Fitzgerald: A fantastic war

“In the future,” many have predicted, “the Iraqis will blame their civil war on the US.”

Well, of course they will. They already do. They do in Man-on-the-street interviews, in which those men on the street explain how “everyone got along” until the bad old Americans came. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Kurds is forgotten by all the Arabs. In a poof, the persecution and mass-murder of the Shi’a by the Sunnis (the regime of Saddam Hussein being merely a disguised Sunni despotism) is forgotten — certainly by almost all the Sunnis, but also by some Shi’a when they want to blame, as they do want to blame, the Infidels for everything. Everything was wonderful.

In Pakistan Sipaha-e-Sahaba never attacked the Shi’a. In Afghanistan the Taliban never tried to wipe out every last Shi’a Hazara. In Lebanon, the Shi’a have never suffered or ever wanted to get back at the Sunnis. In Bahrain, the Shi’a who constitute 75% of the population are ruled benignly by a Sunni Arab about whom they have nothing to complain. And as for the past 1300 years of Sunni-Shi’a relations, let’s just say it has been roses, roses, roses all the way.

Of course the Americans are to blame, in Muslim eyes. Always will be.
But here’s the amusing part. The Bush Administration cannot admit to itself that the Sunni-Shi’a divide pre-dated the invasion of Iraq by some 1300 years, and that the fissures between them would inevitably widen once the iron grip of Saddam Hussein had been removed. Because to admit that this was all inevitable, would be to raise the question: if it was all inevitable, why did we not see it? For it if was inevitable, and we hadn’t — and still refuse to have — the slightest idea of its inevitability, then there must be something wrong with us. But we can’t admit that. Nor can all the commentators, for and against the war, who failed to immediately identify this inevitable outcome, and who either remained Bush loyalists, or opposed the war for all the wrong, appeasing reasons. Or they advocated some halfway measure, such as that “put in a strongman” — without, of course, asking themselves whether that “strongman” would be Sunni, in which case the Shi’a would never accept him, or Shi’a, in which case the Sunnis would never accept him.

No, those who were wrong, being unable to admit it, will persist in their obstinacy. And that obstinacy requires them to deny the depth and duration of the Sunni-Shi’a split, and thus to support the view that the “Americans caused it.”

A fantastic war, this Iraq war. Undertaken for one stated reason, continued long after for quite another, crazily messianic and polypragmonic reason. Supported by those who simply mechanically rallied around the Bush-Republican-conservative wagons, without considering what was actually going on. And even today most are still unable to see the folly of the Bush and now Gates definition of “victory,” which is the very opposite of what should be desired.

When Gates says failure to obtain “victory” — by which he means ending the Sunni-Shi’a violence and forcing the Kurds to permanently acquiesce in remaining within Arab-ruled Iraq, he has it all backwards. He speaks of “catastrophe.” But the real “catastrophe” would be if the Americans, after having squandered 3,000 lives and 22,000 wounded and a half-trillion dollars in sunk or committed future expenses, and after having done great damage to both the materiel and the morale of the armed services (not cheap to repair in one case and not easily recovered in the other), were to continue to squander men, money, and materiel in order to achieve the opposite of what would constitute a kind of victory, which would come through dividing and demoralizing and thereby weakening the Camp of Islam. Well, this would be the greatest self-inflicted defeat in American history. And it would have been entirely avoidable if Bush and Co. had had the right understanding of the instruments and full scope of the menace of Jihad.

But Jihad is not understood. Not by Bush. Not by Cheney. Not by Rice. Not by Gates. Not by the idiotic Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group. Not by The New Duranty Times. Not by The Bandar Beacon. Not by the bright-eyed “insurgency experts” who keep making plans to win hearts and minds in Iraq, and who speak confidently and irrelevantly about how insurgencies “last on average ten years.” They do not consider that this “insurgency” is Islam-based. As long as Islam is there, the Infidels will always be fought, and as long as Islam is there, the ethnic and sectarian divisions within Islam will never be overcome, because the spirit of compromise, especially peaceful compromise, is contradicted by the tenets and attitudes of the belief-system of Islam.

How long will it take this learning-curve to begin to take off, as it still strains and strains and strains for lift-off?

FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. says

    Hugh is a cold, calculationg kind of guy.

    My kind of guy-the kind we need as president. Because international relations are often cold and cruel we need someone who understands that and knows how to work in that environment-not a bunch of feel good types trying to solve every problem in the world with more money and more troops.

  2. says


    What was inevitable to those who could see and understand was that Iraq was a mudpie held together by the iron fist of Saddam and once we eliminated him and his Bath/Tikrit power clan it would all fall apart. And yes, we are to blame for the mess that is Iraq today. We will be blamed for it by Muslims and by the wider world community-ESPECIALLY when the future plays out the way Hugh Fitzgerald (and I) both believe it will. More murder, more mayhem, more internecine bloodshed.

    Humpty Dumpty was pushed. Our enemies are correct. And since neither King George nor all of King George’s men can put Humpty together again…

    well, isn’t it obvious?

  3. says

    “Undertaken for one stated reason, continued long after for quite another, crazily messianic and polypragmonic reason.”

    1. This is not a sentence.

    2. There is no such word as “polypragmonic” (or “pragmonic”) in the English language.

    Neologisms are the last refuge of pompous, pretentious, semiliterate windbags.

  4. says

    Hugh, the “learning curve” will be long and flat until we (all nations) stop claiming that Islam is mostly all that is good and peaceful, and call it for what it is.

    If 1400+ years of nothing but conquest, war, and death, even Muslim killing Muslims in droves aren’t enough evidence, then I don’t know what is.

  5. says

    The more I read about the staggering ingratitude of these Iraqi pigs, the more I hate them for being alive and wasting the planet’s valuable air. Maybe we should seriously just wipe them all out. Think about it. They have no productive function at all. They have no creativity. They have no thought about contributing anything good to humanity ever at any time or even making a better future for themselves. Think of the good we could put their land and resources to. It is simply being wasted right now. We can take it for ourselves (and maybe Israel) at any time. We could build a 51st, 52nd, and 53rd state even. We can take their land at any time and, you know what, I now think we should. I think we are owed something as payment for the misery and blood we have shed to try to redeem this worthless, ungrateful muslim people. If you disagree with me on this, consider this: All these people think about day and night is how to kill you and family……

  6. says

    Good and correct piece.

    But how will islam understanding change the requirement from being a requirement ? :

    That Pax Americana has the same requirement as the Pax Romana: it is based on the military, the Roman Legions, in our case the fighters of the West, whether they come from NATO, Canada,Australia, Israel etc. If the oil flow is sufficiently disrupted, the world economy fissles and we can kiss our respective butts goodbye.

    The Legions guarantee the peace.

    The islamic challenge requires we kill enough jihadis until the umma cries “uncle”

    The degree to which we can contain a cockfight, keep a circle around it and have the sunni cock fight the shia cock, with the betting public just watching from outside the circle, is moot.

    At best having the jihadis fight each other will will only partially distract them.

    We still have to kill enough jihadis until the umma cries “uncle”.

    God bless the West.

  7. says

    Not only will Muslims blame the United States for all and sundry, I no longer have any optimism / hope with respect to “democratizing” the wanna-be fascists.

    I just read a head-line about the United Arab Emirates inching towards democracy. And my immediate thought is, so what? What will democracy bring? — another united terrorist front? So what if a majority of the Arabs of said emirates become united in their hatreds? Big deal.

    I think the problem with the media is that they constantly conflate “democracy” with “liberalization.” The two are wholly separate entities. Liberality and democracy are NOT synonyms. Nor does the one necessarily lead to the other — just look to the terrorists in the “Palestianian” entities. What has democrcay brought? O wow — it’s Hamas. Hardly a civilizing influence for the savages.

    So to hell with democracy.

  8. says


    Take your fight elsewhere, gasbag. Hugh is still brewing his tea and he simply misstyped. Probably meant to type:

    \Pol`y*prag*mat”ic\, Polypragmatical\Pol`y*prag*mat”ic*al\, a. [Poly- + pragmatic, -ical.] Overbusy; officious. [R.] –Heywood.

  9. says

    A.I. Steamroller-

    Yeah, I often feel the same way. Those miserable palestinians need to be given the iron fist first-they are the worst of the dregs and it’s in their name a lot of this misery is caused for. This makes us racists but that’s OK-by my definition a racist regarding Islam is merely one who opposes the Muslim master race mentality and all that comes from it.

  10. says

    Yesterday I read an article on lgf about how the Iraqui soldiers went to a soccor field and ate live rabbits. The’ve done this since saddam took power.

    In the evening, I went to an undergraduate seminar at Lehigh University on “The Ionic bond and the Schroedinger wave equation”

    According to the MultiCulti set, all cultures are equal but different.

    So when I see articles how they will blame us for their civil war, my gut reaction is who cares what these Cro-Magnons think.

    /Just My Humble Opinion/

  11. says

    Islam seems to beat down the individual spirit and produce a defensive low esteem person. So low, that they are hardly recognizable in the western world. The low self-esteem is papered over with a superiority complex saying that Islam’s followers are supremacists over anyone else. Thus you the tremendous humiliations of the individual Muslim and the extreme violent reaction whenever the Muslim or his beliefs are questioned.

    These are playground bullies. It’s as if they are a group of adolescents in grade school. The problem is that they are grown ups and very lethal.

  12. says

    “Undertaken for one stated reason, continued long after for quite another, crazily messianic and polypragmonic reason.”

    1. This is not a sentence.

    2. There is no such word as “polypragmonic” (or “pragmonic”) in the English language.

    Neologisms are the last refuge of pompous, pretentious, semiliterate windbags.”
    — from a poster above

    1. Not a sentence, but obviously deliberately intended, the way all kinds of non-sentences perform a certain work. For example, such phrases as “Not” or “Not if we can help it” or “How absurd” can appear in a lively text, and can perform certain tasks better than a complete sentence.

    2. Yes, the word “polypragmonic” exists because it is an obvious, and intelligent, example of lexicogeny, and is based on the Greek word “polypragmosyne.” Many words in English first entered the language because someone took it upon himself to borrow a word from Greek or Latin, refashion it to accord with the underlying nature (and spelling) of English, and thus we have, for example, the word “multitudinous” which was invented by Shakespeare (or should someone, hearing that famous speech in “Macbeth,” have turned away, whispering to a companion, “But that’s not an English word, that word doesn’t exist.” And one can imagine Colley Cibber, who rewrote a hopeful ending for “King Lear” (Cordelia survives, though I can’t remember if she marries her true love or remains single so as to stay home to cook and clean for her now-chastened father), cleaning up Shakespeare’s penchant for making up words. And there are so many examples, both of writers and of scholars who thought a word that they happened to know in another language would do well in English, and sought to give it its green card right away, and then to support its full naturalization over time. Sometimes the word took, sometimes it didn’t.

    Not only does the word appear in “Archaic and Classical Greece,” a collection of essays, but it was also used by the well-known scholar of literature and cinema (an admirer of John Jay Chapman and of Antonioni), the late translator William Arrowsmith, who discusses the Greek concept of “polypragmosyne” at great length in an article in the magazine “Arion.” The word deserves to be in English, and I have Englished it, thereby performing a service for all those who see its uses. It is like, but a bit more elaborate than, the plain-Jane “busybody” or the Hester-Streetish “Mr. Buttinsky.” I like it. I’ve been using it a lot. Please feel free, readers, to use it along with me.

    Neologists are not, pace this poster, “the last refuge of pompous, pretentious, semiliterate windbags.” He’s got it all wrong. The history of English literature shows that almost every major writer was a source of neologisms, and no one more so than William Shakespeare, who was not pompous, not pretentious, not semiliterate, and not a windbag.

  13. says

    ShortBoard Surfer-

    Iraqis ate live rabbits? They must be like the aliens in “V”!

    As for what these idiots think of us I agree-who the hell cares? The Third World has long blamed the US for ALL its problems. Same with the USSR and its flunkies in the Cold War-at least then we knew better and didn’t give a damn. We still know better and we still shouldn’t agonize about what our new enemy thinks. Screw them!

  14. says

    Islamsforlosers – I hear what you’re saying but I don’t want to resort to ‘iron fist’. That implies staying around and babysitting.

    Instead… what about lining up a bunch of Steamrollers, bulldozers, earth movers and tanks at the Northern frontier of Gaza and simply drive them South-Southwest until they push all the debris into the Sinai? Let the Egyptians deal with it.

    They’re refugees with no permanent home 60 years running… what’s the difference if they’re in Gaza camps or Egyptian camps? I don’t see much of a difference.

    We need some permanent solutions to these long standing issues. The concepts of sovereignity and stability now work against the free world forces. During the Cold War these principles might have helped fight the Communist onslaught… but they’ve created many permanent slums and welfare mo-foes in the world. Sovereignity and ‘Stability’ also allow scrourges like Kim il Jong to control tens of millions of people.

    We need a slum clearing project. I’d like to call it the I-slum clearing project, but we shouldn’t leave North Korea out of the picture.

    a) We destroy human support networks
    b) We destroy infrastructure supporting networks
    any building housing enablers – including those formerly having ‘Sanctuary’ status
    c) We destroy military capability
    d) We destroy communications networks, roads, power plants in centers of terror but not ‘controlled’ by the governments recognized as having ‘sovereignity’ over those Balkanized areas. In essence, if Lebanon and Pakistan can’t control areas inside their recognized boundaries… then they have no say in just how much we level those areas.
    e) After we’ve met enough of our a-d objectives we leave.
    f) No financial support or rebuilding effort
    g) We take out hostile regimes based on a public ‘check list’
    h) Repeat as often as necessary.

    This type of thing plays to our destructive strength and greatly reduces the liabilities inherent in ‘boots on the ground’ and ‘Judeo-Christian morality’.

    One thing I still don’t understand is this: the liberal sensibility wants to take the best of Judeo-Christian precepts: respect for individuals, acknowledgement of the rights and dignity of all persons and a reciprocity on equal terms but then tries to use these ideas as a club against the religious institutions that gave them birth?

    It’s no accident that the Judeo-Christian nations produced the set of protected individual rights and freedoms we enjoy today just as it’s no accident that the Islamic world consists of one dictatorship, royal fiefdom or theocracy after another.

    The set of ideas in peoples’ heads determine the outcome: the ‘local’ form of governance and the shared beliefs of the people determine the results.

    Permanent change will have to come from changing the set of ideas in peoples’ heads. To do this we must force them to reconsider. To get to that point they will have to a) see that it’s not ‘working’ b) have no means to continue the fight.

  15. says

    Hey Hugh, you write as if the civil war ISN’T the fault of the United States.

    Well here’s a kicker.

    IT IS.

    The US military went in unprepared and opened the pandoras box. It’s your fault. Without the invasion, there would be no civil war.
    Iraq is a waste of lives.

  16. says

    I recall reading an article written by David Frum (“Debating Terror in Hamas’ Backyard”, published in the National Post February 28, 2006), in which Frum was an invited speaker for a debate held in Qatar. (Qatar is not an impoverished country, nor are all the inhabitants illiterate.)

    The debate was about whether or not the world should accept Hamas. Frum was speaking as someone who opposed the motion. Others speakers presented the affirmative case.

    The debate was presented before a live audience of university students.

    The result? At the end of the debate, the university students voted. Frum writes: “the motion in favour of Hamas carried 89% to 11%.”

    Indeed, Muslim “democracy” in action — or “Sieg Heil!” for terrorists.

  17. says

    Alright, I will concede that “polypragmonic” is a rather crude anglicization of an obscure word from the ancient Greek – but we all know about Greeks, don’t we?

  18. says

    Without the invasion, there would be no civil war.
    Iraq is a waste of lives.

    Posted by: loler

    @ loler

    A few thousand Kurds that were gassed might disagree with you. (If they were alive)

  19. says

    A little more on “polypragmonic” formed, obviously, from the Greek “polypragmosyne” can be found at JW in a thread that appeared on April 10, 2006:

    “The polypragmonic impulse, the result of all the most unattractive, and some of the attractive ones as well, of the American character, and of our rulers who do not take ideologies seriously because they fail to recognize that they, too, have an ideology — that of Economic Growth, and Enlarging the Pie, and the Rising Tide Lifting All Boats, and Economic Performance as the Measure of All Things, and the Sheer Rightness, in All Aspects of Life, of the “Free Market” As It Currently Operates– and that that ideology is not exactly wonderful, or to go unchallenged, always and everywhere.

    This polyprgagmonic impulse ranges from mere busybodiness all the way to an outright messianic fervor, as when Bush believes or claims to believe that there exists an universal “desire for freedom” (which “freedom” is that? The freedom to trade, the freedom to beat the Infidels, the freedom for complete license?) and that the United States is here to solve all problems around the world — for the American people like nothing better than to solve all the world’s problems, with their lives, and their money, and who cares if it cannot be done, or who cares if it can only be done over centuries, and who cares if no one else cares, and regards us with continued indifference or hostility?

    Successive American governments did very little to encourage, in the right way, the taking hold of “democracy” in post-Communist Russia. The kind of busybodies who thought that Russia could simply be plunged in to a cold bath of capitalism did not factor in either human nature, or its Russian variant. Jeffery Sachs, the deplorable Master Busybody, has been taken apart for his misunderstanding of Russia — or rather, his general negligence and ignorance of the specifics as he is so intent on Curing the World of Poverty and doing other great things. And there are lots of such sachses all over the place, perhaps not each with his own World Institute, but not for want of trying.
    Nor was the bombing of the Serbs undertaken with sufficient consideration of what it would do in russia. It was not the only, or even the best way, to deal with Milosevich. It has had a terrible effect on the Russian view of the United States, leading to a deepening and completely unjustified –but to many Russians plausible conspiratorial view of the Americans as plotting Russia’s further weakening, when the Americans would like nothing more than a strong, prosperous Russian state able to withstand both Islam’s possible demographic conquest of Russia from within and China.

    It is not true that the “whole world wants freedom.” It is not true that those raised up in a system where the Perfect Man was a despot and a warrior, far more reminiscent of Stalin in his works and days than of any of the American Framers or overlapping Founders, that what goes on in Baghdad is not, despite the absurd remarks of both Bush and Rice, reminiscent of what went on at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that the habit of mental submission in Islam, and the acceptance of rule by the most powerful, and the locating of legitimacy not in the people — a sine qua non of democratic theory — but rather in the Qur’
    an, the Sunna, and the Holy Law of Islam or Shari’a that is based on both — means that Islam will accept democracy only in the narrowest sense of vote-counting, without any acceptance of the idea that the will of the people can ever be permitted to violate the tenets or attitudes of Islam.

    Among the lessons to be learned from tarbaby Iraq is that nowledge of Islam must properly precede attempts to deal with Islam, that the word “war” should not fool Infidels into thinking that the only instruments of war are those of combat or terrorism, and that all the instruments of Jihad need to be dealt with. And another lesson is to be alert to those fissures within the camp of Islam which, if properly exploited, could help to divide, demoralize, and weaken that camp.

    Surely some remember that during the Cold War, the Americans were pleased at Tito’s defection in 1948 from the Eastern bloc. They sent secret aid to the “Forest Brotherhood”(the “leshii”) in Lithuania, did not expect but surely welcomed the Hungarian Revolution as a sign of disaffection, and the same with Dubcek and what became known as the Prague Spring, and of course always welcomed signs of a Sino-Soviet split.
    Yet there has been not a single article — save here at Jihad Watch, where a hundred odd pieces have gone over and over the same ground — about the usefulness of the ethnic (Kurd-Arab) and sectarian (Sunni-Shi’a) fissures being not patched up by the Americans, but allowed by a a natural process to lead to the reversion of Iraq to the three Ottoman vilayets from which it was originally formed, with the expectancy and hope that Shi’a elsewhere will be inspired by this new Shi’a, oil-possessing entity, and possibly, everywhere from Bahrain (70% Shi’a chafing under a Sunni ruler) to Yemen to Lebanon to Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, the Sunni fear of Shi’a, and the Shi’a fear of Sunnis, will work its natural almost inevitable way.

    The Bush Administration, obstinate and not knowing quite how to admit to itself, much less to the American public, that after late 2003, or certainly, in no case later than the day that Saddam Hussein was seized, it made sense to leave Iraq, will never it seems find a way out of tarbaby Iraq until the voters force it. This is a pity. It is a pity because it may mean that the Administration, fearful of doing the most important thing — destroying Iran’s nuclear project — will continue instead to pretend that it is on the verge of “success” in Iraq when the definition of “success” that the Bush Administration offers is in fact a definition for “failure.” For a stable nation-state in Iraq will not be good for Infidels. What will be good is a Sunni-Shi’a proxy war, in which both Iran and Saudi Arabia feel themselves necessarily drawn in, and an independent Kurdistan that can inspire other non-Arab Muslims, including Berbers, and within Iran, the Kurds, the Azeris, the Baluchis, and even those Arab Muslims in Khuzistan.

    But one does not get the sense that in the Pentagon there is an office devoted to the world-wide anti-Jihad. One does not suspect that even now plans are being drawn up for shoring up black Christians in Nigeria, the Sudan, Kenya and Tanzania, Ethiopia. One does not have the sense that a room exists with a map of Europe, and with all the demographic figures about Muslims and non-Muslims, and the list of local leaders who need support, and those who are in the camp of appeasement. One does not get the sense that a propaganda war has been launched, in which the Infidel publics will cleverly be made aware of what is actually contained in Qur’an, Hadith and Sira. One does not get the sense that Rumsfeld, Rice, Bush and many others have spent a day, a week, two weeks reading “Islam and Dhimmitude” or “Onward Muslim Soldiers” or “The Legacy of Jihad” or “While Europe Slept” or any of the available literature. One does not have the feeling that enough people have printed out, from this site, the three parts of “Islam for Infidels” as a handy short-course in the subject.

    It will happen.

    But will it happen after another year or two goes by, with that squandering of men, money, materiel, army and civilian morale, and diversion of attention from Iran, or will it happen now, in a few months? The Iraqis have provided every opportunity for the American administration to call a halt and insist that by, say, September 1 it will leave. That is plenty of time to get everyone out, and not to leave a single rifle behind (well, maybe a few rifles, and a few Jeeps, but only for the Kurds, and only if they agree to protect any Christians who wish to flee to a safe area while the Sunnis and the Shi’a have it out).

    There are the squanderers, and the husbanders. The Bush Administration’s continued ignorance, and obstinance, puts it among the former, not the latter. We don’t have all the resources in the world, certainly not enough to last for decades. Husbanding resources will also husband morale for a longer term.

    Where are the mahans and the mackinders and those who wrote “Casablanca” and all those who helped persuade, or created the conditions in which the penkovskys and then the amalriks and galanskovs, and then finally the yakovlevs, were able to persuade themselves, of the moral and practical failures of the Soviet Union? Where are they hiding? Or are they being kept deliberately down, and out for the count?

    [Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2006 02:27 PM]

    {A poster then mentions hapax legomena]

    “Polygragmonic, polypragmosyne, polypragmonistic have all been been used more than once at this winsome website, and that more-than-once-use naturally disqualifies all of them, now phoenixes too frequent, from being considered true hapax legomena.

    And that is the paradox and the problem. For years I have been keeping a mental list of hapax legomena run across in reading. Were I to write someting using hapax legomena, as is tempting, they would then lose that quality, and cease to qualify as, and be deducated from the total quantity of, known hapax legomena. Even offering a of hapax legomena causes that list to self-destruct or disappear, as if written in tinta simpatica.

    What to do? Do not tell a soul. Keep them secret. Take them to the grave, which is a fine and private place — or so an old poet told me.

    [Posted by: Hugh at April 10, 2006 08:51 PM]

    As defined by William Arrowsmith, that word [polypragmosyne] “connotes energy, enterprise, daring, ingenuity, originality, and curiosity; negatively it means restless instability, discontent with one’s lot, persistent and pointless busyness, meddling interference, and mischievous love of novelty.”

    Of Arrowsmith’s many meanings, the one that has been used here, when the word has been employed, has been that which characterizes the “persistent and pointless busyness” of those who believe they can transform the Muslim world, when it makes sense only to create those conditions in which many in that world will be forced to come to the conclusion that the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of their polities and peoples come not from anything done to them by Infidels, but as a result of Islam itself, its teachings, its attitudes, its atmospherics.

    [Posted by: Hugh at April 11, 2006 12:06 AM]

  20. says

    Good article and observations, Hugh.
    The abysmal knowledge of people in power regarding jihads hows and whys, is scary. What is even scarier, is that many of them make blatant statements in defense of Islam, when it is clear they dont know what they are talking about.
    Who has been advising Bush all this time, Ellison? Or Hooper?
    All these political events work in a progression. The ole’give em an inch and they will take a mile’ phenomena.
    Once it has been determined that it is legal, ethical and moral, to swear in to public office using the Quran, then it will be ok to respect the US flag AND the Islamic flag. Then there will be a push to hoist the Islamic flag, on Gov flagpoles, ‘under’ the US flag. That accomplished, the push will be to place the Islamic flag above the US flag. Presto…Islam is dominant (Hooper wins). Senator Goode is right, and Ellison is just being a muslim, which is why he should not be in office to begin with. Goode needs to be supported and Ellison needs to be ‘outta there’. Possibly the best way to educate some of the more reasonable officials, like Goode, is to send them some of Roberts books. If they are going to stand up to encroaching Islam, they need all the intellectual ammo they can get…

  21. says

    Hugh, your frustration reflects my own.

    At this point, all we can do is keep tossing “fireballs in words” until something sets a grass-fire.

    Maybe we should replace our ink with kerosene?

  22. says

    Nearly alone in the mass media, the columnist Diana West has advocated policies congruent (though not 100% the same) as what Hugh Fitzgerald has envisioned. She, and she almost alone, sees the spiraling conflict between Shi’a and Sunni as an opportunity for the West rather than as the catastrophe that “conventional wisdom” assumes it to be.

    She has argued this point over and over, in column after column, most recently this one:

    But her arguments, like Hugh Fitzgerald’s arguments, downplay the fear that the West has of Middle East oil supply disruptions. Notice it’s not the disruptions themselves, but the fear of them, that forces America to commit itself to “stability and peace” in the Muslim world, rather than to destabilizing it.

    Every time the price of gasoline rises a lousy 25 cents a gallon, America gets hysterical, it becomes a national crisis and national political issue, politicians rant and rave and conspiracy theories abound. As long as America reacts so reflexively and hysterically that way to the slightest twinges in the oil market, our course of action in the Middle East will be to not tolerate any “instability” between Shi’a and Sunni.

    It’s very like a fearful flier flying through turbulence in an airplane: Every time the plane hits a bump the passenger freaks out. You can tell him over and over that it’s temporary, it’s not serious, he’ll get through it–but he still freaks out!

    Maybe we need a new term for it: “Petrolophobia.”

  23. says

    Hey Hugh, you write as if the civil war ISN’T the fault of the United States.
    Well here’s a kicker.
    IT IS.
    The US military went in unprepared and opened the pandoras box. It’s your fault. Without the invasion, there would be no civil war.
    Iraq is a waste of lives.
    Posted by: loler at December 22, 2006 10:15 AM

    Regardless of who’s at fault for starting the civil war, the fact that it exists and will hopefully continue to exist is just what the West needs. I agree it is a “pandora’s box”, but for whom exactly is subject to interpretation.

    Ill-preparedness going-in, whether intentional or not is irrelevant. It’s not how you start a war, it’s how you finish it.

    I bask in the glory of the civil war in Iraq every day. Every time an Islamist falls, the world becomes a better place. War costs lives, period. Currently, the ratio of US troop deaths compared to Islamist deaths is staggeringly in our favor. Now that is a cause for celebration.

  24. says

    “Right now, most people hear from the left wing papers that Iraqis are ungrateful, etc – but what they NEVER hear are the 95% of the people who are grateful to us. And the problem is the fear that we will cut and run again.”

    95% of the people are grateful? What are they doing, then? Where are they when bombs are planted and when militias plan attacks? They don’t have to take up arms themselves, but they COULD give our guys a heads up. Those “grateful” people are the reason eight marines are in lockup in Camp Pendleton.

    The fear that we will cut and run again is the excuse we are being given for their joining the militias. They still don’t get it. They are doing everything they can to force us out and then they expect us to take the blame.

    Our forces should leave there TODAY with heads held high and never look back and never again hear a Muslim cry for help from ANYWHERE in the world. With friends like the “grateful” Iraqis, America needs no enemies.

  25. says

    Guilt, guilt and more guilt. These Iraqis play on our guilt. As if the West broke Iraq and now needs to fix it! They will tell us it is our fault and we should send more money! These are pathetic losers. Its like someone you are trying to help robbing you blind. Why should we allow ourselves to be maniuplated? Hugh is right!

  26. says


    A slum clearance project for cesspoolia-that makes a great deal of sense! Time to build the equipment and make it happen! The fuel’s right there for the taking too so the machinery can run non stop.

    As for changing the thinking of the inhabitants of the cesspoolian slum I don’t have a great deal of hope. If these idiots don’t see that Islam=failure after 14 centuries when will they see it? We will need a mind altering device of some sort to straighten out the notion that any good can come from a philosophy spawned from some demented kook’s mind. Either that or a total annihilation of the believers of such nonsense.

  27. says

    Can we start every news bulletin regarding death by Muslim hands with:

    “Due to Muslim violence inspired by the Qur’an 50 postal workers were kidnapped and beheaded. This was carried out under the orders of Al-Sistani or Al-Sadr or whomever.

    The photos shown are real, they show the effects of the Peaceful Religion of Islam.”

    or something to that effect.

  28. says

    It is doubtful that 95% of Iraqis are thrilled with the US presence…some yes, but 95%? Thats a pretty big number…No muslim wants foreign troops on thier lands. They all resent that(100%), or they are not muslims. So good tidings from Iraqi muslims are thin and short lived, at best. If the coalition pulls out, there will be the chaos that Beasty Boy Dinnerjacket wants, when the dust settles, there will be only one man standing. He is pretty tough, but the US military can handle him…

  29. says

    “The civil war is the fault of the Iranians (mullahs and all), Syrians, Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, and Hussein’s old loyalists – to mention a few thugs of the bunch causing this problem.”
    Posted by: s_sgt7 at December 22, 2006 11:10 AM

    Irrelevant from a military standpoint. Who cares how it happened, just take solace in the fact that it is happening. It is a war right? It is funny how the civil war of the existing sects of Iraq never escalated under Saddam’s reign, but grew quickly after we removed his control. Sounds like we might have had a hand in it during our de-stabilization of the area.

    “The biggest fear is the cut and run crowd of the USA. The bad guys I mentioned above are hoping the cut and run crowd get their way – that is why their stirring up the pot. they are hoping the USA has no backbone.”
    Posted by: s_sgt7 at December 22, 2006 11:10 AM

    If “stirring up the pot” implies that Muslims will be killing Muslims at a much greater propensity than Muslims killing US forces, then i’m all for it. You see this as a good thing, right?

    Do you think that even if we withdraw a majority of our forces that the Sunnis and Shi’ites will just meet in the middle of the street and hug?

    Maybe YOU should pay a little more attention, to reality, and stop trying to establish yourself as a Republican party poster-boy.

    “Basically, the Islamofacists are playing the facist left wing here in our country like a violin.”
    Posted by: s_sgt7 at December 22, 2006 11:10 AM

    Agreed 100%. That is why Goode and conservative realists like him need to be supported. Just being a member of the Republican party is not enough, as is evident with certain high profile people who keep talking about the “war on terror” as opposed to the war against Islam, which is the heart of the matter.

    Oh, and by the way, I would love to know exactly what you disagree with in my previous post. The only objectionable material that I saw was the quote from “loler”, which I was refuting.

  30. says

    Bush’s entire “messianic” nation-building project in Iraq would not have become the mess that it is–maybe it wouldn’t even have happened at all–had the U.S. succeeded in its original goals: Finding all the Weapons of Mass Destruction and clear evidence of Saddam’s involvement in terrorist attacks on the U.S. (It’s still unknown to many Americans that the neoconservatives who became the chief ideologists of the Bush Administration had blamed Saddam, not Iran or al-Qaeda, for earlier terrorist attacks like the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996. So that when 9-11 happened, these folks automatically assumed that Saddam “must have” been involved in it somehow. Google for the name “Laurie Mylroie” and you’ll learn about that:

    But we didn’t find the WMD that Colin Powell had told the U.N. was there. We didn’t find hard evidence that Saddam had attacked the World Trade Center or Khobar Towers. And so Bush started shopping around for a new rationale (or rationalization) as to why we were still fighting in Iraq. It’s the Vietnam mentality all over again: Even without a clearly defined military objective, we must make sure that those who have already died “have not died in vain.”

    And so Bush came up with this idea that creating “democracy” in Iraq would be a role model for the entire Arab Muslim world. (How even a successful Iraq democracy, being majority Shiite, could be a role model for the rest of the Arab Muslim world which is mostly Sunni, Bush did not explain.)

    If we had found the WMD, it would have meant that our original goal had been accomplished, giving us the excuse we needed to disengage from there. It would have justified the war in the eyes of our allies, enabling us to involve them more in postwar peacekeeping.

    But we didn’t. And so we keep trying to find something worthwhile to accomplish over there, so that the sacrifice of our brave men and women in uniform will not have been for nothing.

    There is something worthwhile we can accomplish over there, as Hugh Fitzgerald and Diana West have suggested. But we cannot guarantee to the American public that we can accomplish it while simultaneously keeping oil and gasoline prices stable. We can try, but there are no certainties. And that’s why that particular option has been taken off the table.

  31. says

    awake writes:

    “It is funny how the civil war of the existing sects of Iraq never escalated under Saddam’s reign, but grew quickly after we removed his control. Sounds like we might have had a hand in it during our de-stabilization of the area.”

    You left out the reason why the civil war never occurred under Saddam’s reign: It was brutally suppressed by near-genocidal acts, like the nerve-gas bombing of tens of thousands of Kurdish and Shiite civilians, widespread use of torture, secret police, the midnight knock on the door.

    I don’t think anybody here at Jihad Watch would approve of such measures. But they are an accurate benchmark of what it truly takes to forcibly suppress Muslim jihad.

    Rumsfeld’s theory that a “small footprint” for U.S. troops is the best strategy, so that the inherent goodness and decency of the Iraqis can naturally lead them down the path to democracy, looks laughably naive by comparison.

  32. says

    How long will it take this learning-curve to begin to take off, as it still strains and strains and strains for lift-off?

    Here’s a plan to accelerate the learning curve:

    (1) Eliminate the Baghdad Green Zone. No special security measures for Western workers.
    (2) Require certain groups to spend at least four months per year in Iraq. At a minimum, the groups shall include:
    a. All foreign policy consultants.
    b. The entire State Department.
    c. All military lawyers and any of their civilian counterparts who are empowered to bring charges against fighting men or affect rules of engagement.
    d. Professors at Military Academies who do not wear the Southwest Asia Service medal.
    e. Any GS-9 or above who has any involvement in foreign policy.

    Sean McCormick of the State Department shall spend six months per year. The Secretary of State shall spend eight. The prosecutors of the Marines who returned fire after they were ambushed and members of the prosecutors’ chain of command shall be assigned to Iraq until the end of their obligated service.

  33. says

    Oh, my yes! My writing may not be as pragmatic as all of yours – just maybe w/only one foot on this Earth and one foot in the air- BUT I do NOT want to live under the sword of islam.

    It just struck me – early this a.m. – that the laws of islam are all crowded on the negative side – never on the light side or the middle of the balance scale, but always on the dark side.

    And they never exhort thier people to look for the bright moments in life or to uplift the heart. No music to lift one’s spirit – it doesn’t have to be Rap – even the Japanese love the classics – Mozart, and all of those guys – those musical chords that make the Soul dance. More than half the classic composers were/are Jews.

    And laughter – not at the expense of others – not forced – but the true – spontaneous – joyous kind. My own Teacher- says: “The greatest prayer you can ever have is to laugh every day.”

    And singing and dance – and running. THAT is the purpose of our lives.

    None of the islamic writings takes one by the hand to invite God into their special moments. To celebrate the joining of a husband and wife – the marriage ceremony in which God asked to be there to share – a Sacred Ceremony – which even the most primitive people on earth ask their Highest God to look upon, and offer food or flowers to that Great Spirit.

    islam doesnlt have that.

    And the birth of a child – wherein a Soul is joined with the physical body. And baptism is really the celebration of that. A celebration of life. The Jews say “L’CHAIM! And raise their cups to Life – and dance and sing.

    And I see with new eyes – at the little girls going to ballet class with their hot pink tutus.

    And in the silly tv commercials the little girls singing off key “Jingle Bells” – till I say “Shut up – kid! (an Aside: Kids should be seen, etc.”) Yet this shows how little girls are treasured ).


    And yes, I’m reminded that Jeshua ben Joseph, always taught forgiveness, and to join hands with our brethren. (I don’t think he ever said to turn the other cheek, but to avoid confrontations, and to walk away from such situations. In the initiation of his ministry, when he read from the Torah, to inform that he was the Promised One arrived, outside the “synagogue” – that is what He did.

    He had women among his followers, and the sponsors that underwrote his travels tht were women. The Gospels never speak about it – but at the time, Jeshua was not working regular hours – somebody had to offer coin for meals and lodging. ANd yes, there were inns – it was a business throughout the Greco-Roman Empire, they did NOT always sleep in the open – in warm climates – one can see the sky filled with stars- breathtaking! That alone make one KNOW that there is SOME Being that loves Its creations Nature & Human – so beautiful that it moves the Soul ) There were huge crowd following him – drawn like bees to honey – and the people were fed by the coins from these rich widows.

    He reminded us of the Golden Rule, and that “Thou Shalt Not Kill.”

    Certainly, mo’ never practiced this, and never raised people from the dead, but did the opposite.

    islam does not exhort mankind to do good, but to listen to every negative instinct of our human persona – and to act on it. Every sentence in the koran crowds the human into the Dark Side. It is called “Unbalanced.”

    Yes, Yeshua ben Joseph IS the greatest Master there ever existed. If the consensus is that the Man transmuted into God – that means He joined with THE GOD – that is in everything – because there is nothing else that exists. So then, Yeshua being ONe with God – is NOT returning, because He has Never Left.

    A GOd that made human beings from Himself – that is Love and has deep compassion for his creation, for all their troubles and sorrows. And the Soul yearns to return Home. And we all feel – feel that this is NOT our home – that we belong somewhere else. Somewhere else.

    Yeshua ben Joseph came to show us the Path back Home, to Love.


  34. says

    You left out the reason why the civil war never occurred under Saddam’s reign: It was brutally suppressed by near-genocidal acts, like the nerve-gas bombing of tens of thousands of Kurdish and Shiite civilians, widespread use of torture, secret police, the midnight knock on the door.
    Posted by: Steven L. at December 22, 2006 11:56 AM

    It went without mention because I assumed it was obvious.

    I don’t think anybody here at Jihad Watch would approve of such measures. But they are an accurate benchmark of what it truly takes to forcibly suppress Muslim jihad.
    Posted by: Steven L. at December 22, 2006 11:56

    The US is not doing any of that currently. If the Iraqis choose to do that to each other, so be it.

    My point is simple. We will be blamed regardless of what we do, so we should not get hung-up on morality issues. We are at war. Let us continue to encourage Muslim on Muslim killing. Rule # 1 in war is to kill your enemies faster than they can kill you. Fortunately, our long-term involvement in that scenario may not be entirely necessary. They seem to be doing a good job of it all by themselves.

  35. says

    I agree tooth and nail with all Hugh posted, but I wonder too if there is something about the essential goodness of the Americans that in particular burns the “Iraqis.” Even when we do bad like Haditha(maybe, maybe not depending on the events) or the staged bodies at AbuGrahb; we, our servicemen are punished. In “their” heart of hearts they must marvel how we can punish our own for being too cruel. It must exasperate “them” how are essentail mission(no matter how magnificently misguided)was one of liberation, not to take the oil, or transforming the middle east, bringing in Democracy. Now all of this is a bad idea(more so with a bit of thought and a bit of time), but that was our mission. Our boys and our taxpayers have spent much in blood, treasure and effort to bring peace to this wasteland, and the Shia and Sunni know in their heart of hearts: we ain’t the problem. The fact that are benign intervention blew up so magnificently must also be part of the agnst in their eyes. So, better ‘play’ up the ‘imcompetance’ ‘disinterest’ ‘abuse ag this prison or that village’ to make the world “understand” how this dreadful American “occupation” led to Iraqi to kill Iraqi.

    For not to accept the blame the American mantra, one then has to look elsewhere, perhaps at the 856 pound gorilla of the religion of peace in the mirror. This exact same mechanism applies to Arab conspiracy theories to Israel and the Jews. No, if only Israel didn’t exist, then the Palis would be docile lambs, loving one another, and bringing peace to each other(and the world), the corrupt arab governments would be transformed by a world without Israel to a force of good. Israel actually saves this crowd in the Muslim world as the US saves the Muslim world within Iraq; see that Zionist/American swine that fosters such intra-religious hate; it must have been a secret desire of the neocon Bush.

    I think we, Bush, should pat himself on the back because though hims ambling through Iraq phase, he may have unleashed the mother of all Shia versus Sunni war that will keep the bastards occupied for generations. For our errors of commision and ommision ala Iraq, we should pay a penalty here: we should aid both sides with guns and ammo to ensure a long fruitful intra-Islamic slugfest, all the while aiding the Kurds to further piss off the lovely cultured Turks and the even more levely Iranians.

    In their cold, pathetic heart of hearts, the Muslims see a mighty Israel, prospering, not just surviving, in a narrow strip of oil=less land. In their deepest forbrain, the Muslims see a US acting to bring peace, to better the lives of Arabs(discounting the wrongness of the approach)and they hate us for this goodness. It sizzles in their souls.

  36. says

    In the beginning was the word. But by the time the second word was added to it there was trouble. For with it came syntax.

    Mr. Fitzgerald’s delightful skirmishes in the battle against illiteracy are highly educational and entertaining. With razor-sharp pen in hand, Mr.Fitzgerald takes on agents of linguistic mediocrity, illiterate critics, misguided politicians, shady sheiks, miching maliks, wayward journalists and all of us who are guilty of deserting standard English, erudition and our divine imaginations.

    Does anyone have any questions or have we pretty much penetrated the fog on this weirderfront?

  37. says

    “If 1400+ years of nothing but conquest, war, and death, even Muslim killing Muslims in droves aren’t enough evidence, then I don’t know what is.

    That is enough evidence, for us Jihad Watchers. But evidence (data) is not the same thing as a judgement. In order to arrive at a judgement about data, the mind has to move from data to interpretations, then from multiple interpretations to one which will be a judgement. (Hopefully, one sifts through multiple interpretations when moving to the phase of judgement, but this is not always the case.)

    The process of moving from

    data –> interpretations –> a judgement

    usually avails itself of a mechanism, which may be more or less automatic (if its more automatic, there will be fewer interpretations to sift through, sometimes only one, and therefore there will be less of an actual mental process, just a relatively immediate transition from data to judgement).

    Currently, the sufficient evidence (data) solidly linking Islam itself to all the bad things Muslims do — and furthermore linking the majority of mainstream Muslims to all the bad things Muslims do — is processed by most people through a particular mechanism, what I call the PC Multiculturalist Template. This mechanism is currently dominant and mainstream in the West, and what happens to the evidence (data) when it is processed through it is roughly the following:

    Data_1 (bad things Muslims do now and throughout history)


    Data_2 (unique characteristics of the Koran and other Islamic texts, as well as the sociolocultural attitude in Islam with respect to these texts, that directly connect with Data_1)


    PC Multiculturalist Template, Assumption_1: Islam itself and the vast majority of Muslims must be harmless and good and relatively similar, deep down, to the vast majority of Westerners


    Interpretation of Data_1: Those are a small minority of extremist Muslims, and their existence has no bearing on the harmlessness and goodness of Islam itself and the vast majority of Muslims, as established by the Assumption noted above.

    PC Multiculturalist Template, Assumption_2: Any attempts to judge an entire ethnic world religion, particularly a non-Western one, such as Islam itself — along with a majority of its followers –, as bad and as a major source for Data_1, even including the use of Data_2 to arrive at one’s condemning judgement, is itself to be judged as biased, racist and exophobic bigotry, and therefore false and unacceptable and even dangerous.

    To get people to see the connection between the mountain of data of Muslims doing bad things, as well as the damning etiology of Islam’s holy texts, to Islam itself, it is not sufficient to just keep piling on sheer data under their noses. They will persist in processing all that data through the PC Multiculturalist Template. Therefore, what is necessary is to dismantle Assumption_1. That will be more difficult than it might seem at first glance, because its Template that houses it was constructed over a long period of time and was one important by-product of a massive and powerful sea change in Western societies in recent history.

    Or, alternatively, one could adopt the attitude of most Jihad Watchers, and just pretend all of the above doesn’t exist, and hope that a war of attrition of simply shovelling and shovelling mountains of data will suffice to stoke the engines for the learning curve’s takeoff.

  38. says


    There are two supremacist belief-systems (every society-culture has them) and then there is reality. Reality is an orphan. It is only when facts (for jihadists or “people desire freedom”) become very painful that people might deal with reality.

    When I was kid there was a lady on our block who had a lump on her breast. She never went to the doctor, but continued to deny the terrible facts, and she did so right until she died. Everybody on the block could see her terrible situation, but she did not deal with it until she was forced to by the pain. I never forgot that. Some people never deal with reality. The Psychotic-In-Iran is like that.

    However, despite all, our political system is more flexible and therefore better able to deal with unpleasant facts. I think your point of view is gaining ground. A lot of folks have changed their minds and see the deceptive nature of Islam. It’s the only major belief-system that has doctrines that permit deception. It’s unique.

  39. says

    CNN (the Dhimmis) featured a “report” about what the Iraqi guy on the street thinks about Haditha, and the response is one of utter condemnation — along the lines of: “it’s an outrageous atrocity!!”, etc. Interestingly, of course, given the 100 bodies per day found in Baghdad, there’s never any condemnation of Iraqi on Iraqi “violence.” The typical hypocrisy — the typical double standard — the one standard for the Muslim fascists, another for the Kaffir. Is it even possible to expect a “moral” statement (one that’s universalistic) from a Muslim? Or is it all about what tribe you belong to — check out that DNA prior to issuing any “moral” statement. The irony, of couse, is that if a statement pertains solely to a “special group” then it is not “moral.” (In a larger sense, this eliminates islam as a religion of morality…since its thrust is to promote a special interest group, namely, other Muslims.)

  40. says

    Or, alternatively, one could adopt the attitude of most Jihad Watchers, and just pretend all of the above doesn’t exist, and hope that a war of attrition of simply shovelling and shovelling mountains of data will suffice to stoke the engines for the learning curve’s takeoff.
    Posted by: remote_control at December 22, 2006 12:51 PM

    Nice post remote_control. The above DOES exist and, as you have stated, the roots of that tree run deep.

    I am not really sure that “most Jihad Watchers” reject this thinking and pretend it doesn’t exist though. At least I HOPE not.

  41. says

    “In the future,” many have predicted, “the Iraqis will blame their civil war on the US.”

    One needs to bear in mind that Sharia law is all or nothing. Either the Muslim clergy enforces it all through coercion or it is powerless to enforce it. There is no middle ground. Therefore we see everywhere demands by the Muslim clergy that Sharia law supersede civil law.

    Sharia is the domain of traditional Muslim clerical power and the Muslim clergy wants the restoration of that power in full wherever it has lost ground. This provides the motivation for the clerical struggle against secular authority in Muslim lands and against the infidel world in general. Motivation is not enough. One must also have the means to achieve one’s ends.

  42. says

    The time to worry about world opinion (and Iraqi opinion especially) of the United States is long past.

    Know when to be the lamb, know when to be the lion (with thanks to Machiavelli).

    This lion is hungry.

  43. says


    The truth is that it often takes pain to make people face reality, and a few people will persist in ignoring the mountain of facts-no matter what. People don’t like reality when it’s painful. They often fear people who tell tell the truth because they know if they face facts they have to act upon them.

    The multiculturalism pills are not relieving the pain. People are getting ready to deal with reality and realize that major surgery is necessary. As Lincoln said, “Necessity tells us what we must do”.

  44. says

    A.I. Steamroller-

    Yeah, I often feel the same way. Those miserable palestinians need to be given the iron fist first-they are the worst of the dregs and it’s in their name a lot of this misery is caused for. This makes us racists but that’s OK-by my definition a racist regarding Islam is merely one who opposes the Muslim master race mentality and all that comes from it.



    That is exactly what I have been saying! There are no good moslems and there never will be any good ones because the day they decide to live in peace with everybody else around them is the day they stop being moslems. That being the case, I say we give them a big dose of their own medicine and take their lands away from them. We should build new colonies for American settlers there and put the land and it’s resources to productive good use. That will be our payment for the blood and treasure we wasted trying to save them from themselves. As I said, they have proven they will never do anything good or productive with it anyway. Those who want to stay will have to convert to any other godly religion. The rest we can deport to Antartica. To paraphrase Phil Sheridan, the only good moslem is a dead moslem……

  45. says

    Polypragmonically speaking, I enjoy seeing new words come into use. One of my favorites is “bafflegab”, coined by the late Carl Barks, which means, more or less, “overly technical jargon employed to exclude outsiders or non-initiates from a discussion.”

  46. says

    Let them blame all they want, for as I see it, the amount of blame leveled against America, Europe, Israel, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists, etc. for all the woes in the Islamic world is directly proportional to the humiliating incompetency of Islam to be the “perfect” solution to those very woes. If Muslims didn’t claim all the answers to a good life lie in Islam, it wouldn’t matter so much. But because they do, each accusation they make against the West for their problems is an implied concession that Islam is weaker, unable to come through for the ummah when they most need its divine guidance, even if only to prove that infidelism is not stronger than the ways of Allah. Embarassing, yet inescapable, if one chooses blame in a futile attempt to escape shame. Blame seeks only to show how inferior the blamee is, not how superior the blamer is. So next time you meet a Muslim bashing the West for Islam’s ills, point this out to him/her and ask them why Islam isn’t delivering on its claims. Emphasizing this over and over for the world to see is deadly for a proud, triumphal religion like Islam.

  47. says

    “But Jihad is not understood. Not by Bush. Not by Cheney. Not by Rice. Not by Gates. Not by the idiotic Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group.”

    Was it understood when those who advised past and present US presidents on foreign policy matters advocated the use of islam as bulwark against communism?

    Was it? Then, why you people are whining about the Frankenstein that your rulers helped to create coming to knock on your door one day?

    It was fine, when the CIA used the Taliban and the Chechnyans against Russia.

    But, it is a problem when the same Russia is giving the west “a taste of its own medicine” by providing nuclear fuel to Iran.

    On one hand,the Brits have been siding with the US in fighting against Arabs in Iraq.

    On the other hand, the same Brits have been luring Arab finances into the kingdom thus inviting at the same time all the jihadist scum along with.

    As long as the Western countries stick to this kind of double deals, they will not see a moment of peace from now on.

  48. says


    I’m guessing you’d agree with my philosophy then, that the best solutions are always simple ones.

    So, in order to avoid “bafflegab” once more, allow me to type once more:

    Islam is still the Enemy. It was last week, it is today and it will be probably long after most of us are gone.

    Any questions?

  49. says

    The US military went in unprepared and opened the pandoras box. It’s your fault. Without the invasion, there would be no civil war.
    Iraq is a waste of lives.

    Posted by:loler
    Yes, without the invasion, there would still be in power a mass-murdering and militarliy adventurous tyrant, who killed several times as many people as the “civil war” has. And if the Iraqis were sensible people, there would be no “civil war” either now or following an American withdrawl. But of course they are not sensible, they’re moslems. It is Islam that is the waste of lives.

  50. says

    Icarus_Project wrote:

    “Was it? Then, why you people are whining about the Frankenstein [Islam] that your rulers helped to create coming to knock on your door one day?”

    You’ve got it backwards, my friend.

    The Muslims relished using Europeans vs Europeans in both world wars, then with that over, they used Communism as a buffer against the West, all the while inviting even more Americans in to the lands of the Middle East to dig out the oil for them to profit over. When it was convenient for them, they also invited us in as defenders, but now that the Soviet Bear is gone, they have started to realize that the oil revenue is a useful tool in the new frontline of TERRORISM.

    Islamic terrorism has been around since Muhammad. Nobody but the Muslims have created the “Frankenstein” that is Islam. The victims of this monsters are countless and always the statistics are growing.

    Nice try at equivalency and finger pointing, but not going to happen on my watch.

    One last thing: a Democratic Republic that doesn’t believe in Imperialism requires one sure weapon in order to avoid military conflict while at the same time protecting its interests — and that is espionage. I’m always amazed at how many people think that the United States of America and Britain are supposed to exist in the world without Imperial aspirations, benefiting the globe with our technologies, educational systems and medicines and yet not use the virulent despots of the world when we need to.

    Go read ‘The Prince’ and get back to me.

  51. says

    the definition of a polypragmon, from Archaic and Classical Greece edited by Michael Crawford and David Whitehead[:]

    “a polypragmon — whether an individual (as in Aristoph. Ach. 833) or a whole polis — must always be active, interfering in the affairs of others, neither keeping quiet themselves nor allowing others to be quiet…Athenians….were temperamentally, polypragmones whose dynamic imperialism disrupted everyone else’s lives”

    I don’t think dynamic imperialism and interfering in the affairs of others is by itself necessarily a bad thing; it’s only bad when it is based upon PC multiculturalist assumptions — such as, for example, that Third World peoples, and Muslims in particular, must share our modern enlightened values and appetites and that, if they don’t seem to, it’s somehow the fault of external impediments unrelated to their cultures. Among those supposed external impediments are, ironically and paradoxically, imperialistic geopolitical actions of the West — ironic and paradoxical because the polypragmonic solution to supposedly bad Western imperialism is more imperialism: good imperialism.

    I don’t disagree at all with this logic on the surface: I too think the solution to bad imperialism is good imperialism. I just think, however, that the PC Polypragmones (on both the Left and Right, united by their common PC) have it precisely ass-backwards in identifying which type of imperialism is bad and which is good: the former imperialism of the modern West in its heyday was the good imperialism — chiefly because it was based precisely on the premise of the superiority of Western culture vis-à-vis headhunters, cannibals, widow-burners, women-stoners, etc. –, while the post-WWII politically correct crypto-neo-imperialistic pseudo-anti-imperialism
    is in fact the bad imperialism.

  52. says

    Someone noted that if the Iraqis were happy about the occupation, then why aren’t U.S. troops given a heads-up about impending attacks.

    Max Boot (in “War made new”) makes the case that the U.S. troops cut themselves off from the locals. Boot writes: “Both alcohol and local women were strictly off-limits in deference to local sensibilities and security concerns. There was almost no ‘fraternization’ of the kind which had been common in past occupations. This made it all the more difficult to gather the intelligence needed to stop the insurgency” (p. 408). In addition, American leaders were safely ensconced in the Green Zone. And, Iraqi insurgents murdered any “collaborator.” (Max Boot mentions a number of other factors which give the upper-hand to the insurgents — including the rotation of U.S. troops — thus, just as a soldier is getting familiar with an area, it’s time to rotate.)

  53. says

    Also, briefly…someone suggested that Bush “tacked-on” the notion of making Iraq into a democracy (late in the game). I do not believe this is accurate. If you look at the earliest speeches GW Bush made (when he was making the case to go to war prior to March, 2003) he mentions his democracy plans (in virtually all the speeches I’ve read, he makes the case for democratizing Iraq — and this is long before the Americans actually entered Iraq and discovered there were no WMD.) Thus, this policy was not “tacked-on” — it was there from the beginning.

  54. says

    You know- sounds to me like people have a problem with Americans=- as such, perhaps it’s time to start doing some attitude adjusting and making it perfectly clear that America is here to stay, and they can either accept it and get along peacefully, or we can stop their scuzzy little heads into the ground! pretty simple!

  55. says


    Sad to say, that won’t happen…thanks to the opposite of common sense called political correctness.
    If we purge the PC, it can easily happen, as the Marines’ informal motto: “When you have ’em by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.”…if we don’t purge political correctness, forget it, as all else is meaningless and irrelevant.

  56. says


    “We should have finished the job in the early 1990s, but instead our congress wouldn’t let us ( this is the only analogy to Vietnam that is correct – the congress took us out and then the situation became worse ).”

    What is the basis for your assertion? I mean besides your wall?

    Towards end of Iraq War 1991 and for a while after Bush I popularity was at 90%. Yes, it is right, 90%. See

    Probably highest since presidential popularity polls have started.

    Congress would not dare to go pee without Bush permission much less interfere with conduct of the war.

  57. says


    “Right now, most people hear from the left wing papers that Iraqis are ungrateful, etc – but what they NEVER hear are the 95% of the people who are grateful to us. And the problem is the fear that we will cut and run again.”

    Are you sure it is 95%? I am positive it is 95.273% :-).

    What is your source for this RIDICULOUS assertion?

    It is rare when one’s ass supplies good data.

  58. says

    used more than once at this winsome website, and that more-than-once-use naturally disqualifies all of them, now phoenixes too frequent, from being considered true hapax legomena.

    That’s not the standard function or meaning of the term hapax legomenon. The standard function and meaning is of a word found only once in a text or coherent ouevre. The hapax legomenon does not cease to be such just because others might begin to use it outside of the (con)text in which it is hapax. For example, in the New Testament corpus as well as in the wider context of koine Greek, “daily bread” (Greek arton epiousion) is a hapax legomenon, and yet in the following twenty centuries it became a daily used phrase, for many never losing its freshness.

    Furthermore, the fact that “daily bread” (Greek arton epiousion) is found twice in the New Testament — with Luke 11:3 simply copying the earlier source in Mark 6:11 — does not hinder Biblical scholars from appropriately terming it a hapax legomenon.

  59. says


    I assume that the poster (who suggested that 95% of Iraqis are grateful for the U.S. getting rid of Saddam) was speaking rhetorically, and that it should be assumed that such a figure is not based on an opinion poll.

    I believe that due to the security situation in Iraq, it is extremely difficult to figure out what most people in Iraq think. It has to be an educated guess. (My guess is that most Iraqis don’t like the occupation and want Americans out).

    But, I could be wrong. What is “for sure” is that the most vocal are those Iraqis who oppose the U.S. presence (and they’re the ones who are most likely to appear on reports from CNN, etc.). With the number of “collaborators” (these are the translators, the aides, fixers, etc) being killed, kidnapped, their families murdered — well, you know, this just might act as a deterrent for some pro-U.S. Iraqis to come forward and express their admiration for the Americans. (and if you’re a reporter, you’d probably have second-thoughts about revealing the identity of any Iraqis who are pro-American — it could be the equivalent to a death sentence. But then, if you don’t identify the source, others would accuse the reporter of fabricating stories. So, it’s a no-win situation.)

  60. says

    From PB Haney
    Here’s a note that I wrote to myself a while back(I was upset for three days afterward):

    Green Tide Rising – Iraq Lost

    Today is August 03, 2005 – a Wednesday.

    Earlier today I came to a sudden and disturbing realization…

    Despite the good that we have done in delivering the people of Iraq from the cruelty of Saddam Hussein, it is clear to me now that (in the end), we will ultimately loose our war to free Iraq. That is, we will fail in our attempt to create a free & democratic government in Iraq.

    The truth is, the Shiite Jihadists have already taken over the southern region [1] of the country (Basra). This is with the direct assistance of Iran. They are already imposing strict Sha’ria law on the people, and are led by Ali Sadr [2]. Their grip on the people will only tighten, and our own government cannot tell the difference between the Shiite Jihadists and those who support the democracy. They have infiltrated the police training program [managed by the British Army], and the local government at every level.

    It is very likely that there will be civil strife (war) between the Shiite and Sunni factions, with larger countries (such Iran on one side & Saudi Arabia and Syria on the other side) supporting them for their own advantage [3].

    [1] In 09 of 18 provinces
    [2] Leader of the Mahdi Army, whom we fought in Najaf, but he escaped into Baghdad
    [3] What happens in Iraq will have a direct bearing on Lebanon, which is desperately trying to establish a democratic form of government, and free itself from the Baathist government of Syria(Saddam Hussein’s government was Baathist).

    Meanwhile, did anyone see the Glenn Beck’s interview of Keith Ellison on November 14, 2006?
    Near the end of the interview, Mr. Ellison said…”you know that the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq have never had a civil war before. You’re aware of that, aren’t you.”
    A moment later, Mr. Ellison repeated the same statement, but added…”and that’s a historic fact.”

    Blessings to all, and to all, Peace…in such a time as this.

  61. says

    What the hell is this,the U.N. or just the Govornment at work?

    All you idiots out there more worried about “the wording”,just like real politicians.

    Here is a clue for you and the gov. the language part is easy.If the law is to mean No say No.If the law is to AlLOW say ALLOW.

    Perhaps if the wording was not such an issue as to create backdoors and alleys for the elite we would all be better off.

    Now i am sure you get Hughs’ point and if you don’t then you are dumber than i thought.

    Everyone knows ,including muslims that islam SUCKS.They would probably run to any other faith if they wouldn’t be killed before thier feet touched the ground.

    Any sane and inteligent person that has read the koran or watched any news about islam deserves what they get for playing in islam.

    Carpet bomb the lot of them,bring peace back to the world and call it a life.This includes the women,the bomb factories stop here.

    I am a peaceful guy but peace went out the door the day the first innocent person was killed.There is no end in sight and politics won’t bring it around either ,in fact it will only cause more innocent people to pay the price of those who deserve NOTHING.

    The only place for islam is to put it right back where it came from….HELL!!!!!


  62. says

    It’s enough talk about what jihad is too ,already.

    I know what jihad is,you know what jihad is,they know what jihad is.we see it everyday.

    What is it supposed to be?…..who cares.Thats islams problem.If they don’t wish to stand up and show the real “jihad” then they die like the “jihadists”.

    Again with the wording.If jihad is an inner struggle then where are all the “moderates” or true leaders of islam saying “hey they don’t know what jihad is”,”this is wrong”.

    Until the day they stand up and rid us all of the “extremists” then they ride in the same boat.

  63. says

    Hugh,i am surprised that you of all people dont get it!
    The war in iraq had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction nor did it have anything to do with bringing democracy to iraq!
    You “all” missed it, im shocked!
    President bush stated loud and clear on sept.12,2001 what his reason for attacking iraq was! dont you remember?
    The purpose of attacking iraq was to show the muslim world what would happen to any muslim country that supported terrorist in attacking america!
    Bush named them, iraq, iran and n.korea!
    some think america should have remained in afghanistan instad of pulling out and attacking iraq!
    the mujahadeen and al qaeda prayed to allah we would make the same mistake the russians made and stay and fight the mujahadeen in the fortified caves, mountains and tunnels al qaeda and taliban spen years building. fortifying and stocking with the best and most modern weapons terrorist money could buy!
    the 3000 soldiers we have lost in iraq is nothing compared to what we would have lost fighting the mujahadeen in those fortified caves mountains and tunnels of afghanistan!
    ask russia!
    It was the coward dhimmicrats constantly ragging on president bush to give them a reason for attacking iraq, when the wmds wasnt good enopugh for them they wanted something better, so freedom for the iraqis was termed, democracy!
    The entire purpose of america attascking iraq was to let the muslims world know that no muslim country was safe from the long arm of the law of justice of america if they supported terrorist in attacking america!
    If not for the coward dhimmicrats giving aid and support to the muslim terrorist it would have been a great show of force!

  64. says

    …”you know that the Shia and the Sunni in Iraq have never had a civil war before. You’re aware of that, aren’t you.”
    — Ellison to a television interviewer

    Ellison’s reason for saying this is clear: he wishes to pretend that the Sunnis have not been persecuting the Shi’a, and certainly all over the world, wherever they can, attacking and even murdering them, as in Pakistan, or lording it over them, as in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, or treating them with contumely, as in Lebanon. He wants Americans to blame themselves for the Sunni-Shi’a split, to pretend that it is not 1300 years old, to ignore the fact that the doctrine of taqiyya originated in Shi’a Islam as a way of self-defense by Shi’a against, not non-Muslims, but against Sunni Muslims. He wants the Americans to be blamed for what they cannot be blamed for, unless one thinks that it was acceptable for Saddam Hussein to continue to oppress both the non-Arab Kurds and the Shi’a Arabs. It was not the fault of the Americans that the removal of Saddam Hussein would necessarly lead to a transfer of power to the Shi’a in Iraq, nor that the aggressiveness, ferocity, refusal to compromise with others, that are all natural emanations from Islam, would be exhibited in the refusal of Sunni Arabs in Iraq (or outside Iraq) to acquiesce in their own loss of power, and in the refusal of the Shi’a Arabs to give up that power, or at least to share it as might seem obvious and natural to non-Muslim Westerners, so convinced that everyone can always Get to Yes, in the immortal words of Roger Fisher (what a racket that “negotiations’ racket has turned out to be for his successors such as William Ury, who pretend that everyone has a point, everyone is, morally, equal to everyone else, and that the demands of everyone can be accommmodated, an idea that neither Hitler, nor Stalin, nor those who believe that “Islam is to dominate and is not to be dominated” would all have a good laugh about, if they ever got together).

    No, Ellison does not know the history of Islam, or, alternatively, he knows and is determined to lie about it.

    But what of his well-paid interviewer on CNN? Could he not have reminded the audience, and Ellison himself, about the massacres of Shi’a by the Sunnis under Saddam Hussein? About the mistreatment of the Shi’a during the entire history of modern Iraq? In Pakistan and Bahrain and Saudi Arabia? About the belief by many Sunnis that the Shi’a are not real Muslims, and by some that they are Infidels, even — as Zarqawi thought — the worst kind of Infidels? That a few months ago Mubarak described the Shi’a, all Shi’a, as “not to be trusted”? That taqiyya was a weapon of self-defense by the Shi’a used against the Sunnis? Did the interviewer not say anything at this point? If he did, fine, but if he did not, why not? Such a reply should be at this point nearly automatic.

    The unedifying moral of this taleis that if you let the ellsons get away with nonsense that remains unchallenged, they will continue to deliberately misinform the public.

    “War is deception.”

  65. says

    Ellison is a member of nation of islam, ala louis farrakhan (who claimed hurricane katrina was some sort of honkey conspiracy, among other notables of nincompoop-itis, lol) and are not known for their intellect.

    Nuf sed.

  66. says

    Of course most people here and elsewhere seem to have eliminated the thought or possibility that Bush indeed knew exactly what he was doing, that he did it on purpose (which might explain the somewhat lame excuses to go in), and needs to set up a permanent US force there in order to perpetuate the infighting. If we were to leave it would be much more difficult to instigate, now wouldn’t it?

    I still stand by my assertions that Syria is next and followed by Lebanon. They’ll find the WMD in Syria. Create havoc, and leave. Be the perpetual 5#!T-disturber.

    It would be politically impossible for a President to admit to such as strategy, but consider the threat someone in the State dept?. made to Musharraf, promising that if he did not help clean up the mess, we would bomb him back a thousand years.

    A wonderful idea that would benefit Israel and the west would be for Israel to “lease” for 99 years like Guantanamo the southern portion of their land including the sea port to the U.S. for a permanent military operations base, that would stretch all the way through to the Med. It is pretty much useless desert anyway, and they could lease it for good money every year to build up their military stock.
    The U.S. strip extending to the Med on the northern edge of Gaza needs to be about 5 miles wide there, and then the “Palestinians” could be herded into Gaza from the West Bank and have their homeland not touching Israel. If the Palestinians try something stupid like rocketing, obliterate the first mile in and make it a permanent U.S. territory. The next rocket attack adds another mile. Pretty soon they will be in Egypt, or stop firing rockets. One way or the other there will be peace on Israel’s south and eastern doorsteps. They can then concentrate on Lebanon and Syria, and the Islamists will be driven cuckoo for having a part of Islam in the hands of the great Satan all facilitated by Islamic rage- their own undoing! It would be wonderful.

  67. says

    “Two thousand and six was a difficult year for our troops and the Iraqi people. We began the year with optimism after watching nearly 12 million Iraqis go to the polls to vote for a unity government and a free future. The enemies of liberty responded fiercely to this advance of freedom. They carried out a deliberate strategy to foment sectarian violence between Sunnis and Shia. And over the course of the year, they had success. Their success hurt our efforts to help the Iraqis rebuild their country. It set back reconciliation; it kept Iraq’s unity government and our coalition from establishing security and stability throughout the country.

    We enter this new year clear-eyed about the challenges in Iraq, and equally clear about our purpose. Our goal remains a free and democratic Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself, and is an ally in this war on terror.

    I’m not going to make predictions about what 2007 will look like in Iraq, except that it’s going to require difficult choices and additional sacrifices, because the enemy is merciless and violent. I’m going to make you this promise: My administration will work with Republicans and Democrats to fashion a new way forward that can succeed in Iraq. We’ll listen to ideas from every quarter; we’ll change our strategy and tactics to meet the realities on the ground. We’ll never lose sight that on the receiving end of the decisions I make is a private, a sergeant, a young lieutenant or a diplomat who risks his or her life to help the Iraqis realize a dream of a stable country that can defend, govern and sustain itself.

    The advance of liberty has never been easy, and Iraq is proving how tough it can be. Yet, the safety and security of our citizens requires that we do not let up. We can be smarter about how we deploy our manpower and resources; we can ask more of our Iraqi partners, and we will — one thing we cannot do is give up on the hundreds of millions of ordinary moms and dads across the Middle East who want the hope and opportunity for their children that the terrorists and extremists seek to deny them, and that’s a peaceful existence.”

    The poster just above wishes us to believe that George Bush actually knew all along what he was doing. There is no evidence for this. He has failed to take advantage of the drop in oil prices to put, as he should, a tax on gasoline, or at the very least to explain why such a tax, ever-increasing and never-diminishing, should be imposed, and why all kinds of measures should be undertaken to diminish the revenues that through the Arab and Muslim oil states fund the jihad. He has not managed in six years to come up with a reasonable energy policy that would begin to recognize this need.

    He has failed completely to rouse the kind of worry about Iran that will make acceptable a military attack on Iran, and the Islamic Republic of Iran proceeds pell-mell with its project, and if Bush does not attack Iran, he knows perfectly well it may be too late, for a new administration will take time — years — both to comprehend the menace, and to see through, for itself, the blah and bluff of the Iranian government, and it may then be too late.

    Bush has failed to take advantage of the obvious mass murdering in Darfur, and in the obvious ill-ill and bad faith of the Sudanese government, a government for and by Arabs, engaged in killing non-Muslims in the south and non-Arab black African Muslims in Darfur, a government backed to the hilt by the Arab League and especially by Egypt, that carries on a pretense, for the Americans, of acting as a “moderating force” when it is nothing of the kind, but is, rather, running interference for the Sudanese government so that it can continue its murdering.

    Bush has failed to understand that the war against Israel is a war prompted by Islam, that it has no “solution” and that the only way for Israel to survive is for it not to make further suicidal concessions on territory, territory to whcih it has a legal, historic, and moral claim certainly far superior to that of any group of local Arabs (including those whose “time-immemorial” argument falls flat when one considers the arrival of so many Arabs in the period 1900-1940, more illegal immigrants, completely unstopped by the British, than the legal Jewish immigrants stopped by the British). He prates, and allows Rice to prate, about this idiotic “two-state solution” that would force Israelis to live in a state of permanent insecurity beyond any asked of any other people anywhere in the world.

    Bush has failed to educate himself, and has mislead the people whom it is his duty to instruct and protect. He early on gushed about Islam as a wonderful, peaceful religion, began the “tradition” of the White House Iftar Dinner, has allowed Secretary Rice to similarly gush, gush even more, about how wonderful Islam is, has thereby promoted confusion when he might, at the very least, have shut up on the matter and allowed others to begin, at the very least, to discuss the actual contents, what is within, that Qur’an, and those collections of Hadith, and what Muhammad as the Perfecdt Man, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, actually did and said that is regarded now, must be so regarded by Believers, as wonderful. He has had more than five years to begin to read about Islam. He’s chopped wood on his ranch, read Camus’ “The Stranger,” and remains as oblivious to the need to study both Islam and the history of Islamic conquest, as a schoolboy, and a deficient one, at that.

    Bush prates again and again — he did it just the other day — about the “moms and dads” of the Middle East, and how they are all just like us, and we all want the same thing, because…well, just because, because we are all God’s chillun and it couldn’t possibly be otherwise, because if it were otherwise, and if the problem couldn’t be solved, in the limited view of the limited Bush (and all the limited people who remain loyal to his schemes and dreams, beginning with that Iraq the Light Unto the Muslim Nations), by alleviating “poverty” (why not then try to alleviate it within his own country first, if that is the root of so much of unacceptable behavior by Muslims — or is only Muslims who deserve the tens of billions we give them every year, on top of the hundreds of billions spent on the Iraq venture to bring them “freedom” in “Operation Iraqi Freedom”?).

    Bush has done nothing to end the continued payment of a Jizyah, disguised as “foreign aid,” to Pakistan (to keep it doing the minimum, or pretending to, in the “war on terror”), and to Egypt (to keep it doing the inimum, or pretending to, in keeping the “peace” with Egypt and being “a force for moderation”), and Jordan, whose king whose smooth facade, and that of the his father’s widow (who is not his mother, not a kind of Arab valide sultan, but merely a mediagenic former American, little Lisa Halaby, who shamelessly permits herself to promote that “Act of Faith” gush as if it had anything to do with the real Islam, and Muslim views of Infidels). Not only has Bush not cut the Jizyah to Egypt, Pakistan, Jordan, but he did so with the “Palestinians” only because he was forced to when Hamas came to power and said openly that it was in favor of the Fast Jihad, but Bush and Rice are eager to renew their Jizyah to the “good” and “moderate” “Palestinians” of Fatah and the PLO, under Abbas, the realistic believer in Slow Jihad — same goal as Hamas, different means, longer timetable. A little more patient, but not less malevolent or sinister.

    “Bush,” an Italian friend of mine said, “e un deficiente.” He’s simply not up to the task. And he cannot recognize what would inevitably happen when Saddam Hussein fell, and which is to our advantage: the sectarian and ethnic fissures could no longer be suppressed in the only way that Saddam Hussein did suppress them: with a rule of terror, and mass murder.

    The very idea that Bush all along “knew what he was doing” is crazy. If he “knew what he was doing” then he would have removed American forces long ago, and let nature — as Kutuzov let the nature of the Russian winter — take its course. But he’s too obstinate, and far too limited even to see what is silly about his invokation of such words as “victory” (carefully undefined) and “freedom” (ditto) and so much else.

    He’s not up to it. One hopes that General Abizaid, and other generals, people who presumably were willing, in the army, to risk their lives, will stop being so timid and begin to speak out, not from the viewpoint of those who think there is no problem with Islam, but form the viewpooint of those who do.

    I have hopes for General Abizaid. Let’s see.

  68. says

    “As long as Islam is there, the Infidels will always be fought” – Hugh

    An undeniable historical truth, a simple Islamic truth, unlearned or ignored by those we’ve elected to protect us. Stupid emperors with their stupid clothes, damn them.

  69. says

    “Everyone knows ,including muslims that islam SUCKS.”

    No, everyone obviously doesn’t know that Islam sucks. In fact, it still seems that only a small minority (at least in the West) knows. And that’s Problem #2.

    Problem #1 is, of course, Islam.

    And Problem #3 is the strange notion that there isn’t a Problem #2 that goes beyond some tiny stratum of “elites”.

    Just as Problem #2 gets in the way of our dealing with Problem #1, so Problem #3 gets in the way of our dealing with Problem #2 — for, how is a problem going to be solved or surmounted if one doesn’t have an accurate appreciation for its nature and dimensions?

  70. says

    Bush has failed to take advantage of the obvious mass murdering in Darfur, and in the obvious ill-ill and bad faith of the Sudanese government, a government for and by Arabs, engaged in killing non-Muslims in the south and non-Arab black African Muslims in Darfur, a government backed to the hilt by the Arab League and especially by Egypt, that carries on a pretense, for the Americans, of acting as a “moderating force” when it is nothing of the kind, but is, rather, running interference for the Sudanese government so that it can continue its murdering.

    posted by Hugh

    Hugh, Hugh, Hugh, you keep blaming President Bush but wait back up, think a minute!
    the dhimmicrats dont want america in iraq they claim we have no business in iraq nor did we have cause to attack iraq, they done nothing to america. so what if they tortured and slaughtered 100s of thousands of innocent men women and children!
    You thgink the dhimmicrats are going to permit americans go to africa and risk american lives to save christians from a ruthless islamic demon raping murdering and enslaving them when the muslims in africa have done no harm to america?
    Hugh you are an intelligent man, but you are misguided in your accusations of president bush!
    You keep going on and on about bush declaring islam is a religion of peace! the president simply throws back at the lying muslims their own words!
    Obviously if we can see the lie, President bush and vice president Cheney know the truth!
    However; one doesnt seek allies in the muslim world by telling them they worship satan and their prophet is a pedophile demons possessed murderer and rapist!
    Hugh,Even you must admit america is in need of muslim allies in this war against muslim terrorist, especially since the dhimmicrat politicians are sided with the muslim terrorist!

  71. says

    I was going to comment briefly about Keith Ellison’s claim (re: Sunni and Shiite have never had a civil war in Iraq). Yeah, suuurre. This is *such* a lie. As if Sunni and Shiite just love each other soooo much!

    I believe it’s Karsh who documents WHY there are so many Shiite living in Hejaz (that’s a province in Saudi Arabia.) You find Shiite living in Hejaz because they were fleeing persecution by Sunni and would take refuge in the “holy” cities of Mecca and Medina — that’s to escape / flee their pursurers and hope that their Sunni murderers / persecutors wouldn’t hack off their heads in the so-called “holy” cities.