leaders" are so clueless that they don't know WHAT that enemy is:
ISLAM
with its sharia and iron-fisted rule wherever it reigns supreme
The way to deal with that is to bomb the sht out of them as we did--in the beginning--always in the beginning only, and then we get a guilty conscience, turn soft, invite the Red Cross in to see if we're obeying the Geneva Conventions, which the othet side doesnt give a fig about.
Bomb the bejeezus out of them, and then leave 'em--that's what's left alive--to crawl about the rubble.
No food, no money, no aid. Let the umma feed and tend to its own.
This enemy ain't no Germany or Japan that can be rehabilitated.
Look at these Afghan monkeys. They suffered under the Taliban--they made us believe, Karzai and Co. They didn't like the burkas, the women getting hit on their legs in the street if they weren't halal enough.
Now, all'a sudden (pun unintended) it's ok again to rehabilitate the Taliban.
What the fk did we do there? Set up some cockamamie government with "campaign-cap" Karzai determined to maintain strict Islamic law?
Ok, we destroyed bin Laden's jihadist training camps: good show. We tried to find the al-qaeda command. It waren't there: it's in Pakistan--in it's uncontrollable province of Waziristan, whatever.
If Talibans are burying their dead, we stand back reverently and let them live. It's their "religion," you know--we must show proper respect for the dead--THEIRS as well as ours. (Laugh)
We are trying to win "hearts and minds." But we don't have 'em by the cojones. So forgedabboutit.
To make a long post short, bomb 'em, and leave em. Shouldda done the same ting in Iraq: bomb the crap out of 'em, keep coming back and do it again and again. In Afghanistan: lotsa rubble, lotsa Talibans lyin' around dead--pictures on al Jazeera, "Arab street" seething. Fk 'em let em seethe. You try anything, anything on us we can trace back to you, you're next buddy.
Dead women, children on Al Jazeera. better theirs than ours.
Sounds tough, heartless? Yep. War's not nice. It ain't for "nice" people. They're not nice. They don't care about their dying. Why should we?
You cannot win a war without civilian casualties--that's on both sides.
In WWII (I hate to bring up the one we we won again) the Nazi-Germans blitzed London, every freaking night: and guess what? People died. Nice English women and children, old men, they died covered by rubble, arms and legs sticking out between pieces of concrete, teddy bears covered with dust, dolls twisted and torn by the Nazi bombs.
Allied bombers returned the favor, every freaking night, day too. Our airmen died, lots of them, shot down, big Flying Fortresses, Liberators, but down below--Nazi Germans died--civilians. Dresden was a good one. The fire, oh the fire! Kurt Vonnegut wrote about that one, tears in his eyes, Tough sht.
Wars ain't nice, they're not fought and won by nice people. They're won by the sons-of-bitches that make the other sons-of-btches die--lots of 'em. Body counts don't win wars: example Viet Nam. But: Utter ruthlessness does. (Remember Pearl Habor? Nagasaki? Hiroshima?)
And guess what kids? 'less we're willing to go all out, we might lose this one, the big one. We might be paying the jyza (sp?) or bowing down towards Mecca, rear-ends pointing up towards the heavens where a not-so-benificent Allah demands an entire globe ruled through sharia by Islam.
You may not like this rant, and you might like me, but, guess what? Do I care? No! I'm not for treading the moral high ground--no matter what it costs--and letting the bastards win. What the hell, it's better NOT to sink nearer to savagery? And have our children become Mohammedans or tolerated sub-humans?
Robert - FYI....
Frist put out an update with clarification regarding his comments concerning the Taliban. He says that they are a Terrorist Org. and the US will not deal with a Terrorist Org. or allow them in the Afghanistan Gov.
Dubya gave away the store. He had one strategic objective in his first term: Get Re-Elected!
"I yam a waw President," he drooled proudly.
Looks like Boy George got more than he bargained for. I mean, he was hoping that there would be no casualties since his intentions were lily-white and God-approved.
Yeah he's a war president all right. That will be the legacy of this administration: Two unwinnable conflicts still raging when he leaves office in '08.
But gas is cheap right now, so what me worry?
Thanks, unicorns62000. No need for me to say a word.
unicorns62000 - With you 100%.
Truth be told, I don't see how sending an army after a bunch of criminal bandits is going to get the job done. I'd much rather see an organization set up that can conduct clandestine activity by identifying and taking out these pigs right where they're holed up. I wonder if there's any chance of that happening. Using the army against this rabble is like trying to kill ants with a sledgehammer.
"Without knowing anything about the nature and goals of the global jihad, you can't possibly know what success even is in this conflict."
Mr. Spencer, you have well summed it up. Funny thing is my spouse just briefed our city council today on "The Long War" (will be on local TV too) and said just the opposite of Senator Frist. Our local newspaper also asked him to write an editorial and I am trying to help him, as I am his daily Jihad Watch briefer - ha ha. Since there are a lot of you folks who have educated yourselves well on these matters, can you help me out here? Any good talking points relevant to the war with radical Islam that I can add to what we already have would be appreciated. Also, a few questions for y'all:
1) Can anyone give me good concise explanations of Dar al-Islam and Sharia that would be appropriate for educating the general public?
2) I heard that Daniel Pipes has said that about 10-15% of Muslims are "radicalized." Does anyone know if this is generally considered accurate, and if that means they are engaged in radical activities, or just support them? Isn't this percentage, if valid, nearly equal to the population of the US? (Yikes.)
3) Is there one good place to get quotes by some of the radical Islamist leaders like UBL, Zawahiri and Ahmadinejad, etc?
Thanks in advance for all your help, and thanks for your courage, Mr. Spencer. You are perhaps a bigger influence than you realize.
I wonder if Frist's treasonous speech reflects a change in the WH policy towards the Taliban. We should remember that the Pentagon vetoed a missile strike against the Taliban funeral not too long ago.
I believe that the WH sees the war against the Taliban as a distraction. To them, Iraq is much more important.
Yep good to see ole Squishy Frist lost his backbone for the 93rd time this year.
Seriously we need to rethink which republicans we elect to office and get some people in who are serious about long-term national security. There is no room in our Senate for cry-babies, whiners, appeasers, or Squishies.
I'm talking too you to McCain. You too Linsey Graham.
Where's Tancredo on this one? He should rip Frist's head off for this one.
Thanks for the support guys. It only takes a few good men and women. (You know what the Marines say)
unicorns6
Hamas in Gaza/West Bank
Taliban in Afghanistan
Islamic Brotherhood in Egypt
Hezbollah in Lebanon
Frist in Tennessee
Democracy at Work!
Islamsforlosers - We are in a war, not a police action. We are on a battlefield, not surveying a crime scene. The present struggle can be described as asymmetrical warfare against an enemy that is both stateless yet universal. This battle is being conducted by traditional forces (U.S. and NATO armies, air forces, naval forces, etc.) but also first responders, intelligence services, etc. We do battle in cyberspace as well as in the air, at sea and on land. The war is truly global in nature, and as we readers of Jihadwatch know, it is taking place simultaneously in both Michigan and Mogadishu. The danger in this type of warfare is the continual threat of distraction causing us to lose sight of our true goals and objectives. We should not be seeking to nation build or control territory, but we must be able to strike anywhere we locate an enemy. We must be willing to kick in doors and deliver murder to our foes in Berlin or Baghdad. All of this is complicated by the faith our leaders and many of our fellow citizens have in globalization. They seem willing to assume risk and take casualties (ours) to safeguard this belief system.
. . . "We need a calm, intelligent, thoughtful spokesperson. I can think of one such person."
--special_guest
Who could that be? Mmmmm, why are you so secretive? can't let us in on it? Who should be our next leader?
Could it be Kerry? Naw, too perfect hair-do. Mme. Clinton? Naw. Checks out from whence the wind cometh before she decides on her position. I got it! Of course! How could I not have thought of tat first?
Why it's Hugh! It's Hugh Fitzgerald!
All kidding aside, he run for president, I vote for him in a sec. But fat chance. He too smart for that. He's a smart fella that Hugh.
"Where do the stone-aged jerks (talibans) continue getting their weapons from, does anyone here know"
KABUL, Sept. 21 (Xinhua) -- Several Afghan officers were detained for trafficking weapons and ammunition to Taliban militants, a local newspaper reported Thursday.
"The National Security Directorate arrested some Afghan military personnel in Charasiab district of the central Kabul province 28 days ago when they were trafficking arms and ammunition to Taliban rebels in the neighboring Logar province," Arman-e-Millie said.
The traffickers were carrying 150 boxes of Kalashnikov rounds and other arms by a truck, which was marked with UN emblem and escorted by a military Ranger vehicle.
HMMMMMMM it looks like the Afgan government is supplying some of the weapons and using UN vechiles no less.
I suspect they get weapons from China, Russia, Pakistan, and assorted Middle eastern Muslim Run countries.
They no doubt have US weapons (such as stinger missles) which were no doubt delivered when the taliban was fighting the soviets.
Muslims have no difficulty is securing weapons.
WWII paradigms are not relevant for WWIII. The muzlims didn't give us Bach, Beethoven, Einstein, Kant, Schopenhauer, etc. ad infinitum.
The muzlims are savages. I'd practice a policy of confinement and containment.
We need American military encampments and from there, like the Big Bad Wolf, we'll be watching, watching, waiting, striking at will.
A real-live war arena in which to experiment with live ordinance is always good for a superpower.
...Our counter-insurgency strategy must win hearts and minds and persuade moderate Islamists potentially sympathetic to the Taliban...
.................
What the hell is a "moderate Islamist"? I realize there are real questions as to what extent there is a majority population of "moderate Muslims" who are opposed to jihadi aims, but there should be no question at all that the idea of a "moderate Islamist" is ludicrous.
I had thought of Bill Frist as relatively sane, but now...
MP:
I agree with your viewpoint totally-this is indeed war on many levels and we don't need to be nation builders or occupiers. My view is that the best way to fight the Taliban and their ilk is to create a smaller scale entity that can fight them as ruthlessly as they fight us. Since we always hear (correctly or not) that the military is too small to fight on a WW2 scale we could then save it for the task it's best designed for-fighting the military of an enemy nation in a conventional war. The way things are going we'll need that military might to take on Iran next since they're obsessed with getting nuclear weapons. The question remains: do we have the willpower to fight as down and dirty as our enemies fight us?
unicorns62000
Exactly what I'm thinking! If we don't toughen up, we'll lose this war.
The thread about the female Colonel is maddening. If a woman is worried about "feelings", get her the hell out of the service.
Not all women are cut out for war. That is what is wrong with the West, we have feminized the society to the point of not defending ourselves.
We weep for the enemy who will kill us with no thought.
America is divided into two camps. One is the people who fought and won WWI and WWII and are still proud to live in the free country of the USA.
The other is the people who are soooo ashamed of the wars we have caused all over the planet (Oh the planet, she feels when we drill into her crust, dont-cha-know) we are the terrorists! Down with ourselves! These people are soooo sensitive. Sooooo sensitive that they think babies should be ground up into mush if they want to get rid of the "product of conception" (but that's another argument) And Hugo Chavez is a great leader, elected by a pristine election...Carter said so.
Yep, that is the problem with our war, we are a house divided.
Going to comment, Nariz? I had the temerity to mention abortion and leftism. I must be a crazy Freeper, huh?
unicorns62000 said
Sorry, wasn't trying to be coy, it's just that I've already said it too many times. Hint: he's got a dark beard and moustache, glasses, and he's a bestselling author. He's not a member of Opus Dei, and he receives unusually large volumes of fan mail that include the phrase "...slit your throat...".
Hugh would be a good choice too, but he'd use words that would leave the public, his opponents, and the moderator all looking confused. When his opponent misquoted the writings of some obscure 16th Century Russian poet, Hugh would pick him up above his head, spin him around, and...(the tv picture would switch to the "Please Stand By" logo).
As you say, I'd vote for either of them in a second. I'd vote for them as many times as the registrar would let me.
ISLAMSFORLOSERS - Sir we are of like mind on this one. While I'm certain that there are sufficient folks in the U.S. with the proper warrior spirit, I'm not certain that our government will unleash us, at least at the present time. Many people seeem to have forgotten what happened 5 years ago, and, per the instructions of Presiden Bush, are going on about their daily lives. To my mind being involved in a "back-burner" war is like being a little bit pregnant. We either are at war, or we are not. Since Reagan's half-assed deployment of U.S. Marines to Lebanon in the early 80's, it has pleased us to ignore the many bee-sting attacks inflicted by our enemies who are very certain that they are at war with us.
"Our counter-insurgency strategy must WIN HEARTS AND MINDS and persuade MODERATE ISLAMISTS potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government and democratic political processes."
--Frist
Two points: I'm sure not only I caught them.
You-all know about "hearts and Minds" by now--and what the special force/green beret guys in Vietnam said about hat: If you got them by the [gonads, cojones, testicles] their hearts and minds will follow. Well, we don't have 'em by the gonads. Ergo, no hearts and minds for "democracy." Plenty hearts and minds for Islam and Taliban.
Second point: "Moderate Islamists" Two things wrong there. What is an "Islamist (sorry Mr. Pipes, but I disagree with you on that one)? Is it as I suppose they mean a "fundamentalist" Moslem as opposed to a--a--what? Did I hear somebody say something?
Oh, that creature of legend, of fable and fairy tales? The non-fundamentalist Moslem, the one who doesn't really believe all that stuff in the koran and other Islamic scriptures. That one. He's almost secular, isn't he? But when push comes to shove--which way will he fall? Onto whose side?
Your guess is as good as mine? Only mine ain't a guess.
Now we get it. The non-fundamentalist Moslem, we alluded to above is the "moderate!" He is the "moderate Islamist." A "moderate fundamentalist Moslem! Wait. wait. This is getting confusing . . . like . . . like Islamic logic par example. It's a sort of a Gordian knot.
Which brings us to where I was heading all along: the gorgeous Alexander. What'd he do with that?
Out came his terrible swift sword. Ok, so we're stuck with this "moderate Fundamentalist Moslem." I mean, either you're "moderate" or you're Funamentalist. Isn't that the way it goes?
So, out comes the sword, a glint as it reflects the crescent moon in the indigoo sky above and--voila! Oops! Not so fast We halt, the knot cut half-way through. "Moderate" and "Fundamentalist" cancel each other out, don't they? It's like a negative negative--but wait, that gives a positive--minus number plus a minus number of the same value gives a plus number, if I recall my grammar school days.
Up comes the sword arm again (no Alexander we, are we?) It's a positive and a negative! That's it! Whup!" The knot is no more. Problem is gone. A positive and a negative (of the same value) give us--what? Nothing! (I don't want to use zero, because that is claimed by the Arabs to be their invention, although I've heard it said that they purloined it from the Hindu Indians.)
So, (I know this is getting boring, but bear with me, please, it's important--our nation's well-being might be in the balance--Senate majority leader and all that)so, I repeat, is "moderate" and "Fundamentalist" equal in value? And the answer is . . .
(The only people still with me now are those that enjoy intellectual bufoonery.)
. . . the answer is an unequivocal Yes! a "moderate" (Moslem) is non-existent (we haven't proven that one yet, through logic*, but no one has seen one, ever, so that's good enough) and so is a(n) (Islamist)Fundamentalist Moslem--also does not exist. Why not the latter? Because if you is a Moslem, a real Moslem that is, a koran-believing Moslem, then you are a Fundamentalist. And if'n you ain't, if you do not believe every word that is in the koran, that came directly from Allah (via Mohammed) then you're no longer a Moslem but an apostate (and you know what happens to those, don't you?)
So this tortuous reasoning has almost come to an end. If there is no such thing as a "moderate Islamist" (we do not want to use the word Moslem here because that would include all Moslems, even the moderate ones [which we cannot assume to exist as only based on legend])--are you still with me? Are you?
Because I'm not, with this, I've lost my way, irrevocably. I don't know where I am in this morass of logic within illogic.
Anywhoo, (I hate that word, I really do), Bill Frist says, "[we] must persuade MODERATE ISLAMISTS potentially sympathetic to the Taliban to accept the legitimacy of the Afghan national government, etc."
These non-existent persons {moderate Islamists---cancelled each other out, remember?) potentially sympathetic to the Taliban must be persuaded to swing the other way--the Karzai way--and use us for money, military personnel, and weapons to try and keep the Taliban from taking over the government again, which a lot of the Afghani people want again instead of the present national Afghan government. As for "democratic political processes," I think they prefer sharia.
If you find any flaws in my logic, please let me know so's we can go back and re-reason and try to correct it. On second thought, don't bother, I don't want to go through this sht again.
___
*but then neither has anyone proven the existence of the Supremem Being through logic. It has been tried, I know, but really, no cigar.
MP,
You said it! Back--burner war--Good one! The Beirut Marine Barracks incident (some "incident," especially for the 270-odd Marines that didn't make it) has been swept under the prayer rug as a good-will gesture to our potential Islamic "friends" and "allies." And then Reagan is held in such high regard (deservedly so for his arm-wrestle with Gorby) that no one faulted him and his administration for the Lebanon fiasco. This is the first time I heard anybody dare to tell the truth about that.
l agree with some sentiments by Frist, is the way we are fighting this it will be hard to win it(like fighting with hand tied behind your back), we need to fight it to win, like the US and Allies did during WW2!
ISLAMSFORLOSERS - Sir we are of like mind on this one. While I'm certain that there are sufficient folks in the U.S. with the proper warrior spirit, I'm not certain that our government will unleash us, at least at the present time. Many people seeem to have forgotten what happened 5 years ago, and, per the instructions of Presiden Bush, are going on about their daily lives. To my mind being involved in a "back-burner" war is like being a little bit pregnant. We either are at war, or we are not. Since Reagan's half-assed deployment of U.S. Marines to Lebanon in the early 80's, it has pleased us to ignore the many bee-sting attacks inflicted by our enemies who are very certain that they are at war with us.
Posted by: MP at October 3, 2006 02:56 PM
Sadly right, but true. I always figured once the 5th anniversary of 9/11 was over that whole event would rapidly fade in most people's memories. The worst thing is that it began less than a year after that atrocity.
OneEyedWink, I see your point. I still think that we did defeat the Taliban - militarily, and momentarily. But since the Afghans have not magically changed into Westerners as some believed would happen, they have just spawned a new wave of Talibani jihadists.
If our goal is to "rid the world of terrorists", I think we've set an unrealistic goal for ourselves, one that dooms us to failure, as you said. I've used the analogy of trying to rid the world of cockroaches: that's not really possible. What I think we can realistically do, is keep the cockroaches out of our kitchen: keep foodscraps off the floor, caulk around windows and doors, squash any roaches found (or release them outside if one is softhearted for the little buggers). If there is a pile of garbage down the street, then get the dumpster truck to carry away the trash and fumigate the area (realizing that you're not going to kill every roach). Then come home and continue running the household and cleaning the kitchen as needed.
I see our analogous foreign policy now as quitting our jobs and driving around the world full time, looking for any roaches anywhere (except in our "friends"' yards, who happen to have massive piles of garbage stacked up), and smashing roaches with 50 lb. sledgehammers and blowing them up with sticks of dynamite. Fun stuff, that, but meanwhile what is happening back in our kitchen?
special_guest wrote: "SOMEONE should have studied the history of Islamic jihad, and realized that the people of Afghanistan were not going to break out in paroxysms of freedom and democracy. "Defeat" in that sense would have involved getting the Afghans to forget thousands of years of their own history and to shed their own cultural identity, and somehow brainwash them into accepting Western history and values and cultural identity."
dear special_guest:
in my experience you are correct, Afghans who would wish to do the above have long since left to live in the West.
Unicorns62000;
Very well said, thank you!
ZenaWarriorPrincess;
That keen sight you show, Frisk is correct that we won't win under current conditions. The fighting we are ingaged in at present is more of patrols, and scaled down battles, NOT a war. Soldiers still get killed in this, and we should make sure that they die in service of the country, not a folly.
Is it can we, or will we?
A question, Is there a "moderate" leader of islam, that can go to a islamic site, "church", a cleric, or their followers, and say that Islam must change, or that jihad is wrong in it's current use? One who can go INTO the heart of islam, and say what the moderates believe, and have a MASS of islam followers, following what is said.
NAME one of these moderates, JUST ONE. If you can not, then he (or she) IS NOT.
If the present half-assed and scattered deployment in two countries continues, the Taliban will surely resurge and already has, thanks to Pakistan.
Why not also start using Afghanistan as a staging area for war games right next to Iran? And while they are redeploying for this purpose why not reinforce the 10th MD that is killing the Taliban and Al Qaeda pukes? Of course they could do this in Iraq and the Persian Gulf with the Navy and Air Force as well.
I like this idea about showing rather than talking tough:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/457692p-385195c.html
Unfortunately, the United States DOES negotiate with terrorists and that has been a major problem with US policy in the war on terror from the very start.
my favorite example: In the 1980s, President Reagan, I read, went to Iran and visited the Ayatollah Khomeini with a cake and a Bible in hand. No negotiations with terrorists?? What exactly did Reagan think Khomeini was, Rumpelstiltskin?? Nice going, America!!! That was such an idiotic act I will forego comment except to add that the United States will never win the conflict against Islamic jihadists by wussing out, which it has done repeatedly.
http://www.townhall.com/funnies/2006/10/02/5
The war on terror is a phony war started for no other reason than to continue the funding and welfare system in the economic economy to the corporations and the multiplier effect that this has.
It was also a perfect excuse to grab foreign land and resources, and to achieve the startegic interests of the power elites and to ristrict the freedoms of Americans at home. Conservertives and zionists are liars who create this false rhetoric to hide their true interests and goals. Pathetic.
Muhammed Amin: the only phonier thing on this blog than the war on terror is YOUR 'reasoning'.
One word; Amen.
Two words; hate them.