Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4042 Diggs, is a link to an obnoxious Flash intro to a quote by Miss Teen South Dakota on why 20% of Americans can't find America on a map.
It's a serious topic, handled in typical Digg fashion.
Sunday, August 26, 2007
Ex-KGB Organization Essentially Runs Russia
The Economist has posted a fascinating story on the influence of the ex-KGB, the FSB, on Russian politics. Or, perhaps, it would be better to say that it exposes how the FSB has become Russia's political structure. While the Left in the US worries over the ability for the CIA to reads its email, in Russia the CIA's equivalent is essentially the reigning power.
A quote:
Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”
The money quote:
The KGB provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression; it was a state within a state. Now, however, it has become the state itself. Apart from Mr Putin, “There is nobody today who can say no to the FSB,” says Mr Kondaurov.
It all reminds me of how poorly we handled the downfall of the Soviet Union. We could have helped them build a capitalist state based on Constitutionally-protected individual rights, and could now have a powerful ally. But instead, we let them flounder, leaving them intellectually disarmed and thus unable to plot the proper path from Communism to freedom. Of all our mistakes in the last century or so, this one may perhaps be one of the costliest.
A quote:
Over the two terms of Mr Putin's presidency, that “group of FSB operatives” has consolidated its political power and built a new sort of corporate state in the process. Men from the FSB and its sister organisations control the Kremlin, the government, the media and large parts of the economy—as well as the military and security forces. According to research by Olga Kryshtanovskaya, a sociologist at the Russian Academy of Sciences, a quarter of the country's senior bureaucrats are siloviki—a Russian word meaning, roughly, “power guys”, which includes members of the armed forces and other security services, not just the FSB. The proportion rises to three-quarters if people simply affiliated to the security services are included. These people represent a psychologically homogeneous group, loyal to roots that go back to the Bolsheviks' first political police, the Cheka. As Mr Putin says repeatedly, “There is no such thing as a former Chekist.”
The money quote:
The KGB provided a crucial service of surveillance and suppression; it was a state within a state. Now, however, it has become the state itself. Apart from Mr Putin, “There is nobody today who can say no to the FSB,” says Mr Kondaurov.
It all reminds me of how poorly we handled the downfall of the Soviet Union. We could have helped them build a capitalist state based on Constitutionally-protected individual rights, and could now have a powerful ally. But instead, we let them flounder, leaving them intellectually disarmed and thus unable to plot the proper path from Communism to freedom. Of all our mistakes in the last century or so, this one may perhaps be one of the costliest.
China Wants to Buy US Hard Drive Manufacturer
I would say, we shouldn't allow the sale of a US manufacturer of hard drives to China. Too much sensitive stuff in there, as the story says. That's a touch decision to come to, because while clearly government should prohibit the sale of any and all goods to certain clear enemies, it's not entirely clear whether China is an "enemy" of the US.
Some people, myself included, might consider them not a present threat, but a future one. To help prevent them from being a formidable future threat, I wouldn't sell them anything but low-tech consumer goods (which I'm not even sure they'd buy). I certainly wouldn't have allowed the sale of IBM's PC division to Lenovo, and I'm still bitter over Clintons sale of missile technology to China (there's a word I'd use to describe that action, but I won't).
Overall, I'd vote no to the sale. If I had a vote, that is. Which I would, incidentally, if we had a rational political system.
Some people, myself included, might consider them not a present threat, but a future one. To help prevent them from being a formidable future threat, I wouldn't sell them anything but low-tech consumer goods (which I'm not even sure they'd buy). I certainly wouldn't have allowed the sale of IBM's PC division to Lenovo, and I'm still bitter over Clintons sale of missile technology to China (there's a word I'd use to describe that action, but I won't).
Overall, I'd vote no to the sale. If I had a vote, that is. Which I would, incidentally, if we had a rational political system.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
More About Unlocked iPhones and the Legality of it All
As I mentioned in an earlier post, someone's going to get sued over unlocked iPhones. And, I believe there are plenty of legal arguments for doing so, none of which have anything to do with copyright, as the linked story suggests. I'd love to read the iPhone's EULA, which I'm guessing includes verbiage directly addressing the topic of unlocking one's phone.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Todays #1 Digg, at 3120 Diggs, resurects the whole "tilt-shifting" photographic trick, which, while interesting, doesn't need to be Dugg every few months.
Austria Joins In Against Missile Defense System
You know, when you take the European missile shield in context, that is, that it is to be comprised of 10 interceptor missiles based in Poland and a radar facility in the Czech Republic, it's hard to fathom how Russia or anyone else (certainly, Austria) could consider this a provocation against anyone but rogue states such as Iran.
I mean, really: how much protection would such a system represent against a Russian nuclear attack? I'd say, it would be pretty damn negligible. Which makes me wonder at what the real politics are behind the whole thing--mainly, that it has nothing to do with the system itself, but rather all to do with the pro-Western leanings of Poland and the Czechs.
I mean, really: how much protection would such a system represent against a Russian nuclear attack? I'd say, it would be pretty damn negligible. Which makes me wonder at what the real politics are behind the whole thing--mainly, that it has nothing to do with the system itself, but rather all to do with the pro-Western leanings of Poland and the Czechs.
Marine Drill Sergeant Charged with Abuse
I hope these were some really serious abuses. I can't imagine having gone through boot camp (U.S. Army) myself without having been "abused." I wouldn't have learned the things I needed to learn, which first and foremost was: when your superior tells you to move in combat, you move, without thinking about it first. Or, probably, you die.
The entire purpose of boot camp is to tear down certain aspects of a recruit's personality and build them back up to make him a good soldier. Sometimes, that requires drill sergeants to do what those in the civilian world might call "mean," or, in the case of the linked story, "abusive."
It would be a shame if the Marines were to relax the harshness of their legendary training. Because ultimately, a Marine then wouldn't be a Marine.
The entire purpose of boot camp is to tear down certain aspects of a recruit's personality and build them back up to make him a good soldier. Sometimes, that requires drill sergeants to do what those in the civilian world might call "mean," or, in the case of the linked story, "abusive."
It would be a shame if the Marines were to relax the harshness of their legendary training. Because ultimately, a Marine then wouldn't be a Marine.
Friday, August 24, 2007
A Clarification of My Politics
My earlier post about the Daily Show segment may give my readers a skewed perspective of my politics. And so, let me just say: as an Objectivist, I could probably count on the fingers of both hands the number of government actions that I've agreed with over the last few decades.
I consider our government's reach over the past, say, 80 years to be so beyond its Consitutional boundaries that the Constitution hardly matters any longer. Everything from our healthcare system, to our financial markets, to our transportation infrastructure, and much, much more is so perverted by government influence that unraveling it all would likely mean starting from scratch.
And so, I certainly don't agree with every action our government took (such as with Afghanistan) during the Cold War, except in this regard: I do believe that every or at least most actions were taken to avoid a shooting war that arguably could have ended human life as we know it. At least, our leaders believed so, and incidents like the Cuban missile crisis is one strong example. Even here, though, I believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own inevitably, and so perhaps all the geopolitical games really weren't necessary.
Just for some clarification...
I consider our government's reach over the past, say, 80 years to be so beyond its Consitutional boundaries that the Constitution hardly matters any longer. Everything from our healthcare system, to our financial markets, to our transportation infrastructure, and much, much more is so perverted by government influence that unraveling it all would likely mean starting from scratch.
And so, I certainly don't agree with every action our government took (such as with Afghanistan) during the Cold War, except in this regard: I do believe that every or at least most actions were taken to avoid a shooting war that arguably could have ended human life as we know it. At least, our leaders believed so, and incidents like the Cuban missile crisis is one strong example. Even here, though, I believe that the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own inevitably, and so perhaps all the geopolitical games really weren't necessary.
Just for some clarification...
Clinton and Bush: 1st Term Active Duty Military Deaths
Just as a quick aside, I'll never understand this statistic:
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302
Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187
During Bush's first term (for better or worse) we toppled oppressive regimes in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Clinton's first four years we... well, what exactly did we do?
Please note that I consider even a single American death a tragedy. I just think it's interesting to put things into perspective.
Active duty deaths during Clinton's first four years (1993 - 1996): 4302
Active duty deaths during Bush's first four years (2001 - 2004): 5187
During Bush's first term (for better or worse) we toppled oppressive regimes in two countries, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Clinton's first four years we... well, what exactly did we do?
Please note that I consider even a single American death a tragedy. I just think it's interesting to put things into perspective.
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4338 Diggs, is about a crack that unlocks the iPhone from AT&T. Now, as far as I can tell, creating such a crack amounts to some sort of tort, because it directly damages AT&T's agreement with Apple. AT&T and Apple probably have some cause of action against whomever created the crack. Or, maybe AT&T should sue Apple for breach of contract, since Apple wasn't able to maintain the exclusivity for which AT&T contracted.
But of course, the Diggsters don't care about any of that, because hell, by their definition, the iPhone should be free, anyways.
But of course, the Diggsters don't care about any of that, because hell, by their definition, the iPhone should be free, anyways.
Iranian Crackdown Intensifies
This story in the Economist discusses the current crackdown on the Iranian people, which goes beyond punishing dissidents and returning to the Islamic puritanism of the Revolution. I use this to support my position in this earlier post that trying to deal directly with the Iranian people would do nothing but bring down further abuse.
Daily Show Lambasts America's Involvement in the MIddle East
A friend sent me a link to this story in The Raw Story which is about a Daily Show episode titled "'America to the Rescue' in the Middle East." Now, in true Daily Show fashion, the format determines the content, which is to say, it's like a bunch of comedic soundbites wrapped into what's meant to be important political commentary.
In essence, the episode tries to draw a line from today's Iraq back through Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan--with the basic assumption being that America has been the root cause of everything that's happened in the Middle East. This timeline assumes that world events progress in a perfectly linear fashion, that all of the actors are perfectly predictable, and that each event happens in a vacuum, untouched by other events.
Of course, none of these assumptions are valid.
Our providing weapons to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan made perfect geopolitical sense at the time, because the last thing we wanted was another Soviet puppet government in such a sensitive spot. Osama bin Laden was a nobody then, and of course we had no idea that he would one day turn his attention from Russia to the US.
At least, we couldn't have foreseen that we would place troops in Saudi Arabia, which would so anger bin Laden--which in and of itself isn't even valid, because bin Laden's thinking goes beyond Saudi Arabia. He's fighting for a return to the glory days of the Ottoman Empire, only he's thinking globally. Everything else is incidental.
Also, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was one of the turning points in the downfall of what was an ideologically corrupt, expansionist enemy intent on taking over as much geography as possible. Perhaps even if we had known bin Laden's true character, we would still have proceeded as we did because, at that time, keeping Afghanistan out of Soviet hands was more important.
Next, about our providing arms to Hussein: we did so only starting in 1982, when Iran was looking more and more powerful (at least, relative to Iraq). For the period 1973 to 1990, roughly $30 billion in arms were sold to Iraq. Of that, during the period 1982 to 1988 (when American arms sales to Iraq ended), the total sold by America to Hussein was $200 million. In short, American arms sales to Iraq were negligible, with Russia, France, and China representing the bulk of the sales. This directly contradicts the point made in the Daily Show episode. (Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), via Wikipedia.)
In hindsight, of course, even $200 million was too much to sell to a government that was, two years later, to invade a neighboring country. But of course we don't make decisions in hindsight. We saw Iran about to overrun Iraq, and we made a decision to make sure that didn't happen. At the time, it was probably a good decision, and I hardly think that the 0.5% of arms that we sold Iraq (during the period 1973-1990) made much of a difference in the first Gulf War.
Finally, it might very well be possible that the Iraq War has strengthened Iran's position. Again, in hindsight that may be perfectly clear. And arguments for and against going to war with Iraq are both legion and, at this point, irrelevant. I think most people can agree that the way the war was handled was incompetent, and it's only lately that we've made any measurable progress.
But, we should also remember that Iran's position is strengthened only because we allow it to be. Iran has committed acts of war against the United States by providing arms and fighters in Iraq, acts that we have so far ignored. Had we put a halt to the influx of fighters and materials from Iran and Syria years ago, Iraq could be a stable country by now. All that is meant to show that it's been political incompetence that has strengthened Iran, and not the Iraqi war per se.
The one area where I would agree with the Daily Show is in our providing arms to Saudi Arabia. We should be doing the opposite--forcing the Saudi royal family to stop its exportation of Islamic extremism. That alone would make a significant difference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
What the Left doesn't seem to want to recognize is that, for the Islamic extremists (including Iranian President Imajihadi, or whatever is name is), this is not about geopolitics as usual. This is about a group of religious fanatics who desire to impose Islam as the world religion and to establish an Islamic caliphate.
The problem with the Daily Show's timeline is that it ignores so many other elements and singles out only those "facts" (some of which are distorted) that seem to support its position. I suppose one can only blame them for trying to cover so much in so little time. Which is part of the point of this post: that things are far more complicated than the Left (and the Right) wants to recognize, and the enemy is different than the one's we've faced in the past. For one small example, the Soviets were ideologues, but they wanted to live. Our current enemy wants to die. That makes all the difference in the world in how you deal with them.
And so, in short, while the Daily Show might make for good political humor, it's not relevant when considering past American actions or trying to determine future actions. Which is not to say that I agree with anything the Bush Administration is doing, but then my alternatives would certainly not be the same as the Left's.
In essence, the episode tries to draw a line from today's Iraq back through Osama bin Laden and Afghanistan--with the basic assumption being that America has been the root cause of everything that's happened in the Middle East. This timeline assumes that world events progress in a perfectly linear fashion, that all of the actors are perfectly predictable, and that each event happens in a vacuum, untouched by other events.
Of course, none of these assumptions are valid.
Our providing weapons to the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan made perfect geopolitical sense at the time, because the last thing we wanted was another Soviet puppet government in such a sensitive spot. Osama bin Laden was a nobody then, and of course we had no idea that he would one day turn his attention from Russia to the US.
At least, we couldn't have foreseen that we would place troops in Saudi Arabia, which would so anger bin Laden--which in and of itself isn't even valid, because bin Laden's thinking goes beyond Saudi Arabia. He's fighting for a return to the glory days of the Ottoman Empire, only he's thinking globally. Everything else is incidental.
Also, the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan was one of the turning points in the downfall of what was an ideologically corrupt, expansionist enemy intent on taking over as much geography as possible. Perhaps even if we had known bin Laden's true character, we would still have proceeded as we did because, at that time, keeping Afghanistan out of Soviet hands was more important.
Next, about our providing arms to Hussein: we did so only starting in 1982, when Iran was looking more and more powerful (at least, relative to Iraq). For the period 1973 to 1990, roughly $30 billion in arms were sold to Iraq. Of that, during the period 1982 to 1988 (when American arms sales to Iraq ended), the total sold by America to Hussein was $200 million. In short, American arms sales to Iraq were negligible, with Russia, France, and China representing the bulk of the sales. This directly contradicts the point made in the Daily Show episode. (Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), via Wikipedia.)
In hindsight, of course, even $200 million was too much to sell to a government that was, two years later, to invade a neighboring country. But of course we don't make decisions in hindsight. We saw Iran about to overrun Iraq, and we made a decision to make sure that didn't happen. At the time, it was probably a good decision, and I hardly think that the 0.5% of arms that we sold Iraq (during the period 1973-1990) made much of a difference in the first Gulf War.
Finally, it might very well be possible that the Iraq War has strengthened Iran's position. Again, in hindsight that may be perfectly clear. And arguments for and against going to war with Iraq are both legion and, at this point, irrelevant. I think most people can agree that the way the war was handled was incompetent, and it's only lately that we've made any measurable progress.
But, we should also remember that Iran's position is strengthened only because we allow it to be. Iran has committed acts of war against the United States by providing arms and fighters in Iraq, acts that we have so far ignored. Had we put a halt to the influx of fighters and materials from Iran and Syria years ago, Iraq could be a stable country by now. All that is meant to show that it's been political incompetence that has strengthened Iran, and not the Iraqi war per se.
The one area where I would agree with the Daily Show is in our providing arms to Saudi Arabia. We should be doing the opposite--forcing the Saudi royal family to stop its exportation of Islamic extremism. That alone would make a significant difference in the Middle East and elsewhere.
What the Left doesn't seem to want to recognize is that, for the Islamic extremists (including Iranian President Imajihadi, or whatever is name is), this is not about geopolitics as usual. This is about a group of religious fanatics who desire to impose Islam as the world religion and to establish an Islamic caliphate.
The problem with the Daily Show's timeline is that it ignores so many other elements and singles out only those "facts" (some of which are distorted) that seem to support its position. I suppose one can only blame them for trying to cover so much in so little time. Which is part of the point of this post: that things are far more complicated than the Left (and the Right) wants to recognize, and the enemy is different than the one's we've faced in the past. For one small example, the Soviets were ideologues, but they wanted to live. Our current enemy wants to die. That makes all the difference in the world in how you deal with them.
And so, in short, while the Daily Show might make for good political humor, it's not relevant when considering past American actions or trying to determine future actions. Which is not to say that I agree with anything the Bush Administration is doing, but then my alternatives would certainly not be the same as the Left's.
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Boeing and EU Firms to Help Russia Revitalize Airplane Industry
As we and the Europeans help Russia reestablish its civilian aeronautical industry, we're helping it reestablish its military aeronautical industry. To me, that makes little sense. For reasons why, read just about everything else about Russia nowadays.
Russian Su-24 Bombers Grounded
It would be a bit ironic if this crashed Russian Su-24 bomber were one of those that Putin wants to send on the old Soviet strategic routes. If so, they're all grounded, so that would put a little dent in Putin's plan. Unfortunately, those bombers are old "Bears" (prop-driven, to boot) pulled out of mothballs, and that probably wouldn't make it within 500 miles of American airspace if deemed a threat.
Ahmadinejad Once Again Calls for the Death of Israel
Here's a link to the MEMRI video of Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is) specifically and unequivacably calling for "Death to Israel." MEMRI is not know for mistranslations, incidentally. And, according to this madman, it's not just Iran that want Israel destroyed, it's most of the world. Or, at least, it's Venezuela and North Korea, as far as one can tell.
Go watch the video. It's sickening.
Go watch the video. It's sickening.
Peace with Iran Through the Iranian People? I wish
I wish this piece in The Christian Science Monitor were possible. I really do. As much as I strongly support a massive military response to threats against America--to make future threats that much less likely--it would be wonderful if we could just appeal to the Iranian people and solve all our problems with Iran.
But, the idea that we could isolate the religious leadership, Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is), and the Revolutionary Guard, and that they would stand by and let it happen, is naive on a monumental scale. I imagine that the moment we started giving economic support to the Iranian people, and they responded positively to our gestures, there would be a crackdown that would make past crackdowns look like costume parties.
A relevant quote:
The internal vulnerabilities of Iran's ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers. Multilateralism is a must if we want this to happen, because Europe, Russia, Japan, and others maintain good relations with Iran's business sector, the kind necessary in order to provide socioeconomic development assistance. If the Revolutionary Guard and the president block these gestures then "it is on their heads," and we will likely see them increasingly marginalized.
One can only imagine the Revolutionary Guard's response were they to be "marginalized."
But, the idea that we could isolate the religious leadership, Iranian President Imajihadi (or whatever his name is), and the Revolutionary Guard, and that they would stand by and let it happen, is naive on a monumental scale. I imagine that the moment we started giving economic support to the Iranian people, and they responded positively to our gestures, there would be a crackdown that would make past crackdowns look like costume parties.
A relevant quote:
The internal vulnerabilities of Iran's ruling circles make this a perfect time to extend an olive branch to the people of Iran with a diplomatic initiative that involves economic incentives and development opportunities for the poor, the middle class, and the reformers. Multilateralism is a must if we want this to happen, because Europe, Russia, Japan, and others maintain good relations with Iran's business sector, the kind necessary in order to provide socioeconomic development assistance. If the Revolutionary Guard and the president block these gestures then "it is on their heads," and we will likely see them increasingly marginalized.
One can only imagine the Revolutionary Guard's response were they to be "marginalized."
Digg Report
Digg Report: Today's #1 Digg, at 4620 Diggs, is a link to a story about a guy who lost a job because he gave too good of an answer to a question. Personally, I think it's an urban legend, and it's a big yawner no matter which.
More on Russia's Political Mental Institutions
Here's another account of Russia's politically-motivated asylum commitments. I think the story speaks for itself:
Larisa Arap has just emerged from a 46-day imprisonment in two Russian psychiatric hospitals. Pills were forced down her throat and she received injection after injection. She doesn't know what medications they were, or whether they will cause permanent damage.
"I don't feel very well, but I have a fighting spirit," Mrs Arap said yesterday, adding that sometimes she was so drugged she could barely walk or speak[.]
She was forcibly interned, not for health reasons, but over her association with the opposition group led by former chess star Garry Kasparov, the United Civil Front. Her arrest stemmed from the publication of an article entitled "Madhouse," exposing the ghoulish practices of a Russian psychiatric hospital in the Murmansk edition of his organisation's newspaper, Dissenters' March.
As far as typical methods:
Taken to a mental ward, Mrs Arap noted that many of its occupants seemed perfectly sane. "I was surprised that among them were lots of normal people," she wrote in "Madhouse". "But how they [staff] communicated with them: They shouted, they beat them up, they put them on drips, after which people became like zombies, they raped them, carried them off in the night and returned them in the morning, tormented."
One woman was threatened with the removal of organs, Mrs Arap said. Children were told that if they didn't give massages to medics they'd receive electro-shock therapy.
Read the whole thing. It says alot about where Russia's heading.
Larisa Arap has just emerged from a 46-day imprisonment in two Russian psychiatric hospitals. Pills were forced down her throat and she received injection after injection. She doesn't know what medications they were, or whether they will cause permanent damage.
"I don't feel very well, but I have a fighting spirit," Mrs Arap said yesterday, adding that sometimes she was so drugged she could barely walk or speak[.]
She was forcibly interned, not for health reasons, but over her association with the opposition group led by former chess star Garry Kasparov, the United Civil Front. Her arrest stemmed from the publication of an article entitled "Madhouse," exposing the ghoulish practices of a Russian psychiatric hospital in the Murmansk edition of his organisation's newspaper, Dissenters' March.
As far as typical methods:
Taken to a mental ward, Mrs Arap noted that many of its occupants seemed perfectly sane. "I was surprised that among them were lots of normal people," she wrote in "Madhouse". "But how they [staff] communicated with them: They shouted, they beat them up, they put them on drips, after which people became like zombies, they raped them, carried them off in the night and returned them in the morning, tormented."
One woman was threatened with the removal of organs, Mrs Arap said. Children were told that if they didn't give massages to medics they'd receive electro-shock therapy.
Read the whole thing. It says alot about where Russia's heading.
Wednesday, August 22, 2007
Light Blogging Today
Another light blogging day, as I take care of some personal matters. Likely be some blogging tomorrow.
MEMRI Provides Essay by Liberal Iraq Kurd on Attack on Yazida Community
Here's a piece from MEMRI providing an essay by an Iraqi Kurd, Hussein Sinjari, on the horrendous attack on the Yazidi community and on minorities in the Middle East in general. When one considers this particular attack, no sane, rational person can consider the "insurgency" in Iraq as anything but an effort to destory any semblence of freedom in that country and replace it with Islamic totalitarianism. And, none can consider that those who support such a regime would have any reason or intention to stop at Iraq.
Some quotes:
"The squalid terrorism that targeted the Yazidis in the Sinjar region is an indication of the great weakness in the political will of the Kurdish leadership. Before the latest terror attack… there were many indications that the terror cells were markedly stepping up their activities in this region and were targeting the Yazidis in particular and the Kurds in general…
"In Kurdistan, and in… Kirkuk, Sinjar, and Khanaqin, the vile terrorists are trying to reserve front-row seats in Paradise, which is becoming more crowded day by day with scum, murderers, and conscienceless, malicious fanatics. This has reached the point where it will be perplexingly [difficult] for the management of Paradise, in this state of affairs, to provide the overwhelming numbers of female angels and boy-servants to these barbaric criminals who are so hungry and thirsty for sex…
"They want to buy a ticket to Paradise with the blood and agony of innocents. What teachings, of what belief system - what verses permit all of this killing, destruction, and hellfire, with all its agony? The obscurantist suicide bombers, who hate life, hope, beauty, love, happiness, construction, and development in this life, hate those 'others' who do not resemble them in their religion, habits, customs, ways of thinking, ways of worship, and in their robes and beards.
"By targeting the Yazidis, the terrorists are saying loud and clear - and this is the correct interpretation of their criminal activities in the Kurdish regions that the Saddam dictatorship tried to Arabize and Ba'thize and separate from Kurdistan - that they have come [to carry out] raids and conquests, drawing their poison-tipped swords…"
There's so much more to quote, but I don't want to overdo it. Read the entire piece if you want to understant what the "insurgency" in Iraq is really about. If you come away still thinking it's about America's "occuption," then you must simply want to believe it--because the evidence certainly doesn't back you up.
Some quotes:
"The squalid terrorism that targeted the Yazidis in the Sinjar region is an indication of the great weakness in the political will of the Kurdish leadership. Before the latest terror attack… there were many indications that the terror cells were markedly stepping up their activities in this region and were targeting the Yazidis in particular and the Kurds in general…
"In Kurdistan, and in… Kirkuk, Sinjar, and Khanaqin, the vile terrorists are trying to reserve front-row seats in Paradise, which is becoming more crowded day by day with scum, murderers, and conscienceless, malicious fanatics. This has reached the point where it will be perplexingly [difficult] for the management of Paradise, in this state of affairs, to provide the overwhelming numbers of female angels and boy-servants to these barbaric criminals who are so hungry and thirsty for sex…
"They want to buy a ticket to Paradise with the blood and agony of innocents. What teachings, of what belief system - what verses permit all of this killing, destruction, and hellfire, with all its agony? The obscurantist suicide bombers, who hate life, hope, beauty, love, happiness, construction, and development in this life, hate those 'others' who do not resemble them in their religion, habits, customs, ways of thinking, ways of worship, and in their robes and beards.
"By targeting the Yazidis, the terrorists are saying loud and clear - and this is the correct interpretation of their criminal activities in the Kurdish regions that the Saddam dictatorship tried to Arabize and Ba'thize and separate from Kurdistan - that they have come [to carry out] raids and conquests, drawing their poison-tipped swords…"
There's so much more to quote, but I don't want to overdo it. Read the entire piece if you want to understant what the "insurgency" in Iraq is really about. If you come away still thinking it's about America's "occuption," then you must simply want to believe it--because the evidence certainly doesn't back you up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
