July 18, 2006

Arabs Abandoning "Party of God"

Hatched by Sachi

In any discussion about Moslem terrorists, many people -- both defenders of Islam and also those urging military response against the terrorists -- often object to extremists like Tom "Bomb Mecca" Tancredo by saying, "not all Moselems are like that, those are just extremists." But then the question becomes, where are these "non-extremist," moderate moslems? Or as Dafydd put it, where are all the Moslem Methodists?

Well, New York Sun columnist Youssef Ibrahim has found them. And the silent majority is finally speaking out. (Hat tip M. Simon)

Rarely have I seen such an uprising, indeed an intifada, against those little turbaned, bearded men across the Muslim landscape as the one that took place last week. The leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, received a resounding "no" to pulling 350 million Arabs into a war with Israel on his clerical coattails.

The collective "nyet" was spoken by presidents, emirs, and kings at the highest level of government in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, and at the Arab League's meeting of 22 foreign ministers in Cairo on Saturday. But it was even louder from pundits and ordinary people.

Perhaps the most remarkable and unexpected reaction came from Saudi Arabia, whose foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, said bluntly and publicly that Hezbollah's decision to cross the Lebanese border, attack Israel, and kidnap its soldiers has left the Shiite group on its own to face Israel. The unspoken message here was, "We hope they blow you away."

The Arab League put it succinctly in its final communique in Cairo, declaring that "behavior undertaken by some groups [read: Hezbollah and Hamas] in apparent safeguarding of Arab interests does in fact harm those interests, allowing Israel and other parties from outside the Arab world [read: Iran] to wreck havoc with the security and safety of all Arab countries."

There are more remarkable statements from Abdul Rahman al-Rashed, the general manager of Al-Arabiya --

"We have lost most of our causes and the largest portions of our lands following fiery speeches and empty promises of struggle coupled with hallucinating, drug-induced political fantasies."

-- and from Tariq Alhomayed:

Tariq Alhomayed, editor in chief of the Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, stuck the dagger in deeper: "Mr. Nasrallah bombastically announced he consulted no one when he decided to attack Israel, nor did he measure Lebanon's need for security, prosperity, and the safety of its people. He said he needs no one's help but God's to fight the fight." Mr. Alhomayed's punch line was, in so many words: Go with God, Sheik Nasrallah, but count the rest of us out.

Ibrahim does acknowledge that much of the refusal to take the part of Hezbollah (despite it being the "Party of God") is Sunni fear of "an ascendant Shiite 'arc of menace' rising out of Iran and peddled in the Sunni world by Syria." But no Moslem nation is jumping to defend Sunni Hamas in the Gaza strip, either.

I don't believe there has been any sea-change in Moslem attitudes towards Jews. This is just belated recognition that the Arab nations (even with Iran added) cannot defeat Israel or even prevent it from scoring military victory wherever it wants in the Middle East.

I guess there's a limit to how many times Arabs must get slashed by the claws of the lion before they finally decide to stop poking it with a stick.

Hatched by Sachi on this day, July 18, 2006, at the time of 2:46 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/999


The following hissed in response by: Big D

I think the swamp is finally getting drained.

1) Democracy is taking its first halting steps. In the past Arabs have used Israel to deflect attention to their own failing societies. Now they are realizing that democracy is providing another, potentially safer, outlet.

2) Economies are booming in the region.

3) Oil prices are high. Lots of money rolling around.

4) The bitter fruits of terrorism have been tasted in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, and Egypt.

5) Arabs hate and fear Iran. Hezbollah is their creature.

I don't think it is fear of Israel that is keeping the Arabs silent. It never has before. The Arabs WANT Israel to crush Hezbollah, to deal a blow to Iran.

They have everyhting to lose, and nothing to gain by supporting Hezbollah.

What of Hamas? They are also (to a lessor extent) creatures of Iran. Also it is predominately Gaza that is the problem, not the West Bank which has been more quiet. No one feels much for Gaza.

Reality is slowly replacing fantasy.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 3:48 PM

The following hissed in response by: MTF

I surely do hope you're right.

Meanwhile, back on Pluto:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday promised a "rejoicing" for Muslims in the Middle East "soon," the Islamic Republic News Agency reported.

Referring to escalating violence in Lebanon and northern Israel, he was quoted as saying, "The Zionists themselves have realized that they have launched a risky move and are aware that the flame of the fury of the regional states will set them ablaze."

The above hissed in response by: MTF [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 3:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 4:46 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Maybe they are beginning to get tired of getting the **** kicked out of them just to placate some looney leftie or some nutjob jihadi. It is not as if either of them gave a rat's *** what happens to the people of the region. They are just tools.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 4:54 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Arab Majority May Not Stay Forever Silent

Yes, great article By YOUSSEF IBRAHIM!!! Personally, from what i have been seeing, hearing, and thinking about, just this small amount of support from the Arab World has given Israel reason to make new invasion plans, which is really bad news for Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria, and especially Iran.

The original invasion plan was a rush-to-action before the MSM and UN had the time to stop it. Hezbollah was all pumped up, and expecting the invasion...expecting it since today...yesterday, and even the recent weekend. Pumping oneself up just prior to the actual Battle is good; however, if that Battle doesn't show up when expected, then Deflating creeps in...so to speak.

El Rushbo said it best:

What's Happening Now Is Gift to the World

Well...on second thought, Tariq Alhomayed might have said it even better:

Go with God, Sheik Nasrallah, but count the rest of us out.


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 5:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

YOUSSEF IBRAHIM's article keeps getting better, each time humble me reads it!!!

Several other Arab pundits, not necessarily coordinating their commentary, noted that today Sheik Nasrallah has been reduced to Osama bin Laden status, a fugitive from Israeli justice, sending out his tapes from unknown locations to, invariably, Al-Jazeera, the prime purveyor of Mr. bin Laden's communications.

That's some Karmically *HEAVY* 'Stuff' 'Thar...so to speak.

The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 5:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Even if I'm right, all it means is that the U.S. and Israel will face Hezbollah, Syria, the Sadr army, the Taliban, and Iran. And maybe N. Korea, but Japan and China will deal with that. Ugh.

August 22nd is the magic day. So a month and some change till the real war starts. Hezbollah will launch unconventional weapons at Israel (my guess is we'll see Saddam's WMD get used after all). Israel will kick their butts. Syria either joins in on their own, or gets a preemptive attack by the Israelis to stop resupply. Iran tries to start a revolution in Iraq, and maybe launches a little package at Israel. Israel launches something back. The U.S. Navy gets attacked on the gulf via cruise missiles and all hell then proceeds to break loose including terror attacks on the U.S. and Europe.

Or something like that.

We'll win, but it won't be pretty. Outcomes will depend on the order of events - if Iran attacks too soon and is seen as the agressor it will probably be best for us. I trust they will be - I think this is all happening a year or two earlier than Iran would have wanted. Either Hezbollah jumped the gun, or the pending Security Council Resolution accelerated the schedule.

I hope I'm wrong.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 6:17 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Youssef Ibrahim ends with this:

All in all, it seems that when Israel decided to go to war against the priestly mafia of Hamas and Hezbollah, it opened a whole new chapter in the Greater Middle East discourse. And Israel is finding, to its surprise, that a vast, not-so-silent majority of Arabs agrees that enough is enough. To be sure, beneath the hostility toward Sheik Nasrallah in Sunni Muslim states lies the deep and bitter heritage of a 14-century Sunni-Shiite divide, propelled to greater heights now by fears of an ascendant Shiite "arc of menace" rising out of Iran and peddled in the Sunni world by Syria.
The sooner this is settled the better.

Saddam was from Hell, and has been put back into his 'Cage-in-Hell'. BTW, the Sunni Iraqis now want American Troops to stay in Iraq...interesting, huh.

Osama was born in Saudi Arabia, and now hides in a cave...even though he is wealthy!?! He had tried to usurp Iran's and Syria's Hezbollah and Hamas Terrorist Groups in the radical Islamic World, and did a great job of it, until "W" ("43") showed up.

al-Zarqawi is 'cracking-the-whip' on his some "72" whatever, whilst pushing up daisies from the bottom of some unknown hole in Iraq.

Then Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a member of Ansar-i Hizbullah) shows up, and wants nukes so he can wipe America and Israel off the face of the earth. BTW, this dude is a friend of NK's 'Kimmie-Boy'. What a pair, huh. Like two popcorn kernels wanting to be 'Da *FIRST* to pop, after all the rest have popped...so to speak.

Mahmoud...like with Saddam, the joke is on you, unless you are actually willing to back up your words with some *REAL* action!!! There appears to be no quick help for yore recent Hezbollah move, huh. If you are ever arrested, Ms. Mahmoud, i will break many laws in order to join you in a cell...what colour Burka do you like best???


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 7:31 PM

The following hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist

Big D,

America does need to be pruned, and it seems we can agree on that. Heck, August 22nd works for me...so to speak whilst quoting The sooner this is settled the better author, Youssef Ibrahim.

Great Points!!!


The above hissed in response by: KarmiCommunist [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 7:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Bill Faith

Excellent post. I excerpted and linked at Old War Dogs.

The above hissed in response by: Bill Faith [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 8:40 PM

The following hissed in response by: ras

Don't wanna be the wet blanket here, but I'll believe we've seen a change when such statements as quoted here are made as a matter of principle, aot to when:

1. It's Sunnis criticizing Shiites; and

2. The Shiites are close to getting nukes.

The above hissed in response by: ras [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2006 9:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: Hal

While it is encouraging to read that Arab leaders are criticizing Hezbollah for attacking Israel, I'm skeptical that it's worth taking at face value.

Could it be that they're upset that Hezbollah jumped the gun, rather than waiting for approval and coordination? Or perhaps it's one of those, "In private, we will support you as much as possible, but in public we will have to disavow your actions" kind of things?

I have no way to confirm or deny such thoughts, but everything I've ever read about politics in this region causes me to take their words with a grain of salt.

The above hissed in response by: Hal [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 7:52 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

I think either Hezbollah jumped the gun, or Iran jumped the gun, or Iran already has nukes, or Iran is just nuts. All possibilities.

August 22nd was the day Iran is set to respond to the incentive package from the U.S. and EU. Coincidentally (?) it is also the day that Mohammed ascended into heaven from Jerusalem, a day of fire and thunder. The president of Iran believes in signs, portents, special dates. He believes he is in the Islamic sense, a prophet. He believes the arrival of the Mahdi is imminent.

The Shiites and Palestinians have never had a lot of friends in the Arab world. They ahve always been simply used as tools.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 9:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy is caught lying again though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming he is merely unknowingly repeating lies told by other lunatic Leftists:

"We should clarify the notion that Olmert lacks a 'significant military background', a meme that has arisen over the last couple of weeks. While Olmert never served in a command position in the Israeli Army, he certainly served -- as required by Israeli law of all young men. Charles at LGF has covered this in the past, but it bears repeating: Olmert has military experience. He served in a combat brigade in 1963, got seriously injured, and endured 'prolonged military treatment'. He returned to the IDF in 1971 as a combat journalist. In 1979, he re-entered the IDF and passed officer training, after which he volunteered for duty in Lebanon, but apparently did not get selected for the mission."

Incidentally this adds up to FAR more "combat service" than that performed by ANOTHER "military journalist", Al Gore, whose military service I will bet Monkyboy has failed to sneer at. This "mistake" raises credibility issues about the rest of Monkyboy's smears in this post. Thanks to moronic Democrats we all know about Bush's not only having honorably served in the TNG but also having volunteered for combat in Vietnam only to be turned down because of insufficient flight hours, the latter something we only learned from the lips of Bush's fellow service members after Bush was falsely accused of not completing his service obligations. Based on that I am simply going to ASSUME that Bruce Kovner was considerably less of a "draft dodger" than was, say, Bill Clinton.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 10:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy, were you proportionally more frightened when the the World's lone superpower was helmed by a draft dodger for 8 years of peace and war, or are you a total hypocrite? Never mind, we already know the answer.

The truth is that like so many things Leftists foam at the mouth over these days, military experience in civilian leaders is overrated. (But let's not be TOO hard on the Left because they know that in wartime their only chance of electing someone is to nominate a would-be traitor with proven military experience. It hasn't worked YET, but give it time.) Abraham Lincoln didn't exactly wow people with his exploits during the Blackhawk War, and U. S. Grant was both one of our greatest generals and one of our worst presidents. The skill sets for great generalship and great civilian leadership don't entirely match up, and as Eliot Cohen has demonstrated in "Supreme Command", a book Bush is known to have read, the most successful wartime civilian leaders are those who regardless of personal military experience manage their military commanders in such a way as to maximise their control over them.

Of course a politician's military service or lack thereof MAY tell us something useful about his character or lack thereof. In another definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results, Leftists ALWAYS question Republicans' military credentials while hyping Democrats' military credentials. The results are almost invariably unfavorable for Democrats. Upon closer inspection the Republican usually turns out to have been braver than first thought while the Democrat usually turns out to have been more cowardly than first thought. In 2004 thanks to Democrats' determination to revisit the issue of Vietnam service, we learned that Bush had volunteered for combat in Vietnam while Kerry had hyped or outright faked wounds in order to bug out of Vietnam early with 3 Purple Hearts. The attempt to smear Dan Quayle by falsely accusing him of pulling strings to get into the NG resulted in exposing Lloyd Bentsen, an otherwise honorable WWII veteran, as having pulled strings to get his son in the NG and later lead to the exposure of the full extent of Bill Clinton's cowardice, (Clinton made the guys who fled to Canada look honorable), and greatly tarnished Al Gore's glory when it was revealed that his Daddy used his influence to get Al a safe gig as a journalist and even an assigned bodyguard! Max Cleland who lost 3 limbs in an accident during Vietnam was forced to endure the indignity of Democrats lying and claiming he had been wounded in combat; Cleland's silence at this resume enhancement justifiably lead some voters to question his integrity. The only politician in the bunch who DIDN'T pull strings to keep his kid out of Vietnam? George H. W. Bush (though what strings a failed Republican politician could have pulled in a Democrat state is open to question).

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 3:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

It's always politics with ME, Monkyboy?


Monkyboy wrote "It's not necessary for every Western leader to have been a general, but it would nice to have one leader who had seen combat first hand."

Why? As I have PROVEN, there is no correlation between military service and good wartime leadership.

Here's how every single Leftist clown has responded to the battles we have gotten into over the last five years:

1. Demand the opposite diplomatic approach to the one currently being used. If we are acting unilaterally, demand multilateral action. If we are acting multilaterally, demand unilateral action.

2. Predict defeat before the fighting begins.

3. Pronounce the war a "quagmire" within the first week.

4. After our troops win the war, ignore the results and start complaining about the occupation.

5. Declare that whatever is being proposed (interim governments, elections, constitutions, military training of locals, etc.) will fail. When they succeed, ignore results.

6. Orgasmicly tally our losses; ignore much greater enemy losses.

7. Continually ask why fill-in-the blank hasn't been killed or captured; when fill-in-the-blank is killed or captured, downplay importance.

8. Believe anything bad about our side on faith; demand proof before believing anything bad about our enemies; when proof is provided, change subject back to bad things about our side.

8. Declare defeat daily.

The left now declares any use of military force as an instant failure...

Well done.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 4:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Ahh classic Monky...

As with most anti-Bush nutsacks you assume both A) Bush has perfect knowledge of every leaf that falls, B) Bush is a complete blundering idiot.

The meme fits whatever the events are, mix, match, and change as events unfold. No thinking involved.

Of course it never occurs to you that Bush is a person with some very difficult decisions to make, and imperfect knowledge of what is occurring.

Launch attacks that kills mostly civilians and highlights how impotent conventional military forces are in the Middle East. This cozy idea of no civilian casualties is a recent invention, and is frankly ridiculous. I have news - wars kill people. That is generally the idea. Wars start when there is no peaceful way for both countries to get what they want, and they end when one side decides they will never get what they want.

What insures we will be fighting for generations is ineffectual war - war where there is little cost to both sides. The Clinton method of lobbing a few cruise missiles and calling it good was an absolute failure that insured the war we have right now.

Yeah, Iraq and Afghanistan. No success there by any conceivable measure. And look who is changing the yardsticks - the left changes the measurements of success at every turn.

The right now cheers any use of military force as an instant success... And you damn any use of force as an instant failure. So what else is new?

So Monkybot, c'mon. What should we have done about Saddam? What should we have done about Afghanistan? How about Iran? No recriminations, no changing the subject. Please, share with us your wisdom. We all know what you didn't want to happen, but what would have been better? What would you do now?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 5:20 PM

The following hissed in response by: cdquarles

monkyboy pathetic banned troll from CQ,

:) Enjoy this. I'd rather have Bush, Blair and Harper over Churchill, Stalin, & Roosevelt. Why? The first group is much less left wingnut than the second. If I had to pick, I'd like to have Bush, Churchill & Harper leading the Allied effort any day.

The above hissed in response by: cdquarles [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 9:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

The side that didn't have Joseph Stalin would win. Churchill is one of the 4 world class wartime civilian leaders that Eliot Cohen cites, FDR was better than anyone the Democrats could conceivably nominate in our lifetimes, but Stalin was an absolute disaster. Between purging any of his own commanders that showed any ability and backstabbing his own allies, Stalin would doom any equal strength military alliance he was part of...

unless of course the opposing commanders-in-chief were Kerry, Gore, and Clinton, in which case Moe, Larry, and Curly would emerge victorious.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2006 10:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy, the only reason Stalin was able to hang on long enough to take more credit than he deserved for victory is because of the efforts of General Winter, General Mud, and the absolutely horrendous suffering endured by those iron men who convoyed vital supplies around Scandinavia through a frozen Hell only occasionally warmed by exploding torpedoes and burning oil. With our supplies and surplus manpower and the few able commanders he hadn't gotten around to purging yet he managed to hang on, but that is about all. The transformation of the Eastern Front into a bottomless meatgrinder should be credited more to the stupidity of Hitler, who refused to authorize any retreats, than to the brilliance of Stalin. In a contest for worst wartime leader ever Hitler edged Stalin by a nose; that made most of the difference.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 20, 2006 10:56 AM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

Monkyboy - That lump between your shoulders is called a head. Some of us use it for thinking.

1) Nice topic change. Can't help but notice the lengthening of the yardstick.

2) Absolutely cowardly evasion of the simple questions in my last post. Typical Monkyshines.

3) Okay, I'll play. Which one of these don't go together - Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill?

Stalin is great because - he killed more Germans than us? And that is a good thing? But I thought killing people was BAD. I just makes MORE enemies. Or did I misunderstand your earlier posts.

But I seem to recall that Stalin made targeting innocent people his specialty? While Stalin may have killed 3 million Germans, he killed approximately 15 to 20 million of his own people. Mostly civilians.

Want to hear a funny story? My parents escaped west toward Germany to get away from Stalin. Ha Ha! What the hell must they have been thinking? Stalin was a great leader! Ask anyone!

Yeah, I sure wish 'ol Uncle Joe was around today...oh wait, that's right. He is around today. Saddam was a great admirer, as well as Kin Jong Ill. Maybe they could hook up with Bush and company and give us a few pointers on how to win a war.

What do you think his advice might be?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 20, 2006 2:43 PM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy, I think YOUR bias is showing.

Monkyboy wrote "The allied convoys were little more than a symbolic gesture of support, they didn't change the outcome of WWII much."

According to WHOM? Soviet propagandists claiming SOLE credit for everything from the invention of the airplane to victory over the Nazis? As for the rest you are missing the central point, General Winter, General Mud, and the Arctic Convoys helped to blunt the Nazi blitzkrieg, preventing the overrun and collapse of the Soviet government. You are forgetting just how brittle and hated at home Stalin's government was at this point. Nazis were greeted like liberators until they started trying to exceed the Soviets in brutality. Keeping the Soviets from being knocked out of the war was a very near thing for which Stalin deserves only criticism for making it even nearer. If you want to give the Soviets credit for what they accomplished AFTER we, the weather, and the worst "winning of hearts and minds" campaign in the history of warfare turned the tide, fine, but if you are honest, you will admit the necessity of my BEFORE to your AFTER.

Monkyboy wrote "As I said before, I'd rather have him as an ally than an enemy."

Then you are a fool because Stalin could never be more than a temporary ally who would inevitably become a future enemy. I'd rather have such a person as an enemy than an ally because as an ally there would always be too many "useful idiots" ready to GIVE not sell him the rope with which he would hang us all. We had too many such "useful idiots" as it was even with Stalin as an openly declared enemy during the Cold War.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 20, 2006 4:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

How much easier would it have been for the Soviets to win, if Stalin didn't kill millions of his own people?

"I guess I believe almost any tactics are moral in a war that threatens a county's survival...as long as you intend to win the war and think those tactics will help you win." Let's parse that out.

Anything goes if:

1)We think our survival threatened.
2) We intend to win.
3) We think the that what we are doing will help us win.

So Japanese internment, was okay? Stalin executing 1.5 million of his own people was okay? Both seem to meet your rather low standards.

But besides that. Isn't Israel, always fighting for its very survival? Against enemies without remorse, that threaten to drive its people "into the sea"? So how does Israel not meet all your standards any time they take action?

Then again, how does Bush not meet them? Are you saying he isn't being ruthless enough (intend to win)?

"Personal political gain". I keep hearing about that, but I'm still waiting for it to happen sometime, anytime. Bush has just scored offa this war, right? And victory in the first gulf war really helped out his dad, didn't it?

Newsflash - Leaders of democracies at war rarely come out gaining anything. War leaders are more commonly demonized by the press at the time, and only (perhaps) in retrospect beloved.

You should read a biography of Churchill some time. Or Lincoln. Or Truman. Or Wilson. But don't focus on what people think of them now, focus on what people said about them then.

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 20, 2006 5:26 PM

The following hissed in response by: Big D

"Are you saying al Qeada is (a) threat to America's existence, Big D?"

Are you so sure they're not? Watch a video of the twin towers collapsing sometime. And wasn't there another plane sent to hit the Pentagon? And a fourth set to hit....Congress?

What about Al Queda calling off an attack to collapse the Lincoln tunnel...because it wasn't destructive enough? What about Al Queda experimenting with poison gas?

Well, at least they don't have contacts with people who are developing WMDs....uh.

I don't think Al Queda could absolutely destroy us, not like the Soviet Union once could. But sheesh, they could potentially kill our leaders an collapse our economy. Bad enough.

"As for Israel, I guess the test will be if their recent actions result in fewer attacks against them in the future." Yes fighting back always just makes them angrier, so you should never ever do that.

Face it, we are up against people that oppose our very existence. Like yourself, they set up false dichotomies. If we don't fight back we are paper tigers, deserving of subjugation. If we do fight back we are killing innocent Muslims and deserving of destruction.

As usual you fail to present a viable alternative. What should Bush be doing right now? What should Israel do? Note that Hezbollah started this mess, attacking Israel and kidnapping their soldiers. They refuse to return them. They also have 16,000 missles in southern Lebanon, placed there before this war started, and are firing them into Israel at about 100 per day.

You think they want peace?

The above hissed in response by: Big D [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 21, 2006 9:33 AM

The following hissed in response by: FredTownWard

Monkyboy wrote:

"Are you saying al Qeada is threat to America's existence, Big D?

I don't think I've heard that claim before."

Then you haven't been paying attention, Monkyboy. If Al Qaeda ever gets hold of the weapons of mass destruction they are seeking, they damn sure will be a threat to America's existence, thus the term "weapons of mass destruction".

Monkyboy wrote:

"As for Israel, I guess the test will be if their recent actions result in fewer attacks against them in the future.

My guess is - they will actually result in increased attacks...as we are witnessing now."

That will depend on whether or not the Israelis have the guts to finish the job with a ground invasion. If all they do is fire off artillery and drop bombs, then Monkyboy is correct, this will actually result in increased attacks. However, if the Israelis are willing to suck it up, wade into Hezbollah, and slaughter them at point blank range, this will result in fewer attacks... because there will be fewer potantial attackers. It takes a good 15-16 years to breed a terrorist, but only a matter of seconds to blow him away. That is why wars of extermination work. If these people are so crazy that they actually prefer martyrdom to life, then the Israelis should oblige as many of them as they possibly can.

The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

The above hissed in response by: FredTownWard [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 21, 2006 10:04 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)

Remember me unto the end of days?

© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved