September 29, 2008

The War Won't End in Afghanistan

Senator Barack Obama said something at the presidential debate last week that almost perfectly encapsulates the difference between his foreign policy and his opponent’s: “Secretary of Defense Robert Gates himself acknowledges the war on terrorism started in Afghanistan and it needs to end there.” I don’t know if Obama paraphrased Gates correctly, but if so, they’re both wrong.

If Afghanistan were miraculously transformed into the Switzerland of Central Asia, every last one of the Middle East’s rogues gallery of terrorist groups would still exist. The ideology that spawned them would endure. Their grievances, such as they are, would not be salved. The political culture that produced them, and continues to produce more just like them, would hardly be scathed. Al Qaedism is the most radical wing of an extreme movement which was born in the Middle East and exists now in many parts of the world. Afghanistan is not the root or the source.

Naturally the war against them began in Afghanistan. Plans for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States were hatched in Afghanistan. But the temporary location of the plotters of that strike means little in the wide view of a long struggle. Osama bin Laden and his leadership just as easily could have planned the attacks from Saudi Arabia before they were exiled, or from their refuge in Sudan in the mid 1990s. Theoretically they could have even planned the attacks from an off-the-radar “safe house” in a place like France or even Nebraska had they managed to sneak themselves in. The physical location of the planning headquarters wasn’t irrelevant, but in the long run the ideology that motivates them is what must be defeated. Perhaps the point would be more obvious if the attacks were in fact planned in a place like France instead of a failed state like Afghanistan.

Hardly anyone wants to think about the monumental size of this task or how long it will take. The illusion that the United States just needs to win in Afghanistan and everything will be fine is comforting, to be sure, but it is an illusion. Winning the war in Iraq won’t be enough either, nor will permanently preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. The war may end somewhere with American troops on the ground, or, like the Cold War, it might not. No one can possibly foresee what event will actually put a stop to this war in the end. It is distant and unknowable. The world will change before we can even imagine what the final chapter might look like.

Most of the September 11 hijackers were Saudis. All were Arabs. None hailed from Afghanistan. This is not coincidental. Al Qaeda’s politics are a product of the Arab world, specifically of the radical and totalitarian Wahhabi sect of Islam founded in the 18th Century in Saudi Arabia by the fanatical Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab. He thought the medieval interpretations of Islam even on the backward Arabian peninsula were too liberal and lenient. His most extreme followers cannot even peacefully coexist with mainstream Sunni Muslims, let alone Shia Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, secularists, feminists, gays, or anyone else. Their global jihad is a war against the entire human race in all its diversity and plurality.

Read the rest in COMMENTARY Magazine.

Posted by Michael J. Totten at September 29, 2008 2:51 PM
Comments

Rome warred with the Jews for more than a century before levelling the Temple Mount, exiling the Jews from Jerusalem and re-naming the province of Judea Palestina (after the Philistines). Perhaps the war will begin to end with the destruction of a similar symbolic site. Too bad it wasn't done September 12th. But you're right. The ideology behind 9/11 is not centred in any one place. It is portable and can be seen operating in London, Toronto, Hamburg as well as in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Iran. But there was nothing wrong with the Bush idea of hitting all nations that gave aid and comfort to the enemy. The execution was appalling but it appears to be getting better. Unfortunately time is running out. North Korea's response to the economic crisis was to turn off the cameras at the nuclear plant in Pyongyang. Putin's was Georgia, then flying off to sell arms to Venezuela. Worse still, Americans are convinced that the war has something to do with the economic crisis.

Many thanks for your excellent blog.

Posted by: AbuNudnik Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 8:11 PM

I don't really know what Obama means when he says the the war on terrorism begins and ends in Afghanistan but I'm quite sure he doesn't plan to chase terrorists down in every town and hamlet in Europe or elsewhere.

It seems most likely that he will adopt the Clinton approach of treating terrorism as a law enforcement problem and will deal with terror sponsoring states by using financial and other incentives in the hope that he can buy them off. Golan to the Syrians, freer hand for Iran in Iraq, etc.

If he is elected President Obama only needs to hope that one thing doesn't happen, another attack on US soil. Beyond that I don't think it will matter what he does as long as the bad things happen somewhere else. In any event, he is far too steeped in multicultural thinking to see the struggle in the philosophical or ideological terms you address in this piece.

Posted by: Bennett Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 9:23 PM

Perhaps the war will begin to end with the destruction of a similar symbolic site. Too bad it wasn't done September 12th.

Caesar si viveret, ad remum dareris.

One should remember that the Romans eventually fell to the sword. If and when we abandon the humanist principles of our culture in the way that you fantasize above, there won't be much reason to think we're much different than the sick bastards who planned and executed 9/11.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 9:50 PM

Abu Nudnik: Perhaps the war will begin to end with the destruction of a similar symbolic site.

We don't fight that way. (See General Petraeus.) It is not going to happen.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 10:08 PM

spot on Michael. However people need to be 'assured' that the government is tackling All Qaeda and since they were in Afghanistan, it makes sense to go there.

Lastly, while they can plan from anywhere, having an entire country to yourself (as they did pre-2001) does make things easier when it comes to movement, training etc.

We need to stop the flow of petro dollars to the Arabs! That is the single most important war we need to win.

Posted by: nameless-fool Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 11:20 PM

one last note: Politically it's pretty smart to say what Obama said. 95% of the voters will not go that deep and simply think "here's a guy that will end the war on terror" or come close to it. It's much better than saying it will go one for generations. It's a campaign so what you say need not be true, and people might prefer the lies anyway.

Sad state of affairs, I know, but imagine Obama talking about the need to increase the Social Security taxes and raising the pension age. Probably both need to be done, but people don't want to hear it. Out of sight, out of mind until...

Posted by: nameless-fool Author Profile Page at September 29, 2008 11:38 PM

Wow Michael. You lay it out with precision. I hope this piece gets some notice.

Posted by: jdwill Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 2:47 AM

Great article, Michael, even better than usual! (Does it convince your wife?)

However:
We don't fight that way. (See General Petraeus.) It is not going to happen.

Do 'we' take 8 000 Polish soldiers into the Katyn forest and murder them, then accept and promulgate a coverup that our enemy did it? 'We', the greatest generation, did do that in WW II with our Stalinst allies.

If terrorists DO get a nuke, and DO use it on Tel Aviv, will 'we' (US and Israel) nuke Mecca and Messina? I would certainly not bet against it.

I would much prefer a world where the terrorists don't get nukes, and would even support acts of war (like blockades and limited bombing) of Iran to stop them from getting nukes.

Did you see Olmert's statement about giving back land to the '67 borders?

From Commentary:
The violent ideologies that animate the most dangerous terrorist movements in the world are Arabic and, to a lesser extent, Persian. The Middle East is central.
The greatest hope in avoiding the MAD nuke option is democracy in Iraq, which provides moderate and secular Arabs the chance to promote Islam AND Human Rights, so that the Arab Muslim culture can join in Universal Human Rights as a cultural goal.

That hope for Arab culture is why Iraq, not Afghanistan, is central. Arab Muslims must stop their support for terrorism -- just like Anbar Sunni stopped their support for AQ in Iraq.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 5:13 AM

"We need to stop the flow of petro dollars to the Arabs! That is the single most important war we need to win."

Absolutely!

"We don't fight that way."

Only if we can afford it. And so far we could.
Let's hope it will not change.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 5:14 AM

If terrorists DO get a nuke, and DO use it on Tel Aviv, will 'we' (US and Israel) nuke Mecca and Messina?

Why the hell would that be done? What possible advantage would that provide? How would bring the citizens of those cities alive be in any way justifiable for the actions of some terrorists?

Possibly this is the same mindset that the 9/11 hijackers had, that a attack on some symbol of a supposed enemy was somehow justifiable, regardless of the facts or of the innocence of those killed.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 9:31 AM

DPU,

I agree. Half-assed measures are pointless.
Total annihilation would be only viable solution in this case.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 10:14 AM

Total annihilation would be only viable solution in this case.

An ideological position that I thought had proved itself unworkable in Europe in the thirties and forties.

But out curiosity, were you thinking that the annihilation would be done with bombs? Quite wasteful, as the bodies could be processed for fertilizer or some other profitable venture. And before exterminating them, wouldn't work camps provide useful utility for us? I hear children can be worked quite hard and for some time.

Or maybe you're simply being compassionate, and thinking that trading suffering for profit is cruel?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 11:31 AM

Hardly anyone wants to think about the monumental size of this task or how long it will take.

Indeed, imagine how hard it would have been to defeat the Nazis or the Japanese Imperialists if we'd fought those wars the way we are fighting this one.

Posted by: Michael Smith Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 12:07 PM

Nah, too much trouble. Bombing is cheaper and faster.

No matter. I see you did not like my idea. Why?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 12:11 PM

Ooops. My question was addressed to DPU. Sorry.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 12:12 PM

I see you did not like my idea. Why?

I had thought that I made it clear. Genocide proved an impractical political solution in Europe in the 30s and 40s, and besides, why not make a final solution also profitable?

Was I unclear?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 12:30 PM

No, you weren't clear explaining what you suggest we do in this case:

If terrorists DO get a nuke, and DO use it on Tel Aviv, will 'we' (US and Israel) nuke Mecca and Medina?

You did not like moderate response as suggested above. You did not like extreme response as I suggested. What do you like?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 12:55 PM

You did not like extreme response as I suggested.

I asked what purpose that response would serve. I ask again.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 12:58 PM

"I asked what purpose that response would serve."

I hope deterrence and satisfaction.

So, I agree to start with mild response and up the ante if it will not work.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 1:37 PM

I hope deterrence and satisfaction.

I must be slow. How does one deter a terrorist attack after the fact (in that you suggest that as a response)? And even then, why would nuking a couple of cities that had nothing to do with the attack and killing vast numbers of innocents be any kind of credible deterrent? And what if the aim of those behind the attack would be to get Israel and the US to nuke a couple of cities holy to Islam?

And I have no idea what "satisfaction" refers to. Could you elaborate?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 1:42 PM

"How does one deter a terrorist attack after the fact"

It is only true if that was last attack ever. Do you think so?

"And even then, why would nuking a couple of cities that had nothing to do with the attack and killing vast numbers of innocents be any kind of credible deterrent?"

Those cities are symbols to the very ideology, which puts all of us in danger. As far as I am concerned response to nuclear attack justifies this and much more than this.

"And what if the aim of those behind the attack would be to get Israel and the US to nuke a couple of cities holy to Islam?"

Then they will have achieved their goal. Do you think if you will get nuked you will care then?

I believe I answered all your questions. How about answering mine. What would you suggest proper response should be?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 2:01 PM

If there is an exchange of nuclear weapons (shudder), Mecca will not be targeted under any circumstances for all the reasons DPU suggests, and also for others. Every Muslim ally we have in the world would become our enemy. Every fence-sitter would become our enemy. We didn't win hearts and minds against terrorists in Iraq by blowing up mosques. We did it by protecting innocents from killers and helping them fix their shattered country.

If there is an exchange of nuclear weapons, the country that supplied the other side will be targeted.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 2:22 PM

Those cities are symbols to the very ideology, which puts all of us in danger. As far as I am concerned response to nuclear attack justifies this and much more than this.

In the same way that if you are guilty of drunken driving, the police can shoot your mother.

What would you suggest proper response should be?

Finding who did it and dealing with them. I'm astonished that this did not occur to you.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 2:51 PM

I believe I answered all your questions.

Nope, you missed elaborating on what "satisfaction" meant as a reason for nuking a couple of cities.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 3:57 PM

Satisfaction is in delivered retribution.

"Finding who did it and dealing with them. I'm astonished that this did not occur to you."

I see. You found hostile ideology. How will you deal with it? I'd prefer working solution if possible.

"If there is an exchange of nuclear weapons, the country that supplied the other side will be targeted."

Yes, except what if like in case with 9/11 there is no distinct country to target? Which one then?

"Every Muslim ally we have in the world would become our enemy. Every fence-sitter would become our enemy."

I think it is not that certain. How many friends and allies do you think they have? And what if World will get off oil dependency in next 15 to 20 years? How many will even look in direction of ME? Besides, you are forgetting we are not talking about 9/11 scale attack, we are talking about much, much worst.
To add. Example stated nuclear attack on Tel-Aviv. Good luck convincing Israelis who just lost half a country if not all of it to spare Mecca, Medina and the rest of that ME vivarium.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 6:34 PM

Leo: Yes, except what if like in case with 9/11 there is no distinct country to target? Which one then?

I recall, when reading about nuclear proliferation, that it is very very easy to trace the "signature" from a nuclear explosion to the source. I can't explain how because I am not a nuclear scientist (obviously), but it's a lot easier than most people probably realize.

If, for example, Iran builds a nuclear weapon and passes it on to a third party, we'll know, if it explodes, that that's where it came from.

If Iran nukes, say New York, directly or indirectly, and we choose to respond with a nuclear strike of our own, it will be against a target in Iran, not against Mecca. Bet on it.

We don't blow up mosques in Iraq for the same reason. American soldiers aren't even allowed to set foot in mosques, not even when they are being used by terrorists.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 6:40 PM

Yes, I heard that too.

Few problems I have with your example.
One, Iranians are most likely to use Russian technology and even raw materials. Will it still be possible to recognize the origin or we will have to hit Russia? Or Russian president will end up in position of Henry Fonda in 'Fail-Safe'?
Two, what if it were not Iran at all and what if stolen nukes were to be used? How about British, French, or even US nukes? What's then?

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 7:13 PM

Satisfaction is in delivered retribution.

Satisfaction in burning hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death? This is a mindset that I'd more expect coming from a psychopath than a commenter here.

Yes, except what if like in case with 9/11 there is no distinct country to target? Which one then?

Then you don't nuclear bomb an innocent country. Are you the kind of person who kicks their dog because you're mad at your boss?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 7:23 PM

Leo: How about British, French, or even US nukes? What's then?

I have no idea. I'd need more information to figure out what a plan ought to be. But nuking Mecca would be right out. Seriously. That is not going to happen, nor should it. We are not at war with one billion people, but we would be if we did that.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at September 30, 2008 8:34 PM

Michael,

If you think 9/11 did not warrant nuking somebody in response then I am with you. But if you think that nuclear attack on USA will still not then you are on your own.
And that billion will do nothing but sit quietly and look pretty. I'd rather this imaginary solid billion+ worry what 300M genuinely pissed off Americans would do.

DPU,

"In the same way that if you are guilty of drunken driving, the police can shoot your mother."

I missed this comment of yours deliberately. In hope that you will realize that this one is nothing more than demagoguery.

Unfortunately my neglect caused more of the same (see below).

"Satisfaction in burning hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death? This is a mindset that I'd more expect coming from a psychopath than a commenter here."

"Then you don't nuclear bomb an innocent country. Are you the kind of person who kicks their dog because you're mad at your boss?"

You are like Obama. Talking in cliches and giving no substance what so ever.

I asked you concrete question and I got no answer. I also made a point that war is against extreme ideology and not against single mortal or few of them. Heck, it does not even matter whether we catch UBL or have him die hiding somewhere in the cave. He is irrelevant. We are fighting al-Base.
Unlike with drunken driver perpetrators most likely are not to be found and the only way to get to them would be through everything what is dear to them. Holy places, people, what have you. BTW, making them aware of what is at stake might help prevent/deter couple of unpleasantries as well.

And if you believe I am psychopath that may be but I'd rather my enemies thought that too.
Just to remind you. During WWII entire cities with great number of its innocent inhabitants were destroyed on both sides. So both sides were psychopathic, right?

Unless and until stuff will hit the fan you have no idea what you will do. So, if I may suggest, you drop this sanctimonious attitude of yours.

I am done speculating on the subject of nuclear attack.

Posted by: leo Author Profile Page at October 1, 2008 6:49 AM

And if you believe I am psychopath that may be but I'd rather my enemies thought that too.

I did not say that I believed you were a psychopath. I said that deriving "satisfaction" from the thought of incinerating people is something that I would more expect to her from a psychopath than a commenter here.

Just to remind you. During WWII entire cities with great number of its innocent inhabitants were destroyed on both sides. So both sides were psychopathic, right?

Nope, just those who derived satisfaction from it. Churchill, in later years, said that Dresden was the thing he regretted the most and lost the most sleep over. If he said that he derived satisfaction from it then yes, I would entertain the thought that he was a psychopath.

As for the other side, the records indicate that many derived a great deal of satisfaction from sending millions of people to their deaths. Are you about to argue that they were not psychopaths?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 1, 2008 7:34 AM

DPU Then you don't nuclear bomb an innocent country.

Well, as Michael noted, there is a lot of evidence connecting Saudi Arabia to 9/11. That's NOT to say that any holy places or any other cities should be bombed. It is to say that we should have acknowledged and prosecuted the Sauds who were involved.

The wrongheaded idea that "Islam" is responsible for terrorism is a direct result of our government's efforts to hide Saudi involvement in terrorist attacks. Since our leaders refuse to identify the enemy, people have to go with what little information they have.

Anyway, you know there is absolutely no reason to worry about anyone bombing mecca. If al Qaeda nuked New York, our state department would be on the first plane to Riyadh to apologize for whatever the US did to cause such a horrible breach in the Saudi/US friendship. That was pretty much their attitude after 9/11.

Things might change after this election. Our foreign policy is mostly influenced by the malign gargoyles of our State Department, but McCain is a lot wiser than Obama. McCain could have chosen the relentlessly evil James Baker as his adviser, but he didn't.

Obama could have chosen the relentlessly evil Zbignew Brzezinski as his adviser, and he did. Brzezinski was the one who came up with the 'brilliant' idea of using fascists to fight the commies. Some of these State Department gargoyles are worse than others.

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 1, 2008 11:20 AM

Anyway, you know there is absolutely no reason to worry about anyone bombing mecca.

I'm not worried about anyone nuking Mecca. I'm discussing the thought processes behind the desire to do so by a commenter.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 1, 2008 1:36 PM

I'm discussing the thought processes behind the desire to do so by a commenter.

So yours is a purely ad hominem argument. Never mind

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 1, 2008 6:34 PM

So yours is a purely ad hominem argument.

No, an ad hominem argument would be "You want to nuke Mecca, so you are insane", or "You're a right wing twit, so your desire to nuke Mecca is typical right-wing twat".

What I'm trying to understand is the reasoning behind the desire to nuke a city that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack on the US. Deterrent and satisfaction were the reasons given.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 1, 2008 8:11 PM

Satisfaction in burning hundreds of thousands of innocent people to death? This is a mindset that I'd more expect coming from a psychopath than a commenter here.

I'm interested in the reasoning process that would cry crocodile tears over the burning of thousands of innocents in Mecca, but is somewhat blase over burning thousands of innocents in, say, New York. Any opinions on that?

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 4:31 AM

...but is somewhat blase over burning thousands of innocents in, say, New York.

Huh. This is interesting. I said literally nothing that would lead one to believe that I would be blase about the deaths of thousands in an attack on New York. As a matter of fact, I'm anything but blase about the thought of that.

So you had some kind of thought process that lead you to imagine that. I'm not sure what that would be, other than the fact that I objected to the nuking of Mecca. Could you explain how that can be interpreted as being blase about New York being nuked?

I'd appreciate an answer to this, as your statement is fairly insulting, and I'd like to know the root of it.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 8:15 AM

Well, since we're indulging in amateur psychoanalysis here - leo is reacting to the idea of an American city being nuked, and this makes him angry. He obviously talks about bombing Mecca as a way of blowing off steam.

You don't seem to understand or empathize with this anger, and you mistakenly imply that reacting to a real or hypothetical terrorist attack by saying 'bomb mecca' is an indication of psychopathology. If it is, then the majority of New Yorkers after 9/11 were psychopaths.

We all know that an attack like that against Mecca will not ever occur, we know that most blog commenters don't have the codes to set off nuclear missiles, so why are you implying that leo has some insight into psychopathology?

If you want to learn more about the kind of people who derive satisfaction from incinerating innocent people, read the jihadi sites. They're not the most honest people in the world, but every word is straight from the horse's mouth.

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 8:47 AM

He obviously talks about bombing Mecca as a way of blowing off steam.

I see. Do you think that nuking an innocent city is an appropriate action in order to "blow off steam"? Also, if Mecca is unrealistic, why not nuke Manchester, Naples, or Tripoli? Or if those are not Islamic enough, what about Islamabad or Cairo? If not those, why not?

If you want to learn more about the kind of people who derive satisfaction from incinerating innocent people, read the jihadi sites.

Not just jihadi sites, it seems.

And you completely avoided the single question I asked. What did I say that lead you to believe and publicly state that I was blase about New York being nuked?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 9:23 AM

This is explaining so much about the thought processes behind the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 9:24 AM

Do you think that nuking an innocent city is an appropriate action in order to "blow off steam"?...And you completely avoided the single question I asked. What did I say that lead you to believe and publicly state that I was blase about New York being nuked?...This is explaining so much about the thought processes behind the invasion of Iraq.

See, that's not blase, it's genuine anger.

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 9:42 AM

So you're not going to explain why you assumed that I was blase about nuking New York?

Is it a hard question to answer? Or just embarrassing?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 10:48 AM

Do you think that nuking an innocent city is an appropriate action in order to "blow off steam"?

Why do you ask that when I specifically said that it was not? I even used caps

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 11:12 AM

Why do you ask that when I specifically said that it was not? I even used caps.

Because you said this:

Well, since we're indulging in amateur psychoanalysis here - leo is reacting to the idea of an American city being nuked, and this makes him angry. He obviously talks about bombing Mecca as a way of blowing off steam.

As you objected to my questioning leo about his thought processes behind his statement, and because I did not want to make any insulting assumptions about what you thought, I asked you a direct question about how you felt about it.

Now, why did you make a statement that I was blase about New York being nuked? And how many times need I ask? Are you going to answer the question, or continue to be evasive.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 11:26 AM

Now, why did you make a statement that I was blase about New York being nuked? And how many times need I ask? Are you going to answer the question, or continue to be evasive.

I was just noting that, in this thread, all of your significant and fairly remarkable rage is directed towards Americans, not expressed for us.

I'm not sure why any of that would be insulting. People feel what they feel. However, it's usually a good idea to refrain from venting.

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 11:51 AM

I was just noting that, in this thread, all of your significant and fairly remarkable rage is directed towards Americans, not expressed for us.

I'd appreciate a single instance of this rage aimed at Americans that you speak of. Which comment in particular?

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 12:22 PM

Actually, forget it. If you can't figure out why saying someone is blase about the nuking of a city is insulting, especially when they neever indicated that in any way, you never will, and it's a waste of my time to try and either explain it to you.

Carry on.

Posted by: double-plus-ungood Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 12:25 PM

Fine, DPU, you win. You're not blase about the idea of New York being bombed.

The thread's derailed beyond repair by now. Do you have a copy of that GreaseMonkey script?

Posted by: maryatexitzero Author Profile Page at October 2, 2008 2:36 PM

Obama may like to tout his interventionism when it suits him, but his “doctrine” is nothing we haven’t seen before.

Posted by: rolanddodds Author Profile Page at October 10, 2008 1:29 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?




Winner, The 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Read my blog on Kindle



blogads-blog-button.png


Recommended Reading