← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · il ragno
Thread ID: 19307 | Posts: 24 | Started: 2005-07-27
2005-07-27 15:11 | User Profile
[FONT=Palatino Linotype][B]You Call This a War? [/B] [I]July 12, 2005[/I]
The London terror bombings make one thing clear: the United States and the United Kingdom are never going to win the “war on terrorism.” The reason is simple: it isn’t really a war. And nobody can win or lose it.
We should stop talking about it as if it were a war. It’s a clash of wills. The enemy is obscure, but can’t be fought or defeated as if he were a state. He has no vital secrets or single mastermind that can be found by, say, taking, questioning, and torturing captives.
“He,” in fact, is a loose federation, not a centralized power. His numbers aren’t huge, but he has millions of sympathizers who share his hatred of us. He has no ambition to conquer us or destroy our freedoms; such talk is foolish. “Democracy,” if that’s what you want to call it, isn’t at stake. The enemy merely wants to harass and shock us until we stop irritating him.
And our government has no intention of doing that. It will keep doing what it does, and he will keep retaliating. This will go on indefinitely, since neither side can force the other to do what it wants. What costs can random acts of terrorism against a few civilians impose on the politicians who make the decisions? Don’t such acts in fact reward and encourage them?
What incentive could cause President Bush to change his course? Every new terrorist act fortifies his determination not to change. Nothing he does gives the enemy any reason to change, either. He even profits by the stalemate. From his point of view, the Iraq war isn’t futile.
For a time it appeared that Prime Minister Tony Blair might suffer political damage for supporting the war. But he survived his last election easily, winning by a larger margin than Bush did last November.
Does Bush feel the same frustration most of us feel? Somewhat, probably; but not enough to make him reconsider. He is a patient, stubborn man, but not the sort of creative thinker whose mentality is disturbed when reality doesn’t yield to his will. “What am I doing wrong?” isn’t the kind of question he asks himself.
Because he thinks of himself as engaged in war, he is content with old “lessons” of war he learned as a youth. For him this is World War II all over again, and his role is to act like the “heroes” of that war, Roosevelt and Churchill.
The same is probably true, more or less, of the enemy. He can wait. If his occasional strikes kill innocent people and cause an uproar, he has his reward; his conscience has long since ceased to bother him. He isn’t trying to “convert” Bush, and he no longer cares, if he ever really did, whether the Western public changes either.
Both sides are adapting to a new way of life, in which neither victory nor defeat is a prospect. Each has made its arrangements and alliances; there is no turning back. The rest of us may as well come to terms with it, since, as James Burnham used to say, when there’s no solution, there’s no problem. This is just the way we’re going to live from now on.
Expensive “security” measures, most of them useless, will be a permanent feature of our lives and economies, like the huge military budgets of the Cold War. We are still paying hundreds of billions in taxes for weapons systems we never needed; more to the point, we pay most of the money for military salaries and pensions that have become an ineradicable part of modern existence, like a second welfare state.
Do you get a regular check from the government? If not, you may be missing the point of the whole thing. Government programs ostensibly begin with the purpose of “protecting” us from something — poverty, old age, deadly enemies, carcinogens in the water and air. But our “protectors” keep on getting paid long after any danger has passed.
What starts as a means eventually becomes an end in itself. What we thought was only a specific emergency measure turns out to be a whole way of life. Some very brainy people never catch on to this.
Joseph Sobran [/FONT]
2005-07-27 16:01 | User Profile
Good one from Joe, thanks IR. My only disagreement with his "this is just the way weââ¬â¢re going to live from now on" thingy is that I don't think the current arrangement of things is going to stay the same way for too much longer.
Something, somewhere is going to snap and things are going to change for sure....for better or worse, we'll have to see.
2005-07-27 16:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=xmetalhead]Something, somewhere is going to snap and things are going to change for sure....for better or worse, we'll have to see.[/QUOTE]
Agreed, Xmetal. This is an unstable situation, and something's going to give.
2005-07-27 16:24 | User Profile
We might be able to win a "war" against one country but not agaisnt the world.
Only when the US learn how to make friends instead of enemys will there be peace ,however I no longer see that possibilitie ahead as long as the "neo-cons" are in command of the US government.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" is no longer what counts but who is holding the big stick does.
2005-07-27 18:34 | User Profile
This reminds me of Terry Gilliam's wonderful but disturbing movie, Brazil.
Our "perpetual war for perpetual peace" against faceless "terrorists" wherein innocent people run afoul of "information retreaval" and everyone works for giant bureaucracies, is looking more and more like the society in Brazil.
2005-07-27 20:59 | User Profile
Agreed, Xmetal. This is an unstable situation, and something's going to give.
Bear in mind people said that re the Cold War circa 1950, and that stalemate took nearly 40 years to finally peter out.
2005-07-27 22:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Bear in mind people said that re the Cold War circa 1950, and that stalemate took nearly 40 years to finally peter out.[/QUOTE] Plus, there is no enemy state that could ever collapse to signal the end of the "war".
These "terrorist" movements evolve and mutate and never stay still; if the War Party simply wants to keep the pork barrells rolling, they can easily keep the "war on terror" going for a century or more.
Remember how crestfallen the neocons were when the Berlin Wall came down. You could read between the lines of their position papers: "how are we going to justify our think tank sinecures now, with no Evil Empire to fight?"
They went looking for the "perfect" enemy and found it: an enemy that can neither defeat us, nor be defeated. Perfect for waging a "perpetual war for perpetual peace".
2005-07-27 22:22 | User Profile
[QUOTE=il ragno]Bear in mind people said that re the Cold War circa 1950, and that stalemate took nearly 40 years to finally peter out.[/QUOTE]
In those days it was a "if" but now is a "when".
2005-07-28 17:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Ponce]We might be able to win a "war" against one country but not agaisnt the world.
Only when the US learn how to make friends instead of enemys will there be peace ,however I no longer see that possibilitie ahead as long as the "neo-cons" are in command of the US government.
"Walk softly and carry a big stick" is no longer what counts but who is holding the big stick does.[/QUOTE]
Yes, we could conquer most of the world, and we definitely could conquer the Islamic Empire. Sadly, we have leaders such as Bush and Blair, the Bobsey twins who are spineless.
Gone are the leaders with nerve. :hitler:
Although, this bin Laden does seem to be cut from the same mold.
2005-07-29 03:22 | User Profile
The "O Merciful Allah, here I come!" dune coons could effect the change they seek if they would target the prominent kike shit-stirrers and goy political whores responsible for the policies they rightfully hate, rather than innocent "Crusader" civilians.
Of course, that would take brains as well as suicide jockey audacity, so it probably won't happen.
2005-07-29 03:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]The "O Merciful Allah, here I come!" dune coons could effect the change they seek if they would target the prominent kike shit-stirrers and goy political whores responsible for the policies they rightfully hate, rather than innocent "Crusader" civilians.
Of course, that would take brains as well as suicide jockey audacity, so it probably won't happen.[/QUOTE]Whites don't seem to be capable of taking any kind of intelligent action regarding these very same kike/goy elite parasites, either, so who are the stupid ones, the kamikaze camel jockeys who strike out at random native sheeple, or the actual natives who are too stupid to figure out who is actually running their own countries?
After all, the camel jockeys don't really care what we think of them. They merely want to hurt us bad enough that we'll leave them alone, and/or annoy us so badly that we'll do something really stupid in the middle east (like invade Iraq, or worse!) such that the existing regimes will be destabilized and the most religiously extreme camel jockeys will be able to seize power.
They may be stupid, but the camel jockeys at least have a game plan and are sticking to it. That's more than can be said for the white sheeple.
2005-07-29 04:14 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Whites don't seem to be capable of taking any kind of intelligent action regarding these very same kike/goy elite parasites, either, so who are the stupid ones, the kamikaze camel jockeys who strike out at random native sheeple, or the actual natives who are too stupid to figure out who is actually running their own countries?
After all, the camel jockeys don't really care what we think of them. They merely want to hurt us bad enough that we'll leave them alone, and/or annoy us so badly that we'll do something really stupid in the middle east (like invade Iraq, or worse!) such that the existing regimes will be destabilized and the most religiously extreme camel jockeys will be able to seize power.
They may be stupid, but the camel jockeys at least have a game plan and are sticking to it. That's more than can be said for the white sheeple.[/QUOTE]Very true statements, it is a bitter pill to swallow but most Whites need to know that the Democrats have been Commies for decades. On the other side, you've got the Republicans who retreat on every single issue imaginable except for GAY MARRIAGE. The Republican masses are basically voting for that ONE ISSUE each election. On nothing else are the Republicans serious about fixing: Bush and his NeoCon friends have no plans to overturn Roe Vs. Wade, they "talk" about it occassionally just to keep the Christian Coalition suckers excited!
With the current non-stop immigration of non-whites into America, does it really matter if our future Hispanic/Mulatto great-grandsons are Gays marrying each other? **They won't be White anyway, so what difference does it make? **
2005-07-29 07:34 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]They may be stupid, but the camel jockeys at least have a game plan and are sticking to it. That's more than can be said for the white sheeple.[/QUOTE]
Maybe the so-called white sheeple just don't agree with what you think their game plan should be.
2005-07-29 11:48 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Maybe the so-called white sheeple just don't agree with what you think their game plan should be.[/QUOTE] The [I]sheeple [/I] rely on public education to prepare their kids for the future, TV for their world outlook, and devotion to their elected officials to fix any problems that arise. TV has already informed them that straying from their present view on the world is Conspiracy Theory territory and that label is for nuthouse applicants. In other words, the sheeple are clueless.
2005-07-29 12:53 | User Profile
[QUOTE=N.B. Forrest]The "O Merciful Allah, here I come!" dune coons could effect the change they seek if they would target the prominent kike shit-stirrers and goy political whores responsible for the policies they rightfully hate, rather than innocent "Crusader" civilians.
Of course, that would take brains as well as suicide jockey audacity, so it probably won't happen.[/QUOTE]Agreed, NBF. The Islamic extremists are as brave as people can be, but their choice of targets is really stupid, pointless, and (we Westerners would say) wrong.
It's true that a lot more innocent Muslims have been killed by Westerners than the reverse. That still doesn't make it smart for the Muslim militants to target innocent people.
I'm not going to name names on this board, but imagine if certain high-profile media figures or politicians were targeted by the Muslims instead of ordinary people. The former would be easy targets; the latter, much harder. But nearly anyone can be taken out by a person who's willing to give his life to do so -- maybe not by suicide bomb, but certainly by sniper rifle.
If the Muslim extremists adopted that MO, then they'd make a hell of a lot more of a dent in things. And I wouldn't be surprised if a substantial proportion of the US sheeple secretly approved of each hit: "Oh good, they knocked off a Democrat!" or "Oh good, they got a Republican!"
2005-07-29 13:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Whites don't seem to be capable of taking any kind of intelligent action regarding these very same kike/goy elite parasites, either, so who are the stupid ones, the kamikaze camel jockeys who strike out at random native sheeple, or the actual natives who are too stupid to figure out who is actually running their own countries?
After all, the camel jockeys don't really care what we think of them. They merely want to hurt us bad enough that we'll leave them alone, and/or annoy us so badly that we'll do something really stupid in the middle east (like invade Iraq, or worse!) such that the existing regimes will be destabilized and the most religiously extreme camel jockeys will be able to seize power.
They may be stupid, but the camel jockeys at least have a game plan and are sticking to it. That's more than can be said for the white sheeple.[/QUOTE]Sadly, what you say here is also true. The Muslims extremists are brave but generally rather stupid; the white sheeple tend to be even stupider. Whites don't have a "game plan" precisely because they don't even know a game is being played, and they're still sitting in the locker room.
What's worse, the prevailing political sentiments in the US today will likely tend to steer people away from the truth about the Jews and their influence on US policy. After all, that truth is basically just what Osama Bin Laden and the other "Jihad Joes" are saying it is! How many people in America today have the courage to admit that even to themselves, let alone to their friends and neighbors? It's much easier to agree with Bush that they "hate us for our freedom" and cheer on "our brave troops" who are "fighting for our freedom" against Iraqis (who would otherwise surely enslave us all :rolleyes: ).
2005-07-29 14:28 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler]Sadly, what you say here is also true. The Muslims extremists are brave but generally rather stupid; the white sheeple tend to be even stupider. Whites don't have a "game plan" precisely because they don't even know a game is being played, and they're still sitting in the locker room.
What's worse, the prevailing political sentiments in the US today will likely tend to steer people away from the truth about the Jews and their influence on US policy. After all, that truth is basically just what Osama Bin Laden and the other "Jihad Joes" are saying it is! How many people in America today have the courage to admit that even to themselves, let alone to their friends and neighbors? It's much easier to agree with Bush that they "hate us for our freedom" and cheer on "our brave troops" who are "fighting for our freedom" against Iraqis (who would otherwise surely enslave us all :rolleyes: ).[/QUOTE]You are correct, this bizarre idea that if your "enemy" has a certain idea it must be the WRONG one because they aren't YOU. The White lemming says, "Arabs believe that Jews control the world so if Arabs think it, it must be false, therefore Jews don't control the world!" "Arabs are killing us so whatever they say is automatically incorrect!"....[size=3]so everyone who isn't killing you has the right ideas?? HUH??? Not a bit of this warped thinking makes any sense at all.[/size]
2005-07-29 18:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Cracker of the Whip]In other words, the sheeple are clueless.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I would only say two things in response: 1) the bottom line is sheeple or not, they're still 'our' people, even if seemingly misguided or misinformed, and 2) disdaining folks and calling them clueless is probably not the best way to convert them to your way of thinking.
To state that raghead sand nigras are less stupid or somehow more virtuous than everyday Americans is offensive to me. If not for American technology and know-how, most of the Arab populace would still be herding camels and sleeping in tents.
It must be made very clear. Just because muslims are the enemy of jews, does not make them any friends of ours. We need to fight on both sides.
2005-07-30 00:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Well, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. I would only say two things in response: 1) the bottom line is sheeple or not, they're still 'our' people, even if seemingly misguided or misinformed, and 2) disdaining folks and calling them clueless is probably not the best way to convert them to your way of thinking. Who here is denying that the white sheeple are our people?
Who here really really believes that our frank discussion of the naked truth on this insignificant internet forum will in any way either convert or drive away the white sheeple? They don't care what we say on anonymous internet forums. They're too busy watching Fox News.
If we can't speak the truth about them even in an anonymous internet forum, for fear somehow that we might offend them, then, dammit, we might just as well give up now.
To state that raghead sand nigras are less stupid or somehow more virtuous than everyday Americans is offensive to me. No one mentioned virtue. As to stupidity, the evidence says what the evidence says. We should not shrink from acknowledging the truth, no matter how much it hurts. > If not for American technology and know-how, most of the Arab populace would still be herding camels and sleeping in tents. Even if true, totally irrelevent. If you have not noticed, China is rapidly passing us up economically. So soon even this jingoistic, "we are better than them because of our technology" mantra won't fly anymore.
It must be made very clear. Just because muslims are the enemy of jews, does not make them any friends of ours. We need to fight on both sides.[/QUOTE]You are attempting to combat a point of view which doesn't exist in this thread. Who here claimed that muslims were our friends? Why this persistent need to refute a point of view that does not logically follow from anything anyone else has said? At least wait for a genuine Islamophile to put in a word here before attempting to "refute" him. Otherwise people are bound to think you are attempting to put words in their mouths.
2005-07-30 00:51 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Maybe the so-called white sheeple just don't agree with what you think their game plan should be.[/QUOTE]As Cracker of the Whip noted, the white sheeple are controlled and manipulated by mass media, public education, and other forms of mental manipulation.
So pointing out that the white sheeple "think different" from me is rather beside the point, is it not? Else why are we calling them sheeple?
2005-07-30 00:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=OttoR]Very true statements, it is a bitter pill to swallow Here's the heart of the matter: if we want to be honest about our situation and do something constructive about it, we need to admit the truth no matter how bitter. There's still too much denial of basic reality going on out there for us to even begin thinking about a game plan, much less putting one into action.
2005-07-30 01:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Angler] I'm not going to name names on this board, but imagine if certain high-profile media figures or politicians were targeted by the Muslims instead of ordinary people. The former would be easy targets; the latter, much harder. But nearly anyone can be taken out by a person who's willing to give his life to do so -- maybe not by suicide bomb, but certainly by sniper rifle. [/QUOTE]While certainly there is plenty of stupidity to go around on the Muslim side of things, you have to put yourselves in their shoes to understand their choice of targets. We fantasize about annoying but powerful people we would like to see "go away", but the Islamicist fanatics have a different agenda.
It's all about seizing power in their own lands. They don't care about the fate of Moslem populations in the West (at least, not while they still don't have control over their own homelands), so they don't care how their actions alienate these populations in the West (which long term is a good thing for us).
If they started killing prominent, ummm, supporters of the "war on terror" in the USA, for instance, we'd quietly think "serves 'em right" but that's not the Islamicist goal, to make us happy and to discredit the "war on terror". They like the "war on terror" because it polarizes everything, which helps destabilize existing Arab regimes.
So they deliberately target the innocent, going for "maximum outrage". This enourages us to respond in kind, get more bogged down in the middle east, and further numbers the days of the destabilized and alienated Arab regimes.
Killing a few eggheads, who most of the sheeple have never heard of, would not have this affect.
So the Islamocrazies have a definite method to their madness. It's not our method; it is not what we would do, but it has a logic and a rationale, once you understand what it is they are trying to do.
2005-07-30 02:04 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]While certainly there is plenty of stupidity to go around on the Muslim side of things, you have to put yourselves in their shoes to understand their choice of targets. We fantasize about annoying but powerful people we would like to see "go away", but the Islamicist fanatics have a different agenda.
It's all about seizing power in their own lands. They don't care about the fate of Moslem populations in the West (at least, not while they still don't have control over their own homelands), so they don't care how their actions alienate these populations in the West (which long term is a good thing for us).
If they started killing prominent, ummm, supporters of the "war on terror" in the USA, for instance, we'd quietly think "serves 'em right" but that's not the Islamicist goal, to make us happy and to discredit the "war on terror". They like the "war on terror" because it polarizes everything, which helps destabilize existing Arab regimes.
So they deliberately target the innocent, going for "maximum outrage". This enourages us to respond in kind, get more bogged down in the middle east, and further numbers the days of the destabilized and alienated Arab regimes.
Killing a few eggheads, who most of the sheeple have never heard of, would not have this affect.
So the Islamocrazies have a definite method to their madness. It's not our method; it is not what we would do, but it has a logic and a rationale, once you understand what it is they are trying to do.[/QUOTE] Interesting points, grep14w. You just might be right about their true motives. It seems hard to say.
2005-07-30 03:07 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]Here's the heart of the matter: if we want to be honest about our situation and do something constructive about it, we need to admit the truth no matter how bitter. There's still too much denial of basic reality going on out there for us to even begin thinking about a game plan, much less putting one into action.[/QUOTE]Yes, absolute denial of reality and total lack of awareness. I have met so many Republicans who still somehow perceive that it is a White party representing White interests, but you start to wonder what makes them think that? Bush appoints Blacks and Mexicans to top positions of power, won't protect the southern border, and makes speeches about how beautiful it is that 'African-American' children are attending the same schools as White children! And yet Whites still vote Republican with total confidence and say, "Oh yeah, Republicans are for the Whites, Democrats are for the Blacks." :angry: