Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Some people might be fooled by the way the Administration has attempted to shift the blame for the missing-WMD debacle to the intelligence community. In that regard, this passage, discussing Kennedy and the CIA's efforts to kill Castro, is instructive:

• If we press the question it is not in order to judge Kennedy but because it tells us two things about the CIA, true about other intelligence services as well, which are fundamental to understanding the agency's role in American politics.
  
  The first is that the CIA works for the president. The second is that the CIA attempts to keep its covert actions secret. When they become known, effort is made to ensure they cannot be attributed to the United States. When the United States is obviously the author, the CIA protects the president by taking the blame. This is what is meant by "plausible deniability." But the concept has a flaw. When the CIA has really done something awful on its own, the responding fury of the office of the president is unmistakable and unrestrained. But when the agency is only falling on its sword in time-honored fashion, then the president's men treat the alleged excess with great gentleness, in the manner of McNamara saying with the sweet candor of a boy next to an empty cookie jar, "I just can't understand how it could have happened."

Thomas Powers, Intelligence Wars at 54-55.

Let's just say that what we are seeing lately from the Bushies is something less than unmistakable and unrestrained fury.

[Not Me]

The author of this editorial works here. Here is his take on things published on The Nation's website:

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Mar-2...EDITOR/op3.asp

A bit easier to read versions are here:

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/03/14/guest1.htm
http://icssa.org/Lewis.htm

[Not Me]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E7583,00.html

But Hussein Massawi, former leader of Hezbollah, summed it up very pithily: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you." You can be pro-America (Spain, Australia) or anti-America (France, Canada), but if you broke into the head cave in the Hindu Kush and checked out the hit list you'd be on it either way.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2650599

Would you say 1 in 10 UK muslims are extremist muslims? Or would you say that at least some of those are moderates?

And 1 in 10 is just the number that were willing to admit they thought that to a pollster. I bet the real number who think that is much higher.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Not Me
The author of this editorial works here. Here is his take on things published on The Nation's website:

http://www.nation.com.pk/daily/Mar-2...EDITOR/op3.asp

A bit easier to read versions are here:

http://www.pakistantimes.net/2004/03/14/guest1.htm
http://icssa.org/Lewis.htm

I wasted several minutes of my life clicking through these multiple links of the same fucking article as published in different Pakistani news sources, wondering what passages such as this ....

The Zionist inspired Lewis-doctrine of calling for a U.S. military invasion to reform Muslims has helped define the bloodiest shift in U.S. foreign policy in 50 years. The occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan is the initial phase of this doctrine in operation. It means the Zionists are more than half way through their agenda of replacing the US as a Ruling State.

... had to do with what I thought the argument you were having with Ty was about: whether moderate Muslims in Spain were happy about AQ's bombing.

It took a moment, but I realized that this, together with your other half-dozen posts in the past hour, is simply making the argument that ALL muslims must think this way, and that for us to consider anything to the contrary is "naive."

I think:

* You were right about AQ's political prognosticating abilities. Somewhere in the back room of an Internet cafe in Karachi, there's a greaseboard dedicated to Phase IV, part 5, describing you. Whether that description includes mention of a tank top and breast implants matters little, though (come to think of it) from their impressions of Americans via the web and CNN, that's probably there too.

* It's a fun academic exercise, but take care -- it's a small slip from here to allegations of camel-schtupping, and last time it didn't end well.

Gattigap

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Gattigap
* You were right about AQ's political prognosticating abilities. Somewhere in the back room of an Internet cafe in Karachi, there's a greaseboard dedicated to Phase IV, part 5, describing you. Whether that description includes mention of a tank top and breast implants matters little, though (come to think of it) from their impressions of Americans via the web and CNN, that's probably there too.

Yes on tank top (really more of a sleeveless boat-neck) and no on implants. Assuming the greaseboard I was reading in Marin is timely updated. The syncing technology we use is very 1996.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Gattigap
* It's a fun academic exercise, but take care -- it's a small slip from here to allegations of camel-schtupping, and last time it didn't end well.

A song that nomadic arabs used to sing to their camels:

"Oh, Camel, my love, my beauty, go on quickly and the prettiest girls of the village shall come out to meet you. Go on, and when you kneel, the maidens will feed you with fresh sugar-canes and stroke you with their soft hands."

Rebel Heart - The Scandalous Life of Jane Digby by Mary Lovell

Would this be more appropriate on the FB?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I love it that people who purport to understand the way that Al Qaeda thinks are calling other people irrational. Carry on.

Between this, and analyses of horses and streams, all I can guess is that you are claiming that AQ is winning.

This seems to be an irrational thought.

(Oh, wait, yeah, quagmire.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Well, I for one am not just being argumentative. So what is your point? That the Socialists, having won the election based on (in some people's view) their opposition to the country's support of the US in Iraq, will then pursue a set of policies designed to....what, exactly? Tax breaks for terrorists? Calling off the dogs on police investigations of Muslim extremists in Spain?

Are you doing the "Ty intentionally missing the obvious point" thing, too?

The Socialists, having won the election, are out of Bush's coalition, are withdrawing their soldiers, are unaligning with us and aligning with Old Europe . . .

I mean, sarcasm is fun as a humorous thing, but people are going to start drawing conclusions about your intellect here.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap what I thought the argument you were having with Ty was about: whether moderate Muslims in Spain were happy about AQ's bombing.

I wasn't specifically talking about muslims in spain. I was talking about muslims in general, and Arab muslims living in the middle east in particular.

My point is that lots of so called moderate muslims support AQ's agenda. Although they don't often outright say they do, they don't condemn it and they are freaking paranoid nuts about Israel. The views espoused in that article are views held by many so called moderate Arab muslims. They think the jews are out to take over the world. It is not just the Islamic extremists.

What about the 1 in 10 UK muslims that are OK with AQ strikes against the US? Those are just the ones who were willing to admit it to a pollster.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Gattigap
* It's a fun academic exercise, but take care -- it's a small slip from here to allegations of camel-schtupping, and last time it didn't end well.

Do you think no shepard has ever schtupped a sheep? A cowboy a cow? . . .

I even bet you can find pictures of it on the internet.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
Would you say 1 in 10 UK muslims are extremist muslims? Or would you say that at least some of those are moderates?

And 1 in 10 is just the number that were willing to admit they thought that to a pollster. I bet the real number who think that is much higher.

God You Are A Fucking Troll!

A view held by only 10% of a group is, almost by definition, not a mainstream or moderate viewpoint among that group. Given that many/most of Britain's Muslims come from Commonwealth nations (esp. Pakistan and/or India) with fairly radical Muslim populations, the number you cite is hardly surprising.

In fact, when you first put it up, I wondered why, because I thought that you couldn't possibly believe that it helped your point. Christ.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Not Me
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...5E7583,00.html

Steyn's a good read and all -- but you misuse the quote. I read the interview that the Mussawi quote came from, and he's talking about the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, not al Qaeda. The point may be the same, but don't pretend that Hezbollah was threatening the U.S. or Europe. They've basically never gone after targets outside the region and outside that conflict.

S_A_M

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
A view held by only 10% of a group is, almost by definition, not a mainstream or moderate viewpoint among that group

What a dumbass you are. The fact that a view is extreme or moderate isn't determined simply by the number of people who believe it.

If 90% of UK muslims supported AQ's actions on 9/11, would that make them moderates? Of course not.

Are you not shocked that 10% of muslims living in the UK (note - not in the middle east), agree with AQ terrorist attacks on the US? That is in a fucking prosperous democratic society no where near the Israeli palestinian conflict that they think that. And those were the one's willing to admit that to a stranger on the telephone.

I know a far larger number think that in the middle east.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
They've basically never gone after targets outside the region and outside that conflict.

Uh, no:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/arti...21/71007.shtml
http://www.singapore-window.org/sw02/020609a2.htm

And while the Khobar towers may have been in that region, what did those military housing units have to do with Israel? That was a US base to protect the Saudis from Iraq.