The madness of King George

[BigBaribal]

Again, Lawrence Auster is spot on:



The madness of King George

From a ******* report today:

U.S. President George W. Bush on Monday called bombings in London an attack against the civilized world and vowed “we will not yield.” …

He said that in the long run the only way to defeat Islamic militants is to “advance the cause of freedom” in the Middle East, comparing it to when Germany and Japan became allies in the years after World War Two.

“And when the Middle East grows in democracy and prosperity and hope, the terrorists will lose their sponsors. They’ll lose their recruits. They will lose their hopes for turning that region into a base of attacks against America and our allies,” he said.

Let us reflect on what President Bush is saying here. He is saying that the only way we can defend our homeland from domestic Moslem terrorists, many of whom were born in the West, is by “spreading democracy” in Moslem countries, that is, by replicating the catastrophe of our Iraq policy in several other places. Let us also remember that “democracy” by current understandings means treating all people, including Moslems, equally, particularly in terms of whom we welcome into our country and naturalize as our fellow citizens. Therefore, by Bush’s lights (and he’s not one to hide his light under a Bush), protecting America from Moslem terrorists requires the continued open immigration of Moslems into America.

And if that’s not crazy enough for you, take in Bush’s implied response to the criticism made yesterday at VFR against his democratization strategy. My Indian correspondent pointed out that the support for terrorism shown by Moslems living in democratic Britain definitively proves that democracy is not the cure for terrrorism. But now it turns out that Bush has a ready answer to this objection: As long as anti-democratic forces exist in any Moslem countries and are influencing Western Moslems, the Western Moslems will continue to be pro-terrorist. Therefore, in order to make Moslems non-terrorist, it’s not enough for their actual country of residence to be democratic. All Moslem countries must become democratic. Nothing short of democratizing the entire Moslem world can make Britain and America safe from domestic terrorism. Instead of undertaking doable steps to protect ourselves, we must embark on the greatest utopian crusade in history, a crusade that can never succeed, but which must render us increasingly vulnerable to the very people we are supposedly fighting.

Welcome to the Mad Mad Mad Mad World created by the consistent application of liberal and neocon principles.


In spite of being conservative, I even begin to think that the liberal John Kerry could not have porked the situation as deeply as the "conservative" George Bush!

[jedisponge]

Again, Lawrence Auster is spot on:

In spite of being conservative, I even begin to think that the liberal John Kerry could not have porked the situation as deeply as the "conservative" George Bush!
Uhh... wow.


He is saying that the only way we can defend our homeland from domestic Moslem terrorists, many of whom were born in the West
Statistics? Where the hell did the author get that information? Excuse my language, but "out of his ass" sounds right. If you, BigBaribal, or anyone else can point to me where the latest suicide bombings and terrorist attacks were commited by a Muslim who in origin came from the west I'll retract whatever doubts I have.

And as you read the what the author's saying, he's obviously sensationalizing what Mr. Bush said. But what can you except, especially with the mass media sensationalizing everything. As with this quote:
take in Bush’s implied response to the criticism made yesterday at VFR against his democratization strategyAnother bad piece of journalism. How can you base an arguement on something that's
"implied". Truths are something that's solid, something journalists should be using. Facts, actual quotes, real statistics, not something "implied". Lies, rumors and fanaticalism are started when someone decides they are knowledgable enough to talk about something they don't have an inkling of any idea on.

I guess it's just journalism today.

[Nordic Fire]

Truths are something that's solid, something journalists should be using. Facts, actual quotes, real statistics, not something "implied". Lies, rumors and fanaticalism are started when someone decides they are knowledgable enough to talk about something they don't have an inkling of any idea on.
Can't really blame the journalists. They're just learning by watching a head of state embarking on a war based on lies, rumours, fanaticism and "something implied"... after all, what's a misguided article in comparison to a misguided war.

I guess it's foreign policy these days.

[BigBaribal]

Statistics? Where the hell did the author get that information? Excuse my language, but "out of his ass" sounds right. If you, BigBaribal, or anyone else can point to me where the latest suicide bombings and terrorist attacks were commited by a Muslim who in origin came from the west I'll retract whatever doubts I have.

No stats (how to make stats about this btw?) but some interesting articles about the recent attack:




Citation:
Al Qaeda recruiting in British colleges -paper
Sun Jul 10, 2005 12:23 AM BST
Printer Friendly | Email Article | RSS

LONDON (*******) - Al Qaeda -- chief suspect behind last week's London bomb attacks which killed more than 50 people -- is secretly recruiting Muslims in colleges, according to the Sunday Times.

It is especially looking for students with engineering or computer expertise, the paper added, citing what it said was a leaked report from the Home Office and Foreign Office.

It quoted the report as saying: "Extremists are known to target schools and colleges where young people may be very inquisitive but less challenging and more susceptible to extremist reasoning.".......


http://today.*******.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-07-09T232334Z_01_KNE984122_RTRUKOC_0_SECURITY-BRITAIN-RECRUITING.xml


Citation:
Leaked No 10 dossier reveals Al-Qaeda’s British recruits
Robert Winnett and David Leppard
Read the document: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
AL-QAEDA is secretly recruiting affluent, middle-class Muslims in British universities and colleges to carry out terrorist attacks in this country, leaked Whitehall documents reveal.

A network of “extremist recruiters” is circulating on campuses targeting people with “technical and professional qualifications”, particularly engineering and IT degrees. ......


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688261,00.html


Citation:
Bombers may be British born
Robert Winnett, Whitehall Correspondent
Read the document: Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Part 4
LORD STEVENS, the former Metropolitan police chiefwho retired earlier this year, said last night that the London bombings were almost certainly masterminded by British-born terrorists.

He said last week’s bombers would not fit the stereotype of a fanatic from a village in Afghanistan or Algeria.

“They will be apparently ordinary British citizens; young men conservatively and cleanly dressed and probably with some higher education. Highly computer literate, they will have used the internet to research explosives. They are painstaking, cautious, clever and very sophisticated.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688185,00.html

[jedisponge]

No stats (how to make stats about this btw?) but some interesting articles about the recent attack:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1688185,00.html


You can get a close correlation on ID's from those killed in firefights through the world with any country's police. It's a close correlation, but of course you can't exactly get the ID's of people who blew themselves up. But history has shown, as most of these attacks are taking place in the Middle East and a few places abroad are to be Muslims from the region. But to counter that, you can't rule out the possibility of the actions taking place in the Middle East itself is the sole reasons many Muslims are taking part. But again, the World Trade Center, Sydney, and probably London were all done by foreign extremist-Muslims; it's a plain fact that you can't get away from.

The British article is very interesting and an expected development. I have no doubts that programs like these large or small exist throughout the world, in every continent. Except, Anartica. Unless jihadists somehow knew how to build igloos.


Can't really blame the journalists. They're just learning by watching a head of state embarking on a war based on lies, rumours, fanaticism and "something implied"... after all, what's a misguided article in comparison to a misguided war.

I guess it's foreign policy these days.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, reguardless of whatever agenda leadership had, I and many I know wanted the war to succeed in the begining to give Iraqi's themselves a shot at a good life. Right now, at this point of time I'm not in the position nor do I care to be in or care about any bull**** oil, political crap that's spewed out by apparent know-it-alls, and I doubt anyone else is directly affected by any of that. All I'm concerned about his the well being Iraqi's and to hope it succeeds. Anyone else thinking otherwise has biased-by-politics-viewpoints. You think the war is illegal? So what, you should be hoping war succeeds for the Iraqis because that's what any decent human should be hoping for; a better life for others.

From what I've observed, a majority if not all the people on this board are not in the position to do anything about foreign policies of any country. The most people here do is bicker about something that's beyond their control. My perception of this website is a place where we all pass news and information to each other, news we otherwise wouldn't be hearing about in our daily lives. News that makes us better informed and hell, help us make better decisions when voting for our politicians. Otherwise, as far as my lowly opinion is concenred, any argueing here is just for the sake of argueing.

[Nordic Fire]

You think the war is illegal? So what, you should be hoping war succeeds for the Iraqis because that's what any decent human should be hoping for; a better life for others.
Fair enough. Would you apply that mentality to law enforcement, too? That's fundamentally what rubs me the wrong way about the Iraq war. I have absolutely no affinity to Saddam or the other tyrants, but the ends, no matter how benevolent, never justify the means. A cop doesn't go out and castrate a well known paedophile rapist who just escaped justice "because that's what any decent human should be hoping for". If he does, he's nothing but another criminal to me. Two wrongs do not make right. Not locally, not internationally.

[jedisponge]

You think the war is illegal? So what, you should be hoping war succeeds for the Iraqis because that's what any decent human should be hoping for; a better life for others.
Fair enough. Would you apply that mentality to law enforcement, too? That's fundamentally what rubs me the wrong way about the Iraq war. I have absolutely no affinity to Saddam or the other tyrants, but the ends, no matter how benevolent, never justify the means. A cop doesn't go out and castrate a well known paedophile rapist who just escaped justice "because that's what any decent human should be hoping for". If he does, he's nothing but another criminal to me. Two wrongs do not make right. Not locally, not internationally.
I'm sure a "decent" human being would know the difference between what he wants to do and what he should do.

And as such, removing a "tyrant" shouldn't be equated to castrating a pedophile. It's more police catching a mob boss known well for murder when he was speeding on the freeway.

While I agree now Bush's reasons for invading Iraq look shaky now, but at the time it did not.

[caridon]

Anyone else thinking otherwise has biased-by-politics-viewpoints. You think the war is illegal? So what, you should be hoping war succeeds for the Iraqis because that's what any decent human should be hoping for; a better life for others.

From what I've observed, a majority if not all the people on this board are not in the position to do anything about foreign policies of any country. The most people here do is bicker about something that's beyond their control. My perception of this website is a place where we all pass news and information to each other, news we otherwise wouldn't be hearing about in our daily lives. News that makes us better informed and hell, help us make better decisions when voting for our politicians. Otherwise, as far as my lowly opinion is concenred, any argueing here is just for the sake of argueing.

Bad jedisponge, you are making me invoke godwin :)

Your argument that we should hope that the war sucseedes no matter if it was ilegal or not. is fundamentaly flawed. The same argument can be used to supress dissent about the german invasion of poland, the soviet invation of finland, the iraq invasion of kuwait ect.

It is wery important that if a war is started, it is started by the right persons for the right reasons. If not we end up with a situation where gouverments can start a war on false pretenses and later claim that we cannot stop now because.......(fill in reason here)

And on the subject of influence with goverments. You would be supriced how far the influence of lowly persons somtimes reach. What we do here is create oppinions and things figured out here spread, (as things figured out on other boards/clubbs/pubbs spread.) and within 6 degrees you have all the powerfull persons. In my case even closer as i am a prakticing politichan, (spelling?) and regularely talk with "my" riksdagsledarmot. (read Member of parlament)

So its not just arguing for the sake of arguing, it serves a purpose. and the purpose is Democracy. Because Democracy is more than just voting for a party every 4-5 years, its all the talking in betwen that makes it work.


OK I'l get of the soapbox now :)


/C

[jedisponge]

Anyone else thinking otherwise has biased-by-politics-viewpoints. You think the war is illegal? So what, you should be hoping war succeeds for the Iraqis because that's what any decent human should be hoping for; a better life for others.

From what I've observed, a majority if not all the people on this board are not in the position to do anything about foreign policies of any country. The most people here do is bicker about something that's beyond their control. My perception of this website is a place where we all pass news and information to each other, news we otherwise wouldn't be hearing about in our daily lives. News that makes us better informed and hell, help us make better decisions when voting for our politicians. Otherwise, as far as my lowly opinion is concenred, any argueing here is just for the sake of argueing.

Bad jedisponge, you are making me invoke godwin :)

Your argument that we should hope that the war sucseedes no matter if it was ilegal or not. is fundamentaly flawed. The same argument can be used to supress dissent about the german invasion of poland, the soviet invation of finland, the iraq invasion of kuwait ect.

It is wery important that if a war is started, it is started by the right persons for the right reasons. If not we end up with a situation where gouverments can start a war on false pretenses and later claim that we cannot stop now because.......(fill in reason here)

And on the subject of influence with goverments. You would be supriced how far the influence of lowly persons somtimes reach. What we do here is create oppinions and things figured out here spread, (as things figured out on other boards/clubbs/pubbs spread.) and within 6 degrees you have all the powerfull persons. In my case even closer as i am a prakticing politichan, (spelling?) and regularely talk with "my" riksdagsledarmot. (read Member of parlament)

So its not just arguing for the sake of arguing, it serves a purpose. and the purpose is Democracy. Because Democracy is more than just voting for a party every 4-5 years, its all the talking in betwen that makes it work.


OK I'l get of the soapbox now :)


/C
Haha... anyway thanks for not flaming. Really, it's good to hear a non-flaming arguement. And what the hell is a godwin?

Yes, people have a say and considerable influence on the way government works. But it only works on larger scales, more so that just one person in your local district. But you are right, I wholely agree . My point is that people are getting blinded by whatever they hear whether fact or fiction, which leads to ill-informed decisions. And this can be seen especially by some people on this board; that they believe so heavily in something they dismiss anything else.

Whether the war is in your point of view fundementally flawed or not, you should still hope (and in me invoking a WWII term) the Allies succeed for the sake of the Iraqis. In that alone, anything leading up to the war is irrelevant and in the sidelines.

Bush could've been wrong or could've been right, I don't have privy access to any files, memos and reports they have access to. Yes, Bush went in under the pretense that there were WMD's, and up to this point he's wrong. But from the begining the other focus was to "liberate" Iraqis (depending on your views it could be liberate or something oppossite), and that's what my support for the war latched onto. Of course that opens up criticism on the point of other governments and regime's similiar to Hussein's, and to that I have nothing to defend with.

[caridon]

Haha... anyway thanks for not flaming. Really, it's good to hear a non-flaming arguement. And what the hell is a godwin?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

:)

/C

[caridon]

Bush could've been wrong or could've been right, I don't have privy access to any files, memos and reports they have access to. Yes, Bush went in under the pretense that there were WMD's, and up to this point he's wrong. But from the begining the other focus was to "liberate" Iraqis (depending on your views it could be liberate or something oppossite), and that's what my support for the war latched onto. Of course that opens up criticism on the point of other governments and regime's similiar to Hussein's, and to that I have nothing to defend with.

I see 2 problems with "selling the war with WMD's and then saying "its to liberate the iraqis"

1) as the WMD's havent been found. the rest of the world cant trust the US gouverment any more (think the boy who cried wolf)

2) if the purpose was to liberate why did the US not go after the much bigger targets in Africa where the suffering was/is greater and the "invaders" realy would be greeted as liberators ?

These reasons combined with the US' trackrecord for joinig wars because of fake info (Tonkin bay for example) Makes you wonder about ulterior motives.

In my book the only honorable thing the US could do right now is to go to the UN, and say "we ****ed upp, can you help us" then a real multinational force af about 200K troops could take over in iraq. (minimum of 20 countries)

This would prove that the US did not invade for oil or bases, and would remove the "great satan" argument from the insurgents.


/C