| NY Mag. | 0 | |
| Wash Wire | 0 | |
| NYT | 0 | |
| WaPo | Calif. insurer’s rate increases draw attention of federal government |
0 |
| Red State | 0 |
Audacity of Truth
Spinsational:
"We were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values."
-Obama, explaining recent Democrat losses, 1/20/10
Velvet Lair- The sexiness of winning the battle of good versus evil January 26, 2010
- Ever wonder why? January 12, 2010
- The decision to bench Peyton Manning: Right or wrong? December 28, 2009
- Is my dad turning into a metrosexual? November 24, 2009
- My “Things To Do For Christmas” list November 23, 2009
Another staged photo from Lebanon
Ray Robison has the details of yet another staged photo coming out of Lebanon after an Israeli strike. The photojournalist who took the photo (Lefteris Pitarakis) was recently recognized and rewarded by the Associated Press with the “$500 Beat of the Week” award for outstanding photojournalism.
The Islamofascists really have the MSM wrapped around their fingers, don’t they?
In related news on the Israel vs. Hezbollah front, the UN-approved ceasefire agreement is falling apart – Israel is saying it will disarm Hezbollah if the UN won’t. They should go ahead and prepare to do just that, because the only thing the UN seems to be able to do is talk endlessly and come up with meaningless ‘resolutions’.
The NYT reports this morning that Hezbollah is ‘gaining stature’ in the Middle East. After the UN essentially recognized them as a state, and with the UN also getting Israel to agree to a toothless ceasefire that Hezbollah had no intentions of abiding by, this is not exactly surprising news.
More: Michael van der Galien at Liberty and Justice points out that Kofi Annan said yesterday that “dismantling Hezbollah is not the direct mandate of the UN.”
Surprise surprise.
Update I: WHAT? Read what Condi Rice had to say about the idea of a UN force disarming Hezbollah:
That “political agreement” will be the responsibility of the Lebanese, Rice said in an interview with USA TODAY. In the past, the Lebanese government has been unwilling or unable to disarm Hezbollah, a movement that is now part of the government itself. A United Nations resolution on the books since September 2004 has called for all Lebanese militias to disarm.
And we’ve seen how fruitful that ‘resolution’ has been, haven’t we?
“I don’t think there is an expectation that this (U.N.) force is going to physically disarm Hezbollah,” Rice said. “I think it’s a little bit of a misreading about how you disarm a militia. You have to have a plan, first of all, for the disarmament of the militia, and then the hope is that some people lay down their arms voluntarily.”
Hmm. Maybe a new GOP slogan to keep and attract people to the party who are sick and tired of Islamofascists getting away (literally) with murder around the world could be: “Hope is on the way!”
If Hezbollah resists international demands to disarm, Rice said, “one would have to assume that there will be others who are willing to call Hezbollah what we are willing to call it, which is a terrorist organization.”
We should “assume” no such thing. Hezbollah has achieved a moral victory here, via the UN recognizing them as a state, by the UN getting Israel to back of their strikes on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, and by the UN’s failure to enforce disarmament resolutions regarding terrorist outfits in Lebanon that they (the UN) put in place back in 2004. This emboldens Islamic extremists, who see any form of ‘backing down’ as surrender. Which is, in effect, what Israel and the US – through the UN – has done.
Hat tip: Andrew McCarthy at NRO
Others blogging about this: All Things Beautiful, Flopping Aces, Captain Ed, Allah, Jihad Watch, Blue Crab Boulevard, Real Ugly American, Diana West guest blogging at Michelle Malkin’s
Prior:
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Trackbacks
47 Responses to “Another staged photo from Lebanon”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
“dismantling Hezbollah is not the direct mandate of the UN.” – that’s right… it’s Lebanon’s responsibility. Just because the UN brokered the cease-fire, doesn’t mean they are a party to it (duh!). The agreement is between Lebanon and Israel. If lebanon fails to disarm Hezbollah, then Israel can go in and try to do it themselves. At no point is it appropriate for the UN to fight Hezbollah.
UN is a collective security organization, and it has its place. Much of the right-wing’s beef with the UN is rooted in ignorance about the UN’s proper role (and propagandizing by leadership who considers the UN as something that gets in the way of their foreign-policy goals). Look to collective defense organizations like NATO for that sort of role.
Also, the term “Islamofascist” is stupid. really stupid. “IslamoTheocrat” or “IslamoCrusader” or “IslamoAuthoritarian” would actually describe the threat correctly, instead of describing it as a rehash of WWII…which it isn’t. Fascism has nothing to do with what Islamic fundamentalism seeks to achieve.
UN is NOT a collective security organization.
Don’t try and peddle that here.
There are too many cases of the UN so-called Security Organization standing by and letting people get slaughtered right in front of their noses.
They take in refugeees, then allow armed band of guerillas to come in and murder them all and do nothing…security forces my butt.
This same “Security organization” stood by while Hezbollah kidnapped and killed Israelis right in front of them again, they had it on TAPE, and deceived and hid the fact that they did until called on it by the Israelis, and when they finally produced the tape, they editted it to hide the identity of the Hezbollah’s that did it.
They are NOT any kind of Security Organization.
The UN should more likely be reclassified as a Humanitarian Organization, NOT any kind of Security Force.
Aghast funnily wrote, “that’s right… it’s Lebanon’s responsibility.”
Lebanon won’t carry out the responsibility. They’ve said as much. So the deal is null and void if they don’t live up to their end of the bargain.
Aghast wants to control and is failing miserably when he/she writes, “Also, the term “Islamofascist” is stupid. really stupid. “IslamoTheocrat” or “IslamoCrusader” or “IslamoAuthoritarian” would actually describe the threat correctly,”
You have a couple million people’s minds to change who are using the term Islamofacism. It’s what we use to describe the nutjob jihadists bent on killing infidels in the name of Islam and Allah. Have fun calling it what you will though as people look at you funny.
Wait, wait, wait. I thought the Pres. said that Democracy solves all? Hezbollah, despite being shunned by a majority of Lebanese, are still a democratically elected portion of the Lebanese government. Kind of like the GOP.
Is part of the NEOcon strategy for a “civilized” Middle East only attacking the secular, stable, westernized governments already there? What’s next? Turkey? Nothing like destroying the goventments who alreadt share our democratic philosophy!
I mean we’re only 1-2 years from Iraq being Western Iran. If we can get the entire area to go “Islamofascist” then we can just nuke them all at one time (excepting, of course, our Saudi “allies”)! I say we get Isreal to attack Egypt next!
Hey Aghast here is the meaning of “Fascism” in the dictionary;
• Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
• Oppressive, dictatorial control.
WOW sounds just like what these terrorists want to do!
The UN has about as much usefulness as a Katrina Victim in Houston. For one thing when do we negotiate with terrorists? Hezbollah is nothing more than terrorists fronted by Syria and Iran, Lebanon is nothing more than a puppet of Syria. Here’s a challenge for you Aghast find one thing the UN has brokered that has ended peacefully and no problems have surfaced again. You peace at any price lefties have always been wrong and continue to be wrong with any conflict as history proves. The only way to have peace is to completely destroy your enemy as history has proven over and over again.
*Thank you* for explaining it, Jim. It’s mostly the willfully ignorant, stubbornly foolish, and sadly uninformed on the far left who don’t get what Islamofascism is all about. They don’t understand the enemy. Imagine that.
Jim,
Are you trying to set Aghast off on a bush hating tangent by mentioning Katrina victim?
Yes. Completely destroy the enemy. As in WW2. To force a side to cease fire only leads to rearming bolstering up.
Is it me or is this beginning to be reminiscient of how the UN dealt with Sadamn Hussein, and Iraq??? I mean how many resultions does it take?? I think someone should start a UN resolution clock, and everytime these twinkies toss out a resolution we should keep track of it. The winner will be the country that has the most resolutions that are ignored after say 10 years. Israel, even tho it has a huge head start, cannot be a competitor as Israel has tried to follow the resolutions against it.
Also I would like to speak to Aghast abit. Facism is a correct term. These people want to set up a system of government based upon their religion, the military will be used to enforce this goverment upon the people. It is a facist state that they want to have. It is not stupid term, it is acceptable and true to the most part. – Lorica
Sister T,
It is just because George W. Bush said it and that is the only reason the left says it’s not the right word. The left would destroy this country to get to Bush there hatred is so much. It is just like there “Redeployment” is nothing more than repackaging “Cut-n-Run”.
Baklava,
Me, try to send a liberal off on a Bush tangent? Nah, just trying to make a liberal twitch.
They seem to like the “double speak” and try to change the meaning of words and try to change history to fit their agenda. The liberal way of using words reminds me of the book “1984″ the Ministry of Truth.
Aghast, The Yahoo news story
Jonathan. You perspective of the facts is off. Nobody except you said that Democracies solve all. What the president and others argue (I guess you disagree – that is fin – but you can’t distort the facts) is that Democracies are more interested in voting in people that look out for peace and stability. They generally aren’t “interested” in voting in a mad men ready to push the button of self-anhiliation. That isn’t a hard concept to grasp and you are welcome to have a different perspective and argue against it but you can’t get away in this day in age with distorting what someone else believes or said. The new media will prevail with corrections as opposed to the old legacy drive by media prevailing.
“Hezbollah, despite being shunned by a majority of Lebanese, are still a democratically elected portion of the Lebanese government. Kind of like the GOP.”
Just like the Nazis were elected in Germany….kind of like the Democrats.
Big government fascist oppressive lefty types…..
sanity, UN IS a collective security organization…whether you beleive it functions effectively or not is another issue all together. It isn’t and will never be some kick-ass-save-the-world fighting force, because that isn’t what collective security is all about…it’s actualy a lot more about diplomacy than fighting, though I woudn’t expect a Bush-follower to understand that nuance.
Baklava, again, it is lebanon’s responsiblity…whether they abdicate that responsibility is another issue. If they do abdicate, it’s up to the UN to enforce consequences as specified in the agreement. Nowhere in the agreement does it say that the UN will fight Hebollah if lebanon doesn’t.
Furthermore, you are forgetting one thing about so-called “islamofascists”. They have no interest in corporate control of govt. or suppression of labor – defining points of fascism. Of course, these points are not found in a corporatist’s definition of fascism for obvious reasons, but they are true of all fascist states (Franco, Hitler, Mussolinni, Sudharto, and others). Furthermore, the term “islamofascism” itself is pushed because the right wing wishes to equate this struggle with WWII. Language is a powerful tool of suggestion, so precision is important if we are to be honest with ourselves and others.
I’m sorry, but as fearful as you are about terrorism, Hitler was worse…much worse. And the way to fight the threat is quite different (see my response to Jim M on that one).
they are absolutely right-wing, authoritarian, theocrats…and we are a “liberal” state fighting them.
Jim M, jesus, people accuse the left of not understanding the enemy (when Rove isn’t accusing democrats of trying to understand the enemy)…yet your understanding of the enemy is no more deep than: “they hate us, we have to kill them”
Sun Tzu, Art of War: Know Thine Enemy. I think it’s very important. You said “The only way to have peace is to completely destroy your enemy as history has proven over and over again.” Are you kidding me?
So the British “completely destroyed” the IRA? Nope.
It’s not the only way…and thank god. How could you possibly “completely destroy” all those who harbor hatred towards the west? If you nuke half the middle east…what about the other half? If you nuke the whole middle east…what about their families in europe? Won’t you radicalize more muslims this way? There is simply no way to “completely destroy” this enemy…so, if your proclamation is true, we will never have peace. Boy I’m glad you won’t be running our foreign policy in 08.
Baklava.
“The third pillar of security is our commitment to the global expansion of democracy, and the hope and progress it brings, as the alternative to instability and to hatred and terror. We cannot rely exclusively on military power to assure our long-term security. Lasting peace is gained as justice and democracy advance.”
George Bush, 2003
Remarks on U.S.-British relations and foreign policy (November 19, 2003) Whitehall Palace, London
LINK
Yea, you’re right. Nobody said “democracies solve all.” That’s why its called paraphrasing.
“What the president and others argue is that Democracies are more interested in voting in people that look out for peace and stability.”
And yet Lebanon “voted in” Hezbollah. Palestine “voted in” Hamas. Iraq “voted in” Shia representatives that now run death squads and torture through the Ministry of the Interior.
LINK
I think this has little to do with your “voting in a mad men ready to push the button of self-anhiliation”. None of these governments has yet to self-annihilate or even other-annihilate. They, like the US, were just “voting in” whoever talked the best game. No crime. That’s how its supposed to work. It just might not work in our favor. That’s the part that I think we’ve overlooked in this great Middle East experiment in democracy.
So Baklava, all things considered, I was wondering when the “lasting peace” part kicks in after democracy is advanced? Or might it take a bit more effort on the US/Isreal’s part? Maybe something to the effect of not killing a thousand Lebanese civilians in response to the kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers? More Iraqi civilians died in July than all the Americans killed on 9/11. Where’s the justice in that? Do you think that hurts or helps our cause in the Middle East? Despite all the UN bashing, they didn’t start any of these hostilities…
Voting does not a Democracy make, nor a Constitutional Republic.
Aghast- the U.N is more about anti-semitism than diplomacy. They illegaly included Palestine in talks while barring Israel from having any say about the land deal the U.N foisted on Israel. The League of Nations (The predecesor to the U.N) also did a dirty illegal deal against Israel in years prior and set up another illegal Arab seat for Palestine whiel again barring Israel from having any say. Israel has done nothign but abide by the rulings while Palestine has systematically flaunted international law and thumbed their noses at any resolutions while continuing their murder campaign against Israel. Palestine was also the instigator of Jew Annihilation in Nazi Germany- collaborating with Hitler’s hitmen and inspiring Jihad against the Jews.
The U.N was FULLY aware of their illegal actions and of Palestines jihad, yet still ruled in favor of Palestine- so no, they are not abotu diplomacy, but rather about appeasing terrorists.
First, UN is a collection alright, but security organization it isn’t.
Your only as good as your reputation, and the UN has a bad reputation of passing resolution after resolution, and not doing anything to enforce it.
12 years of Saddam thumbing his nose at UN resolutions, the resolution that was never enforce disarming Hezbollah , the most recent resolution and cease-fire agreement that is useless, because it once again, DOES NOT DISARM hezbollah. Lebonese army wont do it, Hezbollah wont do it voluntarily, and the UN has no backbone to enforce it.
What kind of security organization is that?
A Security Organization, whether a collective one or a private one, is useless if it cannot operate usefully.
If we rely on the police to provide security and I am continously robbed, beaten, my childen murdered right in front of the police….what good are the police as a security organization and do you even call them that? I would call them accomplices after the fact, especially if they stand by and let it happen.
No one expects he UN to be some super power kick ass save the world type, even though they try and place themselves in that role. But if they are there to keep security, if they are there as a security force, what is their job, to sit around and watch people get murdered and not lift a damn finger?
Why even dispacth UN “security forces” to any area if they will not SECURE THE DAMN AREAS?!? Do you think placating words will make guerillas and terrorists stop killing? If the UN says they will send in a force for security, what is its purpose, to sit and watch people die?
Its actually about diplomacy, a security force? That is what you have DIPLOMATS for not security personnel. That is what in part the UN is suppose ot be about, full of diplomats hopefully working things out. That has NOTHING in the way of terming them a SECURITY ORGANIZATION at all.
And nice try for an insult for the last of trying to paint me as “though I woudn’t expect a Bush-follower to understand that nuance”.
You have no clue as to what I believe, who I vote for, what I support and what I don’t. Yet you come in here blatantly throwing a stupid statement like that around. Your arguement or trying to convince me or others of your point of view gets knocked down several notches, as well as your credibility when you throw assinine statements like that out to try and end a debate or discussion. Though I find that typical on how some tend to debate or discuss.
I don’t need to be a Bush-follower to see how corrupt and useless the UN is, I just open my eyes, and MANY Americans are frustrated and disgusted with how the UN conducts itself, Republican, Democrats, Independents…all walks of life, in each group there are those that have problems with the UN. So again, your last statement is assinine, and you assume I am some Bush-follower you can smear, just because I am a regular commenter on ST’s site.
I can tell you this, ST and the rest of us blast Republican and Democrat alike if we see them doing wrong. How much do you see of that with Democrats blasting their own for wrong-doing?
You also stated about undestanding the enemy?
Here is a clue:
The Difference
Islam Revealed
Islam & Terrorism
Islam & Truces
There, help yourself understand our enemy as they see things.
Dont forget about other U.N. failures:
Failure to prevent the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which resulted in the killings of nearly a million people, due to the refusal of the security council members to approve any necessary military action.
Failure by MONUC (UNSC Resolution 1291) to effectively intervene during the Second Congo War, which claimed nearly five million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), 1998-2002 (with fighting reportedly continuing), and in carrying out and distributing humanitarian aid.
Failure to intervene in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, despite the fact that the UN designated Srebrenica a “safe haven” for refugees and assigned 600 Dutch peacekeepers to protect it.
Failure to successfully deliver food to starving people in Somalia; the food was instead usually seized by local warlords. A U.S./UN attempt to apprehend the warlords seizing these shipments resulted in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu.
Sexual abuse by UN peacekeepers. Numerous peacekeepers from several nations have been repatriated from UN peacekeeping operations for sexually abusing and exploiting girls as young as 8 in a number of different peacekeeping missions. A 2005 internal UN investigation found that sexual exploitation and abuse has been reported in at least five countries where UN peacekeepers have been deployed, including the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti, Burundi, Cote d’Ivoire, and Liberia; in particular, “Liberian girls as young as 8 are being sexually exploited by United Nations peacekeepers, aid workers and teachers in return for food, small favours and even rides in trucks.
Yeah, this is the organization I trust to keep the peace.
Sanity, thanks for those links- I hope you don’t mind but I added them to my site
Aghast, you and your “Peace at any Price” crowd can cozy up to the “Terrorist, Islamofascists, Taliban or Al Qaeda and really get to know them if they don’t cut your throat first. My understanding of the enemy is “they not just hate us they want to kill us” as proven over and over again (The Twin Towers just for one). You have little or no knowledge of history let’s take history leading up to ww2. WW1 ended with a negotiated end, have you heard of the “Versailles Treaty” this treaty ended the “War to end all wars” when in fact history shows us that it set the stage for WW2. Yes history shows us that you have to destroy your enemy, once again show me where a negotiated end to a conflict has held? Can you say Neville Chamberlain? The difference between WW2 and our fight against Islamofasists is we knew who our enemy was “They Wore Uniforms They Had Countries”. Terrorists hide behind women and children they claim no country they blend in with the crowds because they don’t wear uniforms they target civilians they kidnap people and make a show of slitting their throat in the name of Islam (Allah). You are right Hitler was worse he executed people on a grander scale and if given a chance the Islamofascists would kill anyone who doesn’t covert to Islam. The British and the IRA was a civil problem the IRA was not out to destroy western civilization.
sweet… you guys are riled up.
sanity, you’re right…I shouldn’t have assumed you were a bush follower or even made that comment…I usually try to keep the snark down, but sometimes it just slips out. It does nothing to advance an argument and turns people off. My Bad.
As for democrats blasting their own…it happens all the time. Look at the way Joe Kline (Democrat) talks about other democrats.
Jim M… from their perspective, America wants to invade their countries and impose American style of government on them. We can agree on that, right? So what did George Bush do? Invade two muslim countries and imposed our style of govt on them (though both country’s constitutions recognize sharia! good job george!). Terrorist attacks worldwide are on the rise… do you think validating the geopolitical fears of muslims had nothing to do with that?
Now, you say they want to “destroy western civilization” … was that bin laden’s goal? This statement really shows your nuanced and complex understanding of quaeda’s motives. Or was al qaeda’s goal to get the US to stop supporting Israeli treatment of palestinians and get US troops out of Suadi Arabia?
I’m not saying we should stop supporting israel…but we’ve already given bin laden what he wants with regards to saudi arabia, and (as I mentioned above) we are fullfiling his proclamations through our military actions.
If you’re right, we’re all screwed. We can’t destroy them militarily….it won’t work with them. even if you got one cell to surrender, it’s not a unified enemy…more will come after us. I still maintain the solution to this is diplomatic and law-enforcement based, not military.
Also, Jim M… stop comparing terrorists to sovergn nations that CAN be defeated militarily. I suspect you understand the difference between a soveriegn nation with a centralized, top-down command and control structure and a decenralized, ideology-based “movement” with disconnected cells all over the place. Even if the threat (lots of dead people) is the same…the way to deal with it is not. When in history were terrorists defeated militarly? Actually… it would be a great case to study if you could find one (I tried and couldn’t find one). Though in Ireland, Span and South Africa, terrorism has been stopped through non-military means.
Jim M… I was a little snarky before to you as well… I apologize. I should offer a little more respect if I expect people to listen to what I have to say.
Aghast wrote, “sweet… you guys are riled up”
Nope. False again. Just correcting you. Seems you like to be corrected….
Aghast wrote, “America wants to invade their countries and impose American style of government on them. We can agree on that, right?”
Nope. False again. No need for me to explain here… it’s obvious to us and not to you.
Aghast gives aid and comfort by saying, “Or was al qaeda’s goal to get the US to stop supporting Israeli treatment of palestinians and get US troops out of Suadi Arabia?”
They’ve had justifications for years and yes those were some of the justifications. But terror is not the way to accomplish those goals. Additionally, if the complaint is not valid then addressing the goals will be really hard. For instance, treatment of Palestinians…. Isreal has one million Arabs who live and work in Israel and vote and hold elected office. People coming from the Palestinians areas (never a country) have to pass through checkpoints and such for a REASON. You can be offended you have to pass through a checkpoint of offended that security fences are being built but that just shows a lack of mental facilities not understanding there is a REASON for those things.
Aghast after justifying terrorists writes, “I’m not saying we should stop supporting israel…”
Blasted. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Aghast wrote, “I still maintain the solution to this is diplomatic and law-enforcement based, not military.”
That’s fine. That just means you disagree with lots of people. It’s no reason to ATTACK. It’s only reason to debate. Debating poorly with attacks and tacky references to “george” is only childish. It shows your DIPLOMATIC skills are lacking and yet that’s what you are advocating. Liberals such as yourself really need to SHARPEN your debating skills and you might then be elected with people thinking you have the solution. Until then WE don’t trust your thinking with leading the way in the future towards our security. Got it???
Jonathan wrote, “Yea, you’re right. Nobody said “democracies solve all.” That’s why its called paraphrasing.”
But your paraphrasing was not even CLOSE to what President Bush said. Therefore, you were putting forth a premise that was factually incorrect and needed to be corrected. So I did. Thanks for actually doing the due diligence and posting the real words which nobody (except for you and a few others) would quibble with. Tell me Jonathan. Which words were you quibbling with and why?
You did ask a legitimate question, “I was wondering when the “lasting peace” part kicks in after democracy is advanced?”
Yes. Japan and Germany took 7 and 10 years of reconstruction and your impatience is apparent. Let’s say 10 years from now there still is insurgents in Iraq. I would still argue that Saddam being disposed of was peace gained and while there might be insurgents still that they would be affecting Iraqi’s security they are not affecting security of Israel (remember the $25,000 to Palestinian suicide bombers – or did you forget), and the weapons that Saddam was building to target neighbors like Israel (there were weapons that went longer distance than the Scuds but we can’t get them classified by liberals as “stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction” so it falls into your neat little arguments without liberals being factually correct.
Jonathan wrote, “Despite all the UN bashing, they didn’t start any of these hostilities…”
Despite all the US bashing we are advancing solutions towards a more peaceful future. Seems you just disagree. The UN isn’t addressing a peaceful future. They are appeasing the enemy and aiding the enemy. Which hurts a peaceful future.
Ya Know, I was attempting to read this last post by Aghast, but I just can’t bring myself to continue. I read the 1st and 2nd post that Aghast did, but I just can’t read any others. Any thing Aghast has to say really is just a waste of my time. It is the same blah, blah, blah that Dan Rather, or Chris Matthews would have to say, and I don’t waste my time with those individuals either.
From the 1st paragraph Aghast says something about us being riled up, when he/she was purposely hostile toward another poster. Which he/she apologizes for with a “My Bad”, Very Nice.
On Aghast’s 2nd post there is the whole thing with with bring up Sun Tzu. Why??? We know our enemy, because he is us??? Soooo are you equating us to terrorists?? Does that include Dems or just Repubs??? Then brings up the British war with the IRA, which has only been going on for 400 years, when the Irish refused to leave the Catholic religion. I have to ask, is this going somewhere??? Is there a point to be made here?? Or are you just spread too thin trying to convert us back to the way the majority of us use to think???
Also since Hitler was brought into this, I have to wonder. Who is closer to being a facists??? George Bush or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad??? I would say the latter, but then I am not a “in a perfect world” lefty. So once again reality bites the mentality of the left in the buttocks. – Lorica
More evidence of liberals poor dimplomatic skills. Attacking corporations who are employing people and doing well. The retail jobs that are part time that are smaller than Walmart aren’t providing all that Democrats ask of Walmart either. But Walmart has bigger pockets.
And to add to what the terrorists want and are saying, this from Tammy Bruce’s site:
Baklava,
I said “from their perspective”. Leaving that part out completely changes the meaning of what I said.
Also, I’m not justifying the terrorists actions. Terrorism is not a solution or answer to anything, it is brutal and unjust. I’m just trying to make the point that they have their reasons beyond just wanting to destroy us. I don’t think ignoring those reasons is constructive. I agree that some (maybe most) of the reasons are complete BS and can never be negotiated. That said, the palestinian issue has nothing to do with being offended by checkpoints and walls…where did that come from?
Lorica, I never equated us with terrorists…maybe I’m a shitty writer, or you misunderstood me or something but Islamic theocrats are the enemy, and I have no qualms about it. They are more to the right than everyone I’m arguing with here…and I’m arguing from the left. I’m 100% sure Amhadinejad is more ‘fascist’ if by ‘fascist’ you really mean ‘Authoritarian’, which I suspect you do. I don’t think Ahmadinejad is propped up by corporate wealth.
Though you did remind me of a George Bush quote:
“If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I’m the dictator.” – George Bush
Why write the terrorists perspective when making a point?
Aghast wrote, “I’m just trying to make the point that they have their reasons beyond just wanting to destroy us.”
Yes. and they are incoherent and right before this post I posted more of their ramblings. There is no DIPLOMACY with sicko’s like this. It’s like trying to talk a rapist out of raping your wife while he is doing it. Like a past lefty named Steve here who continued to assert that he would be able to outwit or talk the rapist out of his actions and talk a Islamofacist out of killing all of his children (based on a true story) because they dishonored him, you guys fail to understand that force is necessary and you guys without PERSPECIVE monday morning quarterback and put forth invalid irresponsible reckless get us killed solutions. Just my opinion. You disagree. So fine. VOte for someone else. And keep attacking others due to a disagreement. Shows how lacking in diplomacy you really are at the same time you advocate diplomacy.
you asked a legitimate question, “where did that come from?”
From CNN, C-SPAN and other lefties. If you have other “justifications” for suicide bombings because of “mistreatment” then let the State Department know because I’m sure they’ll need the info when using diplomacy with the Palestinians… I know there are more but ALL of them are irrelevant.
Aghast left us with a true quote which does NOT indicate that George wanted to be a dictator. He is stating the 100% truth that the WOT would be easier if he were a dictator.
Unfortunately for Aghast he/she continues to show lack of diplomacy skills and his/her propensity for attacking with false premises and therefore hopefully, his/her ideology will not be elected into office.
Attacks, monday morning quarterbacking, double-standards, poor readhing comprehension. It doesn’t add up to good debate.
Aghast, I’ll make it simple for you. Please tell us all how to combat terrorism. Since Al Qaeda is, according to you, satisfied now that we are out of Saudi Arabia they are not longer a threat, right?
So please, educate us all and tell us how we combat terrorism, if not on the battlefield.
Also, don’t flatter yourself into thinking that we’re riled up by the likes of you. Every week we have a new Bush hating, liberal, DNC spewing talking head on this site and they rarely stay very long because they cannot back up anything they say.
I can see I’ve confused people by the way you are intepreting my remarks. I was making a few points at once, and they’ve gotten muddled.
Why write the terrorists perspective when making a point?
Becasue one of my points is that we’ve already inadvertantly “rewarded” them. The same point applies to Iran vis-a-vis Shiia control of iraq.
I never said we needed to be diplomatic with terrorists. (Really, I understand the confusion because I was also writing about “understanding” them in the same post…but not for diplomatic purposes.) Diplomacy is required to get the friendly cooperation of governments (and their intelligence services) around the world. Our efforts have not increased our popularity in the world, and in a world full of democracies, public opinion matters. Additionally, winning “hearts & minds” and advancing moderate Islam as an alternative to radical Islam is essential in winning the long-term struggle. We can’t do that by making enemies with broader Islam.
I never said that quote proved anything…It just creeps me out. Be honest, if Hillary said it it would creep you out too.
Finally, when I said: sweet… you guys are riled up.
I meant it… I like a lively discussion. Talking to people I agree with is boring. I didn’t mean to be snarky with that one.
Ok, Aghast, fair enough.
In all seriousness, with all politics aside. What do you think would be the best course of action to deal with groups like Hamas and Hezbollah? It just seems that too many people think that you can negotiate with these kinds of groups when they basically want to kill every Jew in Israel.
I really am open to any and all plans as I think this is an issue where politics needs to be put aside. This is an American problem not a Republican/Democrat one.
Actually NC Cop, your only partially right, it is more than an American problem, since terrorism happens world wide, especially for the British and French. Because the open policy they have, they have become a breeding ground for terrorism also.
Well said, Sanity, you are absolutely right!
Why do you think that is? Is there a general anti-semitic feeling among europeans or do they think appeasement is the best policy? Personally, I think it is the latter, or perhaps a mixture of the two.
Aghast said, “It just creeps me out”
Yeah. Well. I’m creeped out by beheading Islamofacists. You spend your time being creeped out by completely true statements that don’t hurt a soul.
Glad to see you riled up by the presidents comments. We know who we are dealing with when you admit it.
NC Cop,
The more I think about it, the more dissapointed I am with the options we are left with. This whole thing is just such a disaster. I’ll outline a few ideas that I would like to see attempted. They all flow form the idea that by providing incentives and manipulating these groups politically, they can be brought “into the fold” and the threat they pose can be eliminated.
1. Diplomatic relations with Syria need to be improved. They are a self-interested state like any other, and can be reasoned with, if appropriate incentives are offered. The primary goal here would be to get the weapons flow to Hezbollah cut off, and to encourage Syria to “join the fold” of nations stuanchly opposed to terrorism and support thereof. By offering economic incentives and exploiting the sunni-shiia rift that keeps them seperate from Iran, we can actually turn Syria into a helpful player. I’m not a diplomat…I have no idea what the details of such diplomacy would be in regards to Syria, but I know there are options.
2. Encourage the political arm of Hezbollah. As Hezbollah’s political arm grows, they will have more political representation and become more of the eestablishment. Keep pushing for their unequivocal disarmament…once they are firmly established within the government, exploit internal divisions to create a political environment where hezbollah disarms for internal political purposes.
3. As for Hamas…let them be elected into the palestinian authority, and require that Israel address the grievences of the authority. As they gain political representation with Israel directly they will have less reason to incite violence to advance their goals. This doesn’t mean give them what they want in terms of Whacko demands… but you do have to give them the impression that “legitimate” gripes may be resolved through some course other than violence.
4. Reconcilliation (South africa style):
(The true christians among us should appreciate the value of this)
5. Have the CIA infiltrate these groups’ political wings. Not for the sole purpose of spying… but actually for the purpose of changing the groups themselves through internal lobbying and manipulation. Think of it like this: if every conservative joined the ACLU, one might become a leader and could change the organization, or the conservatives could vote (and convince other members to vote) to stop suing people, essentially shutting down the organization.
Nowhere in my suggestions is the use of force, rather incentives are emphasized. I’m not saying we shouldn’t back up diplomacy with the threat of force…but it must be a credible threat (which, after Israel’s loss, may be difficult to conjure).
This solution requires respected leadership from nations percieved as honest brokers, who have the power to offer the incentives required here. Consequently, I seriously doubt that our government has the will, competence, and respect needed to get this job done.
Finally…these policy prescriptions don’t apply to Iran, Iraq, Al Quaeda and other global jihadists, which are distinctly different problems.
Shoot…forgot to close that link tag… sorry.
I fixed it. –ST
Aghast, I can play judgmentalism also. You are “a disaster”. OK. That wasn’t necessary only to show you you are extremely negative and not grounded in reality. It’s EASY to be negative and not do the due diligence to be factually correct as you haven’t been. It’s why I commented that you must like to be corrected.
It’s ok to have an opinion. But the basis for your opinions are facts that aren’t true.
1) The state Department handles relations between most countries and hasn’t changed their stance or way of dealing with Syria to my knowledge since before Bush. What would you have either the president or State Department do? Ask Congress to give them money? Allow travel to the country freely? What? You spoke vaguely about improving relations and that we could “reason” with them. Just like I mentioned earlier about trying to reason with a rapist or psychos you can’t. Your solutions would get us killed in greater numbers in my humble opinion. Terrorism activities and terrorists can’t be tolerated and we need to be clear post 9/11 that it won’t be tolerated and so what if they are unhappy that we label them (as before 9/11) as a terrorist state. Truth hurts.
2) Growing Hezbollah. Smart. More people dying is your solution result again. Hezbollah won’t magically disarm. Voodoo foriegn policy and then attacking us as neanderthals because you have fuzzy headed utiopian ideas and believe in them isn’t really good debate. You didn’t use the word neanderthal but you come across condescending as opposed to having a simple disagreement.
3) You wrote, “and require that Israel address the grievences of the authority.” Might I respectfully submit that you do not know this topic very well and I sure hope that newbies are not reading your writing and saying, “yeah – right on”. Please list for us here what you think Hamas grievances are and how you think they should be addressed short of Israel being redrawn to not exist on the map. And even removing that issue. How do you address greivances with people with such hatred that teach their kindergarteners hatred and where they only know the desire to suicide bomb and kill Israeli’s. You DON’T negotiate with terrorists or thugs with such psycho nature. And I can only HOPE that people with your philosophy are not elected into office.
4) Are you ad divider or a uniter. Don’t fall into the trap of leftists who talk about the “true” Christians among us as if you or anyone else aren’t really followers and / or are hypocrates based on a simple disagreement on what you think foriegn or domestic policy should be. We tithe more than 10% to the government. We are a generous people and nation not only to people in this country and in other countries. To talk about us as if we aren’t compassionate is to miss the point that we are and shows that you need to be corrected. Do you like it?
5) You wrote, “rather incentives are emphasized.” Yes. Incentives such as strengthening your enemies. And let’s be clear. They are an enemy and evil exists in this world. The guy who had his wife raped in front of him and then possibly murdered understands this. There is an old saying that I’ll paraphrase that if you are not a liberal when you are young you had no heart. But something to the effect that you become conservative when you get a job and pay taxes, have a family or get mugged. Reality sets in at some point. You can learn or continue to think utopian. Conservatives have a heart and a I hope you learn this. But we THINK about our solutions and know and feel that our solutions would RESULT in the greater good. It’s the principle that you should teach a man to fish rather than give him fish. Pretty soon in school age years most people understand this adage. It really is simple. RESULTS matter. It’s ok to feel but as Dennis Prager nailed it the other day when he found the common denominator for libralism on EVERY issue is what do they feel. Without thinking through what their “solutions” would end up doing.
Aghast wrote, “I seriously doubt that our government has the will, competence, and respect needed to get this job done.”
Yes. No thanks to liberals and their reckless words. Freedom of speech is fine but liberals have really been reckless these last few years and have aided the enemy with arguments and talking points and the ability to get much done in this WOT going forward.
I hope you can honestly think of the effect that liberals have had on this country in the last few years with respect to foreign policy. It is many a people’s belief that your words extended the war in Iraq (getting more people killed) as you emboldened the enemy and gave them the feeling that they may be this close “” to getting us to pull out before security is established. Follow through is necessary to prevent a bloodbath. Or is that what you want? It’ll be failure then huh. You could pin the bloodbath on the president.
There are two solutions I see in handling terrorism….
One you wipe them all out. This is not exactly feasible.
Two, you employ Reagan-type strategy on how he dealt with Russia. You make it so costly to the terrorist and terrorist supporting countries that they have to change direction.
Funny how so many liberals think we should follow the laws of Europe, and they look to Europe for in trying to decide legalities at times.
BUT, when it comes to terrorism, and it comes to monitoring suspicous calls from outside of the US, well, then we shouldn’t be following Europe at all, we have a Constitution and even though there is precedent contrary to our liberal views and ideology, well, we shouldn’t be following how Eurpoe or the British go about conducting their investigations…..
*rolls eyes*
I swear, the liberal mentality and PC attitudes of this country is going to get us all killed.
Just like I mentioned earlier about trying to reason with a rapist or psychos you can’t
So the Syrian govt. is equivalent to “rapists and psycos”? If you divide the world neatly into two groups, good and bad, you alienate the “less bad” so to speak, by lumping them in with the “worst”.
1) What would you have either the president or State Department do? Ask Congress to give them money? Allow travel to the country freely? What?
They could set up economic development zones as Bush is doing in Pakistan – this is just one of many ways we can positively influence other countries.
2) Hezbollah has factions within it that do not agree on violence as a tactic…exploiting that is key. By ignoring those divisions and assuming that all of Hezbollah is uniformly violent, the only choice we are left with is to destroy it…which didn’t work if you’ve been paying attention.
I don’t think anyone here is uncivilized. I believe you are speaking in good faith out of deep concern for our nation’s safety. Obviously I dissagree about using violence as a response to violence, and may get emotional in arguing that point.
3) I said the “authority” … meaning the palestinian authority, which is not Hamas.
4) Do you have a response to my idea of reconcilliation? Jesus taught peace and forgiveness, so I thought it relevant. (of course you’ll just twist that as if i said we should just forgive terrorists – i’m not saying that) Many Christians are not true to their faith (especially when I hear them advocating turning the middle east into a sheet of glass), and I was pointing out it was the christian thing to do.
5) Who’s being utopian here? You claim that by destroying them we can solve this. How? How can you destroy them without creating more of them. Really, answer that question with a plausible solution and I’ll be totally behind you.
Who was being utopian when they said that iraqis would welcome us?
Who was being utopian when they said that “democracy is messy” as they watched Iraq descend into chaos.
Who was being utopian when they said the insurgency was in it’s last throes?
As an aside, Neoconservatism is actually a liberal (in the old sense of the word) philosophy with very idealistic assumptions. It was implemented in a very haphazard way, and backfired a bit in various ways. I think a big part of the problem is one of accepting that the ends justify the means…without understanding that you can’t ever be sure that the means you are using will get you any closer to the ends that will justify them. In other words, it’s too ambitious and too willing to be brutal to achieve those ambitions…even if the final ambitions are well-intended.
Finally, I find your assertion that liberals have destroyed our foriegn policy to be bizzare. As if bin laden was ready to surrender, except he saw michael moore’s movie. And the idea the liberals are the reason we’re stuck in Iraq, well… something tells me that the insurgent’s success at blowing up troops is what keeps them fighting, not the words of some liberal. Laughable.
HAHA!!!! The lib calling the NeoCons idealistic. Damn that is just funny.
Lorica,
Was Charles Krauthammer being funny when he wrote this about idealism as it relates to neoconservatism?
So the Syrian govt. is equivalent to “rapists and psycos”? If you divide the world neatly into two groups, good and bad, you alienate the “less bad” so to speak, by lumping them in with the “worst”.
I would certainly lump a government that sponsors terrorism that targets innocent civilians as many things. I don’t know about rapists and psychos, however, I would certainly place them in the “bad” category. As far as the “less bad” comment, I dont think it matters if Hamas is less bad than Hezbollah, they are both “bad”. It appears you are trying to turn this into a “if you hate Hamas and Hezbollah, then you hate ALL Arabs” argument, which is quite typical. It is, however, incorrect. If certain people want to dance and cheer like they did on 9/11, then that’s their right. If those same people start crying and complaining when Israeli jets level their town that was a safe haven for Hezbollah, then, no, I don’t have much compassion.
Hezbollah has factions within it that do not agree on violence as a tactic…exploiting that is key.
Please provide specific examples of such divisions inside Hezbollah and then provide specific actions that we could take that could exploit them.
I said the “authority” … meaning the palestinian authority, which is not Hamas.
Tomato, tomahto. If you think the people that protect those who kill innocents are not the same as those that actually do the killing, that’s up to you. Personally, the palestinian authority has proven to be pretty useless.
How can you destroy them without creating more of them.
The same way every war has been fought throughout history. I could care less if they hate America or not, but when they cross the line and start participating, planning, funding, and aiding murderous thugs, then they deserve what they get. The IRA is a great example. The British continued the fight against them and did not “cur and run” as things got bad. Eventually the IRA died out, and not because anyone negotiated with them. The best analogy I heard was that if Hezbollah and Hamas put down their weapons, then there would be no more violence, however, if Israel laid down their arms they would be slaughtered. That’s all I need to know about who the “good” guys are.
Who was being utopian when they said that iraqis would welcome us?
I seem to recall hundreds of Iraqis dancing in the streets and cheering U.S. forces as they tore down Saddam’s statue. I also recall pictures of Iraqis kissing soldiers on their hands or faces as they passed by. If you are suggesting that the entire country of Iraq hates us, then you have been spending a little too much time reading the New York Times. Perhaps when you get back from visiting Iraq you can tell us all what it’s like there.
Finally, I find your assertion that liberals have destroyed our foriegn policy to be bizzare. As if bin laden was ready to surrender, except he saw michael moore’s movie.
Not at all, it has to do with the history of the Clinton Administration. For 8 years, beginning with the attack on the WTC in 1993, we were constantly attacked by Bin Laden and his cronies. Clinton chose to do nothing, at least nothing with anyone but an intern. The fiasco in Somalia, which was Clinton’s fault as he denied the military the equipment they requested, has been quoted by Bin Laden as a perfect example that the U.S. is a “paper tiger”. The rest of Clinton’s tenure certainly proved that statement true. I also noticed that the democratic memebers of congress who are now so opposed to the war, only became so after the situation grew worse in Iraq. So basically, they stayed on board as long as the war was going well, but when the going got tough they began their “It’s Bush’s fault, we didn’t really want to vote for the war!”.
That, and your supposed “knowledge” of what it’s really like in Iraq are the only laughable things here. Well, that and the fact that you STILL have not given us your proposal to fight terror.
Oops, I missed your last post where you outlined your strategy. Now THAT is laughable. Yeah, give legitimacy to murderers, perfect. So what’s the lesson there? Kill enough people and we’ll listen to your grievances, that’ll work.
As far as Krauthammer’s piece. I don’t know if it was meant to be funny, but he sure made some good points:
“Otherwise, the period between 1993 and 2001 was a waste, eight years of sleepwalking, of the absurd pursuit of one treaty more useless than the last, while the rising threat—Islamic terrorism—was treated as a problem of law enforcement.”
Thanks for the reference.
NC is wise. Thanks for saying what I would’ve said.
I would add that Aghast seems not only desirous of treating it as a law enforcement problem but a reward for terrorism by having them come to the table of empowerment zones.
I’m sorry. That would be the exact wrong thing to do.
“Otherwise, the period between 1993 and 2001 was a waste, eight years of sleepwalking, of the absurd pursuit of one treaty more useless than the last, while the rising threat—Islamic terrorism—was treated as a problem of law enforcement.”
Ohhhh, yeah! Absolutely!