Happening's

Loading...
Loading...

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Commentator's Comment Award for 1-27-10



This is from a comment by "Traveler" on a Dianna West article concerning the winding down of the Iraqi war and what the future holds. It's conclusions aren't pretty but then we aren't dealing with "pretty." They are also politically incorrect but actually correct.

Seeing where you come from and from which viewpoint you are speaking I can only agree with you.

But allow me a few remarks.

The Islamic culture as such doesn't exist, it's the Arabic or Persian culture which you are confronting.

Now when we say Arabic culture we are stretching the meaning of the word, but for lack of a better one we shall use it here.

The Arabic culture has never been able to grow out of the tribal and "main family" system. In that context the tribal chief or the chief of the extended family is the absolute boss.

Going to an Arab country with the declared aim of installing democracy is ridiculous, they don't even understand the concept.

Further, since communication is mainly verbal for the illiterate population, a foreign power is totally dependant on the local verbal translators.

This is an impossible situation.

Let's go back to the original aims of this war: overthrowing a dictator and installing a safe democracy where there is no place for terrorism.

You have overthrown the dictator and his state structure. This left a vacuum in which terrorism installed itself.

You created an embryo of a sort of democratic structure in which the tribal and big family chiefs immediately installed themselves, thus coming
back to the tribal system.

As in the good old days those tribes and families continue to murder their opponents while the terrorists slip in between the mazes and create havoc with everybody, using just those tribal feuds and inflaming them.

The Americans meanwhile are trying to fight terrorists in a "humane way", according to international conventions. This is not working of course because the terrorists have no fear of "humane" methods.

Further the terrorists have a free hand with the local tribes and families since they put themselves under the banner of Islam.

The only way to fight these terrorists is with the help of the local tribes and families.

Any Iraqui member of a terrorist group is responsible for the total expropriation of all property from his family, the family is responsible for their familymembers. Any Iraqui harboring terrorists is responsible with his whole family and the whole family loses its property and pays for the damage and bloodmoney of any victims.

Any tribal chief is responsible for terrorist attacks on his territory.

Inhumane? Sure for Western societies who don't allow terrorists and don't harbor terrorists in their houses, for an Arabic society the joint responsability of a family is normal and applies througout their history.

The fear to lose the whole family property should be bigger than the fear of the terrorists.

Further, any suicide bomber should be identified and published with photographs and the adresses of his family members so that his family could undergo the revenge of the bloodfeud by the families of the victims of the terrorist attack.

Suicide bombers families are supported with money and pensions after the death of the suicide bomber. When they know that their family will be killed because of bloodfeud after their terrorist attack they will be less interested in the 70 virgins.

This fight is now and has to be won, do it in their own way with their own weapons.


BrusselsJournal
submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Hillary to miss Obama's SOTU




WASHINGTON – Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is missing President Barack Obama's State of the Union address in order to attend a conference in London, but she is not the only absentee Cabinet member.


Link

I'm not watching it either. I have a health problem. My stomach couldn't take anymore video of him lying like a trooper with his chin tilted up and to the Left.




submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Obama refers to himself 132 times in one speech


Now that may not be a record.... but it sure is a good average.....

This man is a narcissist. The world revolves around him and him only. Anything that doesn't do that is rejected by him and angers him.

Impeachment is the only answer.


Video link to speech.

submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1

Lies, damn lies and politics


Never argue with an idiot.

One of the more enduring attacks on Bush by the Lefties of this world is over the fact that Bush indicated a strong desire to capture or kill Osoma Bin Ladin – OBL.

All Presidents are prone to making dramatic statements. FDR said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” And in pursuit of that tried his best to pack the Supreme Court.

Kennedy said, “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Of course he didn’t follow that with an acknowledgement that there was no missile gap and that he had known so all during the campaign.

Nixon said, “Your President is not a crook.” But he didn’t tell us what he knew about the Watergate break in and when he knew it.

Reagan said, “……tear down that wall,” but didn’t mention that he had to do some things in Central America that the fellow travelers and the Left would try and impeach him over.

Then George HW Bush said, “Watch my lips. No new taxes.” And of course he did and of course that cost him his second term.

Clinton opined that “I have not had sex with that woman.” It took a blue dress and Congressional investigation and being impeached for the country to know that was a lie but the Left stoutly maintained that he had not, and besides, if he had it was between husband and wife and private. Of course an Arkansas judge stripped him of his license to practice law for lying…..that’s what perjury is… under oath.

Obamie still has a ways to go but he has already been called a liar in a most public way by a Congressman, and had that proven by his own staff. He has made numerous claims over taxes that are lies and we all know that. His other infamous “lies” concern his visits to 57 states, the self-identified terrorist William Ayers being “just a guy in the neighborhood,” and then he had his uncles serving all over Europe and liberating concentration camps. And lest we forget, he sat through 20 years of sermons by the Black Liberation preacher, Wright, and never heard enough to become angry about the cursing of America to get up and leave.

Simply put, whether or not it is a lie, promise or a misstatement, is largely in the mind of the reader.

As for George W Bush, it took the anti-war, anti-Israel, pro Palestinian Left only days to declare that “Bush lied and men died.” This started during 2002 during the first attacks on the Taliban who were harboring OBL and other al Qaeda members and came to full flower at the start of the invasion of Iraq. It became such a well known social phenomenon that the term “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” “BDS,” was born and became widely used to describe the out of control mouthing of the Left.

The problem for the Left is that when challenged they can’t prove Bush lied. And in fact the Senate passed the resolution to go to war with huge majorities in both Houses of Congress.

Iraq war resolution.

And many on the Left have even claimed that during his 2003 SOTU speech Bush claimed that Iraq had purchased yellow cake from Niger. This despite the fact that Bush had noted that the English had said that Iraq had TRIED, not purchased, to do so, a fact confirmed by Joe Wilson, retried State Department employee who went to Niger to investigate, in his debriefing by the CIA.

So basically the Left is left with the fact that OBL may, or may not be alive and that Bush is responsible.

Why did Bush do this? Well, according to the Left, because he rushed off to attack Iraq.

Of course the fact of the matter is that Bush pulled back on OBL because he had escaped into the high mountains on the Afghanistan – Pakistan border and the cost in military lives would not be worth the net gain of capturing and or killing him in an undeniable “he’s dead” manner.

Think about that. Here you had a President who had pledged to kill or capture OBL and who was facing a difficult election in a few years. OBL’s scalp on full display would have been a tremendous vote getter. The temptation to tell the military, “At all costs,” must have been unbelievably strong.

But again facts and history gets in the way.

One of the prime problems Clinton faced was the lack of cooperation by Pakistan. Clinton had not been able to solve that problem for two years. As Clarke, Clinton’s NSA said:

Second point is that the Clinton administration had a strategy in place, effectively dating from 1998. And there were a number of issues on the table since 1998. And they remained on the table when that administration went out of office — issues like aiding the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, changing our Pakistan policy -- uh, changing our policy toward Uzbekistan. And in January 2001, the incoming Bush administration was briefed on the existing strategy. They were also briefed on these series of issues that had not been decided on in a couple of years.

Clarke interview link

And while Bush was able to solve part of the Pakistan problem, it still remains today. To a d degree, Obama is as restrained as Bush was. He does have the advantage of better technology, the world has not stood still in the past 8 years, but he still doesn’t haven’t have carte blanche to go into the tribal region and do as he pleases.

So Bush was faced with the fact that OBL could slip back and forth across the borders. Plus, to kill or capture him we would have to chase him from village to village from cave to cave.

What that meant was that we would have to do it with ground forces with very limited air support. Why? Flying down high altitude valleys with mountains on both sides makes the helicopter an unwilling participant in a shooting gallery.

Ask the Soviets how well that worked out.

High altitude bombing, even with smart bombs, is not that effective against well concealed caves and other hardened targets.

So it goes back to ground troops fighting with essentially the same weapons as al Qaeda. Rifles, machine guns and rockets.

That’s a formula for disaster. Ask the Soviets.

So Bush decided that OBL was marginalized, on the run and not worth the cost in lives of our military.

Wise choice.

Too bad the Left either doesn’t care about the cost or doesn’t understand. Or in many cases, both.










submit to reddit

On Twitter I am Lesabre1