Betraying America

Posted by: Lumpy at September 12, 2007 10:03 AM

No surprise here - it's the first day of Ramadan, a great time for jihad.

Posted by: ConorMacNessa at September 12, 2007 10:03 AM

Here's a story about an immigrant postal worker who refused to deliver mail that he didn't like. Putting a message on it saying he didn't like it when he was forced to deliver it.

Will they soon refuse to deliver Playboy? Magazines about wine? Or "slutty womens" mags like Cosmo?

http://blog.balder.org/?p=250

[…] A postal worker was sent home on Friday because he had attached a personal comment to an islam critical folder he was to deliver in the city of Alleroed.

His collegues decided to call a strike, but at a meeting Saturday morning they decided to call it off again; probably having realized the unconstitutional character of their action.

‘It is with deep regret that I have to deliver this trashy text. Greetings from your daily mail man.‘

The Danish Postal Services decide the flyer did not break any laws and later warned the immigrant worker that he would be fired if he decided to engage in similar actions in the future.

Posted by: Borg at September 12, 2007 10:05 AM

Betraying America

Posted by: Lumpy at September 12, 2007 10:05 AM

I think we should start a new policy in our immigration practices...start calling people Jews in Arabic and wait for the reaction.

Posted by: Godefroi at September 12, 2007 10:07 AM

I have read somewhere - sorry no link - that the US doesn't want to leave Iraq as it has a moral obligation to take Iraqi refugees.

Why is this sentiment being expressed?

I am not anti-humanitarian, but why does this burden fall on the US, or any of the COTW allies?

Did Germany take all the Jewish, and other refugees after WW2? Did the US take boatloads of Japanese?

They sure caused these problems.

No it didn't happen.

This story of the Iraqis again illustrates what we need to be aware of.

I think we are going to have to say that if these people don't want to fit in, then a western country isn't suitable for people who want to live in the middle ages.

Posted by: Gramfan at September 12, 2007 10:14 AM

Meanwhile, in that "central front" in the "war on terror" -- as "central" a "front" as Pakistan (now the favorite training camp for Muslims -- Pakistani, Uzbeki, you name it -- planning attacks in England, Germany, the rest of the West, or as Saudi Arabia, the big bank-roller of Islam and its missionaries, propagandists, Western hirelings in Dar al-Harb, or as the Islamic Republic of Iran, now busily attempting to acquire nuclear weapons even as it plans, smacking its lips, what it might do with them -- as I said, in that "central front" of the "war on terror" nothing much has happened in that all-important "reconciliation" that will never in fact take place.

And why won't it take place? Why will the Shi'a never give the Sunnis what they demand? Why will the Sunnis continue to demand what the Shi'a will never give them? Because of Islam. Islam does not teach the art of compromise with the enemy, the Infidel. It teaches the art of striving for total victory. True, along the way, since "war is deception," one is permitted to feign a temporary absence of hostility, in order to buy time, or to keep the enemy sufficiently unwary, but in the end, the Muslims must be the Victors, and the Infidels the Vanquished. Now imagine you are a Sunni Arab or a Shi'a Arab, raised in a society suffused with that attitude. Why would you, how could you, start to think in non-Islamic, Western terms, in terms of practical politics, and compromise, and so-called win-win situations? You simply couldn't. And in Iraq neither the Shi'a nor the Sunnis will. For the Kurds, a little compromising may be possible, but that is because, having an ethinc identity that runs counter to, that tugs against rather than reinforces, devotion to Islam, there is a more sensible and rational approach to politics. That is, the Kurdishness of the Kurds helps to put a limit on the effect that Islam has on them.

And the same is true elsewhere. True, for example, of the Berbers who, to the extent that they feel their Berberness, and feel as well that Islam has been and will always be a vehicle for Arab supremacism (and hence of oppression of the Berbers by the Arabs, as the writer Kateb Yacine always understood), are likely to be more secularized, more sensible, more "Western" in their attitudes and ways. (See the Kabyle, see Sa'ad Sa'adi)

Many Senators in the hearings with Petraeus and Crocker expressed their doubts that any "reconciliation" would be forthcoming. They were right. But they could not supply the reason for the inability of either side to think of any conceivable common good or to make any of the most necessary and obvious kinds of compromises. It will not happen.

No, the Senators merley were willing to note this, or to predict this. But they did not supply a reason, other than that Maliki was an ineffective ruler.

I can supply the reason. And it is not Maliki, but applies to his successors as to his predecessors. That reason is Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2007 10:35 AM

These vicious Islamic killers might know of other terrorist entering the USA to poison or blow up innocent men, women & children! A group of Democrat congressmen with Senator McCain better be on their way there quick before the mean ole CIA arrives to interrogate and maybe even…gasp!… waterboards one of them! That would be just too awful!

Posted by: FM at September 12, 2007 10:58 AM

We know these islamic killers are coming in to set up in the West.

We know they will, for 'religious' reasons receive aid and support from muslims here.

We know they will have to have the approval of puke Osama before they attempt a suicide attack.

We know, that to have sanction, it will have to be big.

Where are our leaders in all this ? If they are Dems, they have their head in the sand or up their butts or they are angrily attacking those of us who warn of the danger.

Or telling us that we should not be in Iraq lest it 'radicalize' the islamists.

Wakey wakey.

Posted by: dgene at September 12, 2007 11:24 AM

"Or telling us that we should not be in Iraq lest it 'radicalize' the islamists."
-- from a poster above, creating a straw man

Who is arguing that "we should not be in Iraq" lest it "radicalize the islamists"? Who?

Are you reading what the objections are to remaining in Iraq? Hasn't every post I have put up at this site on the subject of Iraq since February 2004 been prompted by the belief that American forces should withdraw from Iraq, not because Islam is not a problem, but because it is? Never did I suggest that anyone was being "radicalized" by anything the Americans, the British, the Australians, or anyone else does. They are merely being good, dutiful Muslims, and some choose terrorism as their preferred way to conduct Jihad, to fulfill their duty to participate in Jihad, others choose financial contributions, or propaganda and apologetics (including what can be achieved through those Mosque Open-Houses where the gullible Infidels can be fooled), or merely by having a family of six or ten or fifteen children, and doing everything one can to keep up the pressure for changes in the legal and political institutions and social arrangments within the Infidel states to accommodate the demands of Muslims, and of Islam.

You construct a straw man, and knock it down. Try to answer, if you can, the actual reasons offered here for why withdrawing from Iraq makes sense now, and would have made better sense in early 2004.

Posted by: Hugh at September 12, 2007 11:40 AM

Hi Hugh,
Respect your scholarship.
Disagree with what I perceive as your blindness to the nature of a challenge and how one wins.
One does not win by leaving the field of battle.
Your argument is basically that we chose the wrong battlefield, and we should do an endrun elsewhere.
That is the way of defeat.
Knowing the enemy is vital and many thanks for your invaluable brain and help.
And I believe your political affiliation is blinding you in having you counsel the Dem solution (withdrawel), but you are too intelligent to repeat their rationale.
Well, bless you friend, Yah squirm: God bless you. We have a war to win.

Posted by: dgene at September 12, 2007 12:57 PM

Thank God they're in Peruvian Custody.. :-) I am certain the Peruvians know how to get more information out of them :-)

By the time it's all said and done they'll be begging to vacation in Camp Gitmo.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 12, 2007 1:34 PM

Didn't know each other? How, pray tell, do you know that? By asking them (ha ha ha!)? As to them "not being part of a group", does that seem likely to you? Eleven people, all of whom have forged passports, miraculously happen to show up in Peru at exactly the same time and try to take the exact same flight into the US, and you believe it's merely coincidence?

Posted by: aynrandgirl at September 12, 2007 1:57 PM

Allahfanculo...
lol...that's what that two tunisians said when "released" from the eeeeevil Gitmo, only to end up right back in prison in Tunisia, where it's a REAL jail...lol

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,504237,00.html

He should've thought harder on the eternal adage:
"Be careful what ya wish for-you just might get it"

Posted by: jcom972 at September 12, 2007 2:03 PM

Honestly though we know Islamic terror groups have downloaded schematics of our schools, there is a high degree of suspicion that they have stolen school buses, they have also executed dry runs casing school buses. They are planning a Beslan style attack on the US, and it is only a matter of time before they pull it off. I believe most Americans don't realize the scale of conflict we are in yet or the type of murderers we face. When it happens what will we do? Wonder what the Russians did ... strange no news from Chechnya ... is that good news? Time will tell.

Posted by: Ameriki at September 12, 2007 2:09 PM

dgene

I cannot let this go..you said..

"One does not win by leaving the field of battle."

General Lee said the same thing at Gettysburg.

"Your (Hugh's) argument is basically that we chose the wrong battlefield, and we should do an endrun elsewhere."

Longstreet said the same thing at Gettysburg.

"That is the way of defeat."

How did Pickett's charge work out?

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at September 12, 2007 2:25 PM

Lazy b@st@rds should have just gone to Mexico and walked into the U.S. like everyone else. Six years of "war" and borders are still wide open. We have no idea who has wwndered into the country or what they are up to. Good job "W".

Posted by: MP at September 12, 2007 2:58 PM

First I've heard of this, anyone else hear news of the spoiled plot on 9/6/07? Thanks to Gates of Vienna for posting it!

http://www.homelandsecurityus.com/090907Flt1824

Posted by: Ameriki at September 12, 2007 3:16 PM

This is my fear...

Once enough people get smuggled into the states, then a wave of vbied's and suicide bombings begin

Posted by: Moose at September 12, 2007 3:17 PM

Yes, ameriki...
there's a good reason they let them go-it's a age-old trick that works very well.

If you nail 'em straightaway, you got one batch.
But if you put them on notice, 99/100 times they'll go report it to the bigger fish, in this case, it's because they're likely here INCONUS.
The lackeys get nervous even after being let go & too jittery to try again, but the diehards don't...and invariably start blabbing to their masters what's up...
...and it leads us to the bigger fish up their respective chain of command.

Common combat tactic...take out a soldier, you stop ONE from firing at you...
...but if you take out the enemy's C4I (command, control, communication, intelligence) you royally screwed 'em up on much more massive scale.
See terms "Economy of Force" & "Force Multiplier"

It works MUCH more often than fails, and the terrorists don't seem to change their playbook much at all, even after getting nailed.

Eventually, some wil change tactics once they realize how they're being tracked and nailed...and we will change tactics along with it.
In themean time, it's a cat-n-mouse game...to see where the bait leads us...and more often than not, it will.

Posted by: jcom972 at September 12, 2007 3:39 PM

Hi Greatcomic:
The difference is that we're the good guys and we are winning and will win. Lee and his brave cohorts lost.
Also, we chose the battlefield. King HenryV, Wellington, and Churchill, and Patton, (and even General Petraeus) have mostly done the same, chosen the battlefield.
(note how the Union forces arrayed themselves in the order of battle at Gettysburg, just letting the other forces come at them)
So did the Spartans at Thermopylie.
Cheers and good luck to us.

Posted by: dgene at September 12, 2007 3:46 PM

dgene

"The difference is that we're the good guys and we are winning and will win. Lee and his brave cohorts lost."

What makes you say we are winning? For that matter what are we trying to win in Iraq? It has been proven that Islam and the nation state don't work. It has been proven that Islam and Democracy don't work. It has been proven that Islam and the political system in Iraq are one and the same. Lee lost because he attempted to do what was impossible. He refused to look at the evidence and facts on the ground that the Union army was is a strong tactical position. So if 95% plus of Iraq is Muslim and we are doing nothing to remove Islam from the political institutions in Iraq then how is that any different. The goals that Bush has set forth cannot be obtained just like Lee’s goal of breaking the Union center could not be obtained. Being the “good guys” or “brave cohorts” have nothing to do with winning battles.

“Also, we chose the battlefield. King HenryV, Wellington, and Churchill, and Patton, (and even General Petraeus) have mostly done the same, chosen the battlefield.”

Henry V was in bad shape at Agincourt. All the French needed to do was wait for his army to starve to death but the stupid French thought it would be a shame to waste their numerical superiority and launched a frontal attack. Thus the weak position that Henry V had was turned into a strength due to French stupidity. Churchill selected the battlefield at Gallipoli which turned into a disaster. Patton did not believe in holding on to territory but was only interested in achieving victory. He was always flanking and attacking. He would be horrified if he was alive today to witness our battle plan in Iraq. In fact your examples point out the flaws in the Iraqi battle plan. Just like those defeats were do to bad planning in the case of Gallipoli and of stupid haste like the French at Agincourt so to today in Iraq. The object is winning wars not fighting battles.

“note how the Union forces arrayed themselves in the order of battle at Gettysburg, just letting the other forces come at them”

We are not doing that in Iraq. Street patrols and waiting for some Iraqi policeman to turn turtle and shoot you in the back is no way to win a war. The Union troops were in their own country with a supportive population where as the Confederates were in a hostile country. In fact the reason why the North won the war was by Grant and Sherman laying waste to the Western and Southern parts (Georgia in case of Sherman) of Confederacy and Sheridan burning everything is sight in the Shenandoah Valley. The Union blockade stopped the South from being re-supplied.

As Sherman said…

“My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.”

Also he said…

“This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.”

We are not doing that in Iraq today. However Petraeus did come up with his own strategy for winning Iraq…

“He introduced “cordon and knock”: Houses were surrounded, but not entered, and suspected insurgents were invited to turn themselves in. He allowed imams to inspect his jails and never blindfolded detainees.”

For more on this master of warfare see…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1291624.ece

All this however misses the important point that fighting in Iraq will not affect the overall outcome of the larger war. Muslims are still invading the West through immigration and our oil need makes our leaders slaves to nations like Saudi Arabia. Until those economic ties are cut and the invasion of the West is stemmed we will not win this war. That is why Hugh Fitzgerald calls it a Tarbaby. As long as we are there it confirms the belief that the core of Islam is good and can be saved or that we should do the saving. It also blinds us to the much larger threats like the economic servitude to countries like Saudi Arabia. That it is a giant waste of cash and fighting men because said objectives are impossible in Iraq.

Winning wars is not about fighting battles but putting yourself in a position where you cannot lose. We have not done that yet.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at September 12, 2007 5:01 PM