We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Blame Bush and Blair like it’s 2003 forever Forces of an offshoot of Al-Qaeda advance on Baghdad
“Blame Bush!” “Blame Blair!”
Can anyone explain to me why the starting point for anything newsworthy that Muslims do is eternally set at 2003?
Why not September 11th 2001 – one might have thought that was the big day this century for violent beginnings connected with Islam? Or why not date it from 1988, with the formation of Al-Qaeda? Or from the year 622, first year of the Hijra – if you take a long view of history, as ISIS themselves undoubtedly do? Or why not start the count later? How about late 2011 when President Obama took the last American troops out of what he called a “a sovereign, stable and self-reliant Iraq” just “in time for the holidays”?
Not that it is likely, as Muslim Iraqi fights Muslim Iraqi in a land from which the infidel was so delighted to absent himself, that comabatants on either side think much about American presidents at all.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
The preparation for the 9/11 attacks was well underway during the Clinton Administration but the Australian Meeja would have us believe the 9/11 attacks were in anticipation for the Congress approved invasion of Iraq. Just as an aside Obummer never got Congressional approval for his military excursions.
Personally I’m quite happy to see the buggers fighting amongst themselves, because this is what they have traditionally done up until Osama decided to take the fight to the West.
This idea of a Muslim caliphate is only so much posturing anyway as they all have these weird secular divisions which make the Orthodox Church look like a love-in by comparison.
This idea that Muslims can live in peace with Christians, Jews, Atheists, etc. put forward by the traitors in the labour party is made a mockery of by their own actions as they can barely about even slight variations of their own religion.
May they all find their 72 virgins and that right quick. 🙂
*as they can barely about even slight variations of their own religion.*
D’oh!
I’m far from happy. I would rather people did not kill each other.
Though Islam is by a large margin currently the most violent significant ideology in the world, and does in my opinion contain in its scriptures and teachings warrant for more aggressive behaviour than other current major religions, it was not always so much out of the ordinary as it is now.
When India was partitioned many Christians thought they would be safer with the Muslims of Pakistan than with the Hindus of India. That turned out to be wrong, but it was a decision rooted in their experiences up til that point.
Ridiculous politically correct claims that al-Andalucia was as liberal as a modern Western country should not blind us to the fact that certain historical Muslim states have compared favourably to their Christian and other contemporaries.
BTW, though you quoted me correctly, I just changed “ever think about American presidents at all” to “think much about American presidents at all” in the interests of accuracy – I am sure they do sometimes; just not nearly as much as our media, obsessed with Republican vs Democrat and Labour vs Conservative, likes to think.
I agree that it would be infinitely preferably that people didn’t go around killing each other, but this lot would quite happily execute me for my sexual preference, so on that basis I am quite happy that they kill each other instead.
As has been said ad infinitum, ad nauseam, there is no such thing as liberal Islam, if they acknowledge that they are subject to the will of the prophet then by not following Sharia, Jihad and other idiocies then they are not conforming to the tenets of their religion.
If we’re prepared to deny Geert Wilders entry to the UK because of his views then we should equally deny Muslims on the same basis.
For sure, but the American Vice is to think it impossible for anything to happen anywhere that does not revolve around the USA.
It’s the same problem as those of the late empire, the US government struts around as if its 1945 and they own the entire planet while pushing their extraterritorial legislation down everyone’s throats and then expecting us to lap it up with a shit eating grin like the British empire and the colonials during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
While these sort of attitudes might be dealt with by conniving collaborators like Cameron et al, the general public at large can’t stand the attitude of the US government and is waiting patiently for them to get their well deserved comeuppance.
All of the international goodwill that was generated during the days immediately after 9/11 were recklessly squandered by Bush Jr in his invasions of both Afghanistan and Iraq, neither of which were necessary to destroy Al Qaeda.
Admittedly Obama hasn’t been any great shakes in anything he has done, but pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan (even along with the associated PR and lies) was something that had to happen. If Iraq collapses into another 3rd world shithole like Iran then fair enough – that will give more incentive to moving to sources of energy that aren’t in the hands of militant Islam.
They want a Muslim caliphate which slowly rusts and collapses as the USSR did? – They are welcome to it, enjoy the decline folks, because you asked for it.
What John Galt said, everything. Quite sadly and unfortunately so.
Natalie Solent
Its a fairly interesting point that for a long time it was considered Haram to live willingly in an “infidel” country.
Eg: The Afghan cameltrain drivers in Oz were allowed by the Aga Khan to work in Australia without sinning by sending back a remittance.
It is fairly recently that the fairly strict interpenetration has fallen out of favor.
So when people wonder why Mass Muslim migration seems “new” they are correct it is.
Its a small aspect of Islam seldom talked about, that mass migration is new.
How much help did ‘we’ give this mob in Syria? Presumably these were ‘allies’ against Assad a few months ago.
It seems to be in the nature of things in the Middle East that today’s freedom fighters against a tyrannical regime are tomorrows tyrannical regime…
🙂
plus ça change…
>Not that it is likely… that comabattants on either side think much about American presidents at all.
They do think about the current American president. And what they think is that he is weak, and no threat to them.
He is weak, but this is actually a good thing as he won’t get involved other than to attend some meaningless summit on the problem or ‘lend his support to the UN’.
Why should he? He can’t get re-elected due to term limits, so why should he put his neck out? He can just sit back and polish his Nobel Peace Prize.
Have any of you considered the “Ripley Option”?
It’s the only way to be sure.
>He is weak, but this is actually a good thing
Well, you’re more confident than I am about the prospects of a post-American world. I hope you’re right.
Sure, but the last time the US did that it just gave the recipients of the “Ripley Option” the opportunity to bang on about it every August 6th & 9th.
Do we really want to make martyrs of a bunch of radical Islamists? They’re bad enough anyway. Just let them fight their petty insurrection and let them live with the consequences.
I’d probably flog the television rights to Endemol for the lulz – I mean who wouldn’t want to watch a few hours of “Islamic Shithole TV” or “Celebrity Sharia – Let’s Get Stoned” edition?
They want radical Islam, they should get it – Good and Hard!
Sorry, but that is not the case. I think the time is fast approaching when the US Government will have its “British Empire” moment, when a rising power simply gets sick and tired of their patronising bollocks, recalls their ambassadors from Washington and simply expels the entire US Embassy staff with the clear message “Come back when you change your fucking attitude”.
Right now the shambolic arrogance of the US military and extraterritorial judicial overreach is more of a threat than a bunch of unwashed illiterates carrying AK47’s in the mountains on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
I seem to remember much of that goodwill being paper thin at best. People felt sorry for the US provided they just sat there, took it on the chin, and grovelled for forgiveness from assorted European lefties.
I’m sorry, but that’s bullshit or at best reflects a small minority of liberal idiots who are anti-American by conscience. The vast majority of people I know were very sympathetic to the events of 9/11 and would have supported the US in efforts to find, extradite or whack Osama Bin Laden and cronies that were involved in the plot.
The invasion of both Afghanistan and Iraqi using 9/11 as an excuse though was an unforgivable act of aggression on the part of the US and did little to achieve either justice or retribution for the 9/11 victims.
JG,
Er… I wasn’t thinking Enola Gay as much as the only people left being clad in bad fetish gear chasing Melanie Gibson around a post-apocalyptic wasteland 😉 And I’d throw in a feral kid for free – plenty of them in Manchester.
I guess though, from what I’ve seen on the TV, they seem to be managing it fine without nuclear help from the West so yeah…
The people I feel sorry for are the Turks and Jordanians (esp the later – small country) who have a hell of a refugee problem on their hands. And of course the US soldiers and marines who were killed or wounded to take the city from “insurgents” about ten years ago.
As to the Japanese: “Burma Railway”, “Unit 731”, “Rape of Nanking”, “Pearl Harbour”, “Tenko”*
*That was a truly miserable TV show which wouldn’t have happened if…
>>Well, you’re more confident than I am about the prospects of a post-American world. I hope you’re right.
>
>Sorry, but that is not the case.
What you’ve said doesn’t make any sense. What isn’t the case? That you’re more confident than I am? That clearly is the case. The ‘I hope you’re right’ bit? That’s a hope, not a statement.
>I think the time is fast approaching when the US Government will have its “British Empire” moment, when a rising power simply gets sick and tired of their patronising bollocks, recalls their ambassadors from Washington and simply expels the entire US Embassy staff with the clear message “Come back when you change your fucking attitude”.
Really? Who might do this, do you think?
>Right now the shambolic arrogance of the US military and extraterritorial judicial overreach is more of a threat than a bunch of unwashed illiterates carrying AK47′s in the mountains on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border.
The US government is a threat, agreed, but describing the modern Islamic military movements
as “a bunch of unwashed illiterates carrying AK47′s in the mountains on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border” makes it hard to take what you say seriously.
The problem is that they are all tarnished by the same brush, regardless of whether they are personally ‘nice people’ or not. I’ve never had a problem with the Turks either, in fact in my youth I played ‘the beast with two backs’ with a lovely Turkish girl.
Until people and countries actually reject Islam ‘as it is written and practised’ then I’m sorry, they deserve everything that they get. Even timid supporters of Islam are still providing aid and comfort to the radical Islamists.
It was said of many of the Muslims of modern day Pakistan, India and Bangladesh that they were converted to Islam at the point of the sword, but there is no easy way to reverse that, certainly not by a modern day crusade – nuclear or not.
Nope – much better to just lock down the borders, block Muslim immigration to the modern world and wait until they starve themselves to death or just plain kill each other.
Islam can only be eradicated by letting it wither on the vine.
Well, we can argue whether it was a small minority or not, but the sentiment “a bully with a bloody nose is still a bully” was not uncommon in the aftermath.
The attack was orchestrated by terrorists based in Afghanistan and protected by the Taliban government. How is the invasion of Afghanistan unrelated to efforts to capture and kill the perpetrators?! Insofar as reducing the al Qaeda ability to operate and mount worldwide attacks. The invasion was a success: with the fall of the Taliban there was no government who would host them. It was the rebuilding of the country which was a disaster.
To follow on Tim’s comment, the invasion of Afghanistan and of Iraq were two very different matters, and in no way can be lumped together when it comes to the original rationale for invasions. The two cases are similar in that both countries became targets for the democracy-building fantasies of Bush and Co.
The invasion of Afghanistan was wholly justified by the Taliban government giving support and protection to Al Qaeda. Had we (The US) limited our actions to Afghanistan, we could have easily managed both the war (easy), and the aftermath (maybe). My personal opinion was that we should have gone in, destroyed the Taliban and Al Qaeda, flattened everything over 2 stories tall, then got out. We had no obligation to “nation-building” , whatever that is, and anyone who thinks we could turn a nation of illiterate goat-herders into a suburb of Cambridge, Massachusetts, complete with womyn’s studies and Starbucks, was sorely deluded.
We didn’t finish the job in Afghanistan. had we done so, we would have probably nipped a lot of trouble in the bud. As Henry Kissinger once said (paraphrasing), “Sometimes it is good for a superpower to behave irrationally, just to keep everyone guessing”. Had we used overwhelming force and laid waste to the lot of them, we’d have far fewer problems now.
The Iraq war was “A Bridge Too Far”, opening up a 2 front war (never good), and pissing away international goodwill. Everyone was with us on the invasion of Afghanistan, but they ran for the doors when we invaded Iraq.
Yes – while we continue to talk of Islamic “radicals” or Islamic “extremists” we are trapped in the false mental universe of Mr Blair and Mr Bush.
ISIS believes much the same things as Mohammed did. This is their point – and it is a correct point.
Westerners see dreadful things and say “so called Christians in history have done such dreadful things also – but Jesus would not have approved, so the true Islam must be supported to oppose this false Islam, just as true Christianity should be supported to oppose the false Christianity of the evil doers of the past”.
This has an unspoken (and false) assumption built into it – that Mohammed believed in basically the same things as Jesus.
Mohammed did not believe in basically the same things as Jesus (he just did not – he was a different person). Mohammed believed in basically the same principles and tactics that ISIS does.
This has much wider implications than Iraq – it has implications concerning the followers of Mohammed in Europe and the United States(including the ones born in these places).
Zarba, I very much agree with you about Afghanistan. However, the same can be said (and should have been applied, IMO) to Iraq. You may be correct that the latter had nothing to do with 9/11, AQ etc. (although there is certainly at least some evidence to the contrary), but there were some very good reasons to remove Saddam regardless. Have we done that (the removal), and then went home, I think it would have been the optimal solution to that problem as well.
Alisa (since you have the same name as my lovely wife, and I must tread carefully in case you ARE my wife…) I think that there may have been good reasons to take out Saddam, I just think it was done too hastily. I my mind, the US seemed to feel that they should act while they had good will and the recent victory over the Taliban on their side.
Had the US waited until the Afghan conflict was wrapped up and security there under control (it never really was), then we could have moved out of that theater and into Iraq without dividing our forces and attention. Saddam was going nowhere; and while he was a vile character, he posed no immediate threat to anyone.
The unfortunate reality was that we had an easy opportunity to take him out of power when we won the 1991 war; however, Bush Senior decided to halt operations and declare victory when real victory was within reach. Had we consummated the deal in 1991, we would not have had to deal with a 2nd war a decade later. Never fight for the same ground twice.
Indeed.
As to my lovely namesake, it sounds like she must be doing at least somethings right 😀
You had me for a while with your talk of squandering good will. But if someone’s good will is so easily and foolishly lost as that then there was never any hope of keeping it in the first place.
Solution to the Mideast? There isn’t one. We could find a solution to Nazi Germany only by staying there as long as it took – that is, until we find an Adenauer and give him time to remake the institutions. In Iraq we just handed a democracy over to people who, on the whole, were manifestly unprepared for it. Even the Sergeant’s Solution looks difficult now – that is, arm all sides and seal the borders. Although we have been arming both sides, so perhaps that is Step 1.