Look, Kids! Big Ben, Parliament!

posted at 1:15 am on April 23, 2007 by see-dubya

The Times of London runs a leaked intel report from MI5, which says Al-Qaeda’s hurting and needs a big score. So the chatter says they’re looking to “shake the throne of Rome”. Which I would take to be a threat against the Vatican, but I’m not a spy, and the spooky types say it’s the West in general and Britain in particular–since that’s where the chatter goes, and some other AQI sources are mentioning it. They refer to “Hiroshima and Nagasaki”, but those are probably descriptions of a big conventional explosion rather than admission of a nuclear capability. As for timing, they’re thought to be planning for the change of the Blair government.

But here’s an interesting nugget, one that will have Michael Ledeen jumping up and down and shouting “I told ya so!”: the planners are supposed to be Al Qaeda in Iraq’s Kurdish network…working in Iran.

The report, produced earlier this month and seen by The Sunday Times, appears to provide evidence that Al-Qaeda is active in Iran and has ambitions far beyond the improvised attacks it has been waging against British and American soldiers in Iraq.

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

Other countries where Americans, in particular, need to be watching their six in the very near future include Germany, Algeria, and the Philippines. Let’s be careful out there.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

When Islamist radicals take over nuclear Pakistan, Iran gets an Islamic bomb and sells the material to terror networks, Lebanon is taken over by Hezbollah, and the taliban “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan succeed in toppling Karzai, I would like to personally thank the Democrats for their wisdom. As Americans, defeat is our natural state, and we must never do anything to change that.

Halley on April 23, 2007 at 1:26 AM

Well, what would happen if AQ starts striking targets across Europe? Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the thought of innocent people being targeted anywhere. However, there is a part of me that knows Europe did not feel 9/11 the way we did, and they never understood W’s “war on terror” thesis the way conservatives in this country did. So, maybe it comes to this. Maybe they have to feel our pain (to borrow a quote from Billy Jeff) in order to get what’s really going on in the world today. Maybe they have to suffer a dramatic loss from Islamist facists in order to understand it the way we do. Perhaps then, when Europe is finally challenged with it’s pro-drug, pro-prostitutes, pro-anything goes, happy-go-lucky, philosophy, will they wake up and realize there is a very real, very profound opposition to their ways of life. Only, let’s hope they’re not in a mood to fire up those crematoria they’ve been so fond of in the past.

thedecider on April 23, 2007 at 1:30 AM

“The throne of Rome” could also refer to the Saudi throne or the Vatican. Just something to keep in mind.

crosspatch on April 23, 2007 at 1:43 AM

Would the Brits react to the loss of Big Ben the way Americans reacted to the loss of our Twin Towers? Or would they ‘pull a Spain’? That remains to be seen and I hope we never have to find out.

When I was stationed in England, me and a Buddy O’Mine went to London, we got a tourist map and followed it to “Big Ben”. We stopped, looked up at it, looked back down at the map and said “I don’t know if that’s it.” A woman walked by, I stopped her and asked “Excuse me ma’am, is this … is this Big Ben?” She looked very proud as she said “Why yes it is.” We drooped our shoulders in disappointment and said “Oh … thanks.” We were expecting it to be like the Empire State Building!

Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 2:07 AM

“Rome” would be America.

The “throne” would be either money or power (Hiroshima and Nagasaki= double strike).

Wall Street and the Capitol.

(The Brits haven’t been “Rome” since 1913…or 1956, at the latest, when they were told to “stand down” at Suez.)

profitsbeard on April 23, 2007 at 2:09 AM

Would the Brits react to the loss of Big Ben the way Americans reacted to the loss of our Twin Towers?
Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 2:07 AM

Your question is probably rhetorical, but I would suspect that Brits would view the destruction of Big Ben similarly anyway – even though the impact of both is hardly comparable. I still wouldn’t want to see an icon of British society (valued through WWII) destroyed. I’ll defer to my earlier post on this topic that Europe (in general) desperately needs a wake up call. Since they think so little of their military (as to train them in policies of non-confrontation) maybe they have more respect for their more material possessions.

thedecider on April 23, 2007 at 2:14 AM

Off topic, but here’s another funny story from when I was in England. This time we went to Oxford to meet college girls, in a club we met a bunch of them and were talking to them and drinking with ‘em. Anyway, this one chick I was zeroed in on was from Venezuala. When I told her I was American, she said “Oh I LOVE American basketball! I went to a game when I was in the U.S.”

I said “Oh yeah? Who’s your favorite team?”

She said “Um, I can’t remember their name.”

I said “The Bulls?”

No.

“The Sixers?”

No.

“The Pistons?”

No, but I they were very funny!

“Funny? … you mean … The HARLEM GLOBETROTTERS???”

YES! That’s it! The Globetrotters!

“Aw Honey, you’ve GOT to let me buy you a drink!”

Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 2:19 AM

profitsbeard on April 23, 2007 at 2:09 AM

ditto. It ain’t about THEM; it’s about US. The UK is the place the vermin will assemble ii…….heading due West

Janos Hunyadi on April 23, 2007 at 2:30 AM

Janos Hunyadi-

If it would work to wake people, finally, then let’s get it the hell over with, sooner than later.

I’d even be willing to be one of the luckless lost if I knew it would rouse the will of the West to crush Islamofascism completely.

I’d rather my family lived free without me than all of us being subsumed under this theocratic crapulousness in a slow bleed.

profitsbeard on April 23, 2007 at 2:48 AM

Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 2:19 AM

heh

- The Cat

P.S. Sounds like Buckingham to me.

MirCat on April 23, 2007 at 3:11 AM

I don’t know… with Sarbanes-Oxley keeping a lot of IPOs overseas, I think the new financial seat of Rome would be London.

Besides, after the way Britain has acted over the past few years, AQ smells blood in the water…

unamused on April 23, 2007 at 3:50 AM

Something else to keep in mind. France is going to have their runoff elections soon. Next month, I believe. Al Qaida struck in Spain just days before that election that resulted in a Socialist being elected. There will be a Socialist in France running as well. I would expect al Qaida to attempt to repeat their success in Spain with an attack on France.

crosspatch on April 23, 2007 at 5:12 AM

I would like to believe that an opinion I read a few months ago might ring true if an attack of grand proportions was to hit the european continent. Throughout history, it has been the europeans that have been go proficient in the industry of death. Should a catastrophic event take place in the name of Allah; it may very well awaken that dormant conscience within them.
Maybe they will come to realize that their free flow policies of immigration and cultural appeasement was not to their best interest. At that point it’s possible that the world could be witness to a reignition of pride and culture that they seem to have forgotten. Crusades III anyone?

jarhead05 on April 23, 2007 at 7:57 AM

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

That sounds really familiar….

drjohn on April 23, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Hillstreet Blues was a good show…

Theworldisnotenough on April 23, 2007 at 9:26 AM

Yeesh…I was just in the Philippines and I go to Germany a couple times a year. Great.

flipflop on April 23, 2007 at 9:50 AM

You know it’d be nice if instead of us watching our six, Iran had to watch it’s six. The administration needs to grow a pair.

Iblis on April 23, 2007 at 10:10 AM

There’s nothing so foul as the troglodytes at DU or Kos darkly fantasizing about American defeat in Iraq as the “wake-up call” that will finally prove to Rethuglikkkans that war is never the answer.

To wish the same on Europe is nothing more than the inversion of the same perversion– elevating a policy position above decency and morality. If we are right, we are right; time and horrific events will prove it.

But do not wish for death merely to punctuate an essay. Instead, preach that you are right, and pray that you are wrong.

a4g on April 23, 2007 at 10:13 AM

Are we certain that the chatter said
“shake the throne of Rome”?
Did MI5 decode the messages?
What if a more accurate translation was
“shake the throne of Rove”?

CyberCipher on April 23, 2007 at 10:40 AM

what would happen if AQ starts striking targets across Europe?

Nothing! What could happen? The Europeans have neither the will nor the capability to react effectively.

Which is more likely in the event of AQ attacks in Europe?

(a) Europe would regard the attacks as a call to arms, and would mobilize to crush the enemy.

(b) Europe would blame America (“this wouldn’t be happening if the filthy yanks hadn’t stirred the Arabs up!”) and Israel, and would desperately search for some way to appease the enemy.

Even the Brits are spineless dhimmis. That continent is done.

Lehuster on April 23, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Nothing! What could happen? The Europeans have neither the will nor the capability to react effectively.

Sure they would!

They’d protest strongly- against their own past aggessions and blame themselves!

They’d demand that they themselves understand what they did wrong to bring this upon themselves and probably call for UN sanctions against the UK.

Saying they wouldn’t react is just silly. ;-)

drjohn on April 23, 2007 at 10:51 AM

Nice graphic, you need to keep that one. You can use it for just about every other post currently on the front page.

BohicaTwentyTwo on April 23, 2007 at 10:59 AM

Islam has no need of large attacks in Europe, and in fact they may be counterproductive. They just need to keep outbreeding the Euros and in a hundred years they will be running the place. The Western Tradition in Europe will not die from a heart attack, but from a cancer.

Dudley Smith on April 23, 2007 at 11:15 AM

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

That sounds really familiar….

drjohn on April 23, 2007 at 9:05 AM

What’s this ‘turning a blind eye’. That’s like saying Clinton turned a blind eye to hanky panky in the White House.

- The Cat

MirCat on April 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM

That would be the Clinton of the Mr. variety.

MirCat on April 23, 2007 at 11:59 AM

The Western Tradition in Europe will not die from a heart attack, but from a cancer.

I think it will be syphilis. It is already showing signs of derangement.

pedestrian on April 23, 2007 at 12:23 PM

If they nuke Europe will we finally be willing to destroy this vile religion? After all during the Cold War, we decided if the USSR let loose a nuke, we were going to utterly destroy them…

Tim Burton on April 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad,

Untrue. Ahmadinejad has been trying to position himself as the head of the Islamic world, just like Khomeini did. He’s been helping al-Qaeda

PRCalDude on April 23, 2007 at 12:41 PM

Tim Burton on April 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Mutually Assured Destruction operated on the premise that if the Soviets popped off a nuke it would be part of a massive volley, not a pinprick, if you will.

To utterly wipe out a religion entails killing some 1.5 billion people throughout the world. One would think we stop being the society we recognize if this is the approach we advocate.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM

A large-scale attack anywhere in Europe would be just about the dumbest thing AQ and company could do at this point. Europe, as a whole, is lumbering in blissful ignorance straight into the total adoption of sharia law – why rock the boat and risk waking the sleeping giant?

It’s sad to say, but a large-scale attack attempt with minimal casualties could be the only hope left for Europe at this point. If that doesn’t wake them up, nothing will. And they badly need a wakeup call before it’s too late.

World B. Free on April 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM

Wow, it takes me back seeing that picture of the Meteor Crater in AZ! I think the ex and I went into the museum just to give our car and ourselves a much needed break from the 110 degree heat!

kiakjones on April 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM

To utterly wipe out a religion entails killing some 1.5 billion people throughout the world.

First there’s only a billion of them, and not all radical.
A smaller target would do, but I’d get banned if I mentioned mecca as a target, so I wont.

The throne of Rome. Jesus Christ sits on THE throne. Is it that the islamofascists have now included all of Christianity with the same venomous hatred they’ve had for the Jews?
Bring it on A(llahpissbeuponhim)-holes, we will stand together, Jews and Christians. And we total about 2.5 BILLION.

shooter on April 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM

There is no evidence of a formal relationship between Al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, and the Shi’ite regime of President Mah-moud Ahmadinejad, but experts suggest that Iran’s leaders may be turning a blind eye to the terrorist organisation’s activities.

Wherever evidence is lacking, it seems good to assume that muslims will improvise in unexpected ways. Go and do likewise.

Kralizec on April 23, 2007 at 1:39 PM

kiakjones, that’s actually a nuke test crater.

I had second thoughts about the pic as soon as I put it up. I don’t have a problem with prospective black humor, hence the title. But when I saw the crater pic on the front page I thought, crap, what if something does happen over there today?

Don’t know why it’s different; it just gives me a creep.

Funnily enough, the picture soon changed to a red X about half an hour after I posted it, so I just took it down. This AM it was back up, so I guess the HA crew is OK with it.

see-dubya on April 23, 2007 at 1:45 PM

“a creep”= “the creeps”. Plural.

see-dubya on April 23, 2007 at 1:46 PM

shooter on April 23, 2007 at 1:08 PM

I keep looking for the scripture where Christ asked people to kill in his name but just can’t seem to find it. It is not the red inked passages — perhaps you can point me to the secret writing.
I suppose once you kill off all the Islamics the next target will be Hindu, then Buddhists?

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM

To utterly wipe out a religion entails killing some 1.5 billion people throughout the world. One would think we stop being the society we recognize if this is the approach we advocate.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 12:44 PM

It doesn’t entail killing everyone. It entails killing the head, destroying the Mosques and sending in Buddists, Christians, Jews, Atheists, New Age morons, Church of Satan missionaries and self-defeating agnostics into the areas to convert them.

Tim Burton on April 23, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Something else to keep in mind. France is going to have their runoff elections soon. Next month, I believe. Al Qaida struck in Spain just days before that election that resulted in a Socialist being elected. There will be a Socialist in France running as well. I would expect al Qaida to attempt to repeat their success in Spain with an attack on France.

crosspatch

France doesn’t have ETA separatists like Spain has. Remember, it was the inital blaming of ETA and the so-called cover-up by the Aznar govt that finally turned the public so firmly to the Socialists’ camp. In reality, I wouldn’t care to guess what the Frogs’ reaction would be if AQ popped them one just before the final election. Except to guarantee that they would blame Bush instead of their own home-grown islamo-terrorists.

auzerais on April 23, 2007 at 7:56 PM

I suppose once you kill off all the Islamics the next target will be Hindu, then Buddhists?

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 3:37 PM

It’s nice to see you sticking up for religion. Didn’t realize you were a fan.

Buck Turgidson on April 23, 2007 at 9:12 PM

You guys all need to keep quiet while Jack Bauer is busy saving the world.

and Bradky, I understand your Instinct to Cringe while staring at What Must Be Done, but maybe the time for Civilized Cringing and Hesitation is over………

and yes, Lenin wrote “What Must Be Done” almost a century ago. Bad ideas, nice title

Janos Hunyadi on April 23, 2007 at 9:34 PM

Buck Turgidson on April 23, 2007 at 9:12 PM

Eliminating anyone based on their religion is something I am opposed to. That doesn’t make me anti-Christian or pro_(fill in the blank of whatever religion you like) but it does make me very much opposed to claiming God is on one’s side in order to justify extermination of entire groups of people.
Little too Third Reich for my tastes and not what I think America is all about.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 11:22 PM

I think Brad’s got it backwards. Once the islamics are done killing off *us*, *their* next target will be the Hindus and Bhuddists … no wait, they’re *already* trying to kill off the Hindus and Bhuddists.

Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Janos Hunyadi on April 23, 2007 at 9:34 PM

When the day comes that our country eliminates people based on religion our country is not the country that we know. We become no better than those who wish us dead.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Brad – “Third Reich”.

Exactly! What we’re up against is just like the Nazis! The followers of a strange cult want to destroy those who are different from them. Only *this* time they let you join them.

Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 11:27 PM

Tony737 on April 23, 2007 at 11:27 PM

They are not exactly like the third reich because they don’t have a state to enforce their madness. If we as a country go out and indiscriminately kill all known Islamics as suggested by some, we have crossed a line from which there is no return. Some will see that as justification to continue the killing of all non-christian people.

If the solution were an easy one it wouldn’t be a problem. But suggesting massive deployment of nuclear weapons is simplistic and silly.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Well, Brad, I never called for eliminating anyone based on religion; I call for eliminating people who are actively trying to elimiate my friends & family.

do you practice your straw man arguments, or do they come naturally? Ever read any history? Or peruse the newspapers? “They” have several states, with all the coercive power of nation-states. “They” need to be stopped.

We had 45 years of Containment, which worked because our opponent / rival was essentially rational. Ruthless with a fundamentally flawed system, but rational. Maybe ‘radical Islam’ can be contained until it too collapses, and I’m willing to keep trying.

But Containment only works with non-lunatics; that’s why it did not work with Hitler. Any Muslims actively attempting to carry out attacks on the West must be contained; if they cannot be contained, they need to be killed

Alles klar?

Janos Hunyadi on April 24, 2007 at 12:46 AM

Janos Hunyadi on April 24, 2007 at 12:46 AM

The weakness in your argument is that there is not a specific state that claims ownership of Al Qaida. Pretty it up any way you like but it still comes down to a desire to kill based upon a person’s religion. Considering that is the basis upon which “they” want to kill us, by extension your desire makes you the same as “them”.

The terrorists have demonstrated the ability to carry out acts of terror but not massive assaults that can destroy an entire country.

The act of self-control and not preemptively killing people because of their faith is what makes our country a good one. When we decide to kill because we don’t like the religion we cease to exist as the country you know.

Estimates of radical islamists are in the 15-20% range. Yet you seem pretty comfortable with killing 100% of a people to get that 20% that do not have the capability to militarily bring any country to its knees.

Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 2:06 AM

So, I get ad hominem with more straw men.

As you want to use percentages ( strange, but I’m up for it ) “Decision-makers” and Acual Active Terrorists are maybe one percent.

try this: long, but not a bad read

Islam today should not be compared to Christianity a thousand years ago. In addition to being unfair, it is also intellectually less-than-honest. …this particular comparison is often made in the “MainStream Media”.

The Gulf War and the current Iraq War ( OIF, or ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom ) are not the Crusades. The Catholic Church of a thousand years ago is Long Gone: It no longer has any governmental authority: It can no longer tax anyone, or drag anyone into its courts to judge and punish anyone.

Some People who do not want to confront Islamic fanaticism throw up the ‘straw man argument’ of saying that Islamic fanaticism is the same or no worse than Christian fanaticism, and then mumble something about events from the Holy Inquisition ( five hundred years ago ) or the Crusades ( eight to nine hundred years ago)

They try to create a ‘moral equivalence’ between 9 / 11 and the dozen or so people who have been killed in the past two decades from the bombing of abortion clinics or other incidents, for example. They say or clearly imply that the “Religious Right” is no different from al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden

This is rhetoric: ‘rhetoric’ is defined as “persuasive speech”, and is usually understood to be anything said or written with the sole or primary purpose of persuading people. Rhetoric is often called “mere rhetoric” because it is by nature exaggerated or false or deliberately misleading.

Rhetoric can contain truths, but truth is only incidental, as rhetoric is meant to persuade and not to teach or enlighten

You can gain insights from comparing one current society to another, and also benefit from comparing the past to the present. Both types of comparison need to be carefully done, though, and accurate information is crucial to avoid misleading generalizations.

It is valid to compare what Islamic fanatics are doing TODAY with whatever ‘activist’s Christians are doing TODAY. Which group presents more of a threat?

It is also valid to compare the Roman Catholic Church today and the Church five hundred or eight hundred or a thousand years ago–but anyone who does so and does not see profound change is either delusional or simply engaging in ‘rhetoric’ ( they are lying ).

Understanding the nature of medieval Catholic spirituality will help you understand how those people lived and understand the art they produced, including the Gothic cathedrals. It will also help you better understand the nature of Islamic fanaticism. People who believe that they know God and communicate with God–and that only they know God — are very dangerous when there are a lot of such people, and when they have control of governments and armies and are willing to use violence on a systematic basis.

However much any of you resent the attempts of modern Christians to limit your personal freedoms, your chances of ever being harmed by an Angry Christian are less than your chances of being struck by lightening. Modern Christianity may be annoying to you, but it poses no real threat to your life and freedom and health.

Modern Islam–modern Islamic fanatics and their “jihad’ –is obviously different. I won’t tell anyone how or what to think. Check into it, and draw your own conclusions. Maybe we can reason with them–find common ground……..

Janos Hunyadi on April 24, 2007 at 2:32 AM

The United Kingdom is no longer Great Britain for a reason.

As was said above, the “vermin”, or sewer rats, as I like to call them, need a place to form up.

And once our last remaining ally of consequence is destroyed, they come for us.

SUN TZU 101.

seejanemom on April 24, 2007 at 5:24 AM

Janos Hunyadi on April 24, 2007 at 2:32 AM

Ad Hominem, Straw man…. are you a college freshman or sophomore? You are beginning to sound like one.

Long winded diatribes still don’t justify the calls for killing 100 people in order to get the twenty bad ones. If you are more comfortable with a Nazi government that shares similar principles to the Jihadists at least be honest and admit that is what you want America to become.

Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 5:54 AM

Brad, you’re right, there is no “alqeadastan” but have you ever heard of Iran? We took down the ‘talibanistan’ and a.q. has been scattered. They’re all over the place and even though they are sunni’s, don’t think for a minute that they won’t work with Iranian Shiites to destroy America and the West. They DO have a country, several of them, just not to the extent that they had Afghanistan.

Maybe I missed it, but I didn’t see anybody say “Let’s kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:53 AM

“Hiroshima and Nagasaki” = “Pelosi & Reid”

No bombing necessary.

fogw on April 24, 2007 at 12:23 PM

Janos, dear, he can’t hear you. He knows that if he does too much of what makes up his being will vaporize. As a wise poster succinctly commented in another thread recently, “Pearls, pearls”.

And immediately I’ll violate that advice…

The weakness in your argument is that there is not a specific state that claims ownership of Al Qaida. Pretty it up any way you like but it still comes down to a desire to kill based upon a person’s religion. Considering that is the basis upon which “they” want to kill us, by extension your desire makes you the same as “them”.

An invalid presumption, wholly without logical merit, Bradky. It isn’t based upon their religion that they have become an enemy, but based on their ACTIONS, which intend to destroy anyone not viewed acceptable to themselves. You have an intellect, do not play the moron of inverting who is fomenting evil and who is defending good with such a pathetic argument.

Freelancer on April 24, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:53 AM

Your answer as requested

If they nuke Europe will we finally be willing to destroy this vile religion? After all during the Cold War, we decided if the USSR let loose a nuke, we were going to utterly destroy them…

Tim Burton on April 23, 2007 at 12:36 PM

Freelancer on April 24, 2007 at 12:27 PM

Ah calling someone a moron and pathetic negates the obvious bloodlust. Back to the Mad Max movies are we Freelancer?

Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 1:02 PM

Personally I’ve heard and seen enough from the Islamo-fascist over the last 30 years to convince me what their true goals and aspirations are, yet I am amazed at how many people both in the US and around the world continue to bury their heads in denial, e.g., the liberal left, pacifists, isolationist, PC crowd, etc.

Have they not learned from history (the rise of Nazism, Japan’s non-secular Shinto based government, just to name a couple) the peril we currently face when it comes to radical Islamo-facsist? Those who forget their past are doomed to repeat it. All these cries of “diplomacy” and “negotiation” or “appeasement” are for not and only weaken and divide us, and a divided nation is much easier to conquer!

There is no negotiating with a fanatical ideology, history is full of examples of its futility, trying to negotiate is moot as it is akin to trying to negotiate with the cyborg from the Terminator movie…it feels no remorse, it feels no pain, it feels no emotion, its only goal is to kill you!

Our enemy revels in the fact we consistently try to appease them for several reasons; it allows them to buy time to re-arm, re-fund, and plot their next wave of murderous terror, and it emboldens them as “appeasment” and “negotiation” accomplishes nothing except to make us look weak and afraid in their eyes (thank you Reid and Pelosi!) while all the time laughing at how our own people and other nations are playing into their propaganda!

Appeasment is merely fear disguised as peace, a true and lasting peace cannot be sustained if it is based upon appeasement to a radical ideology whose goal is not true freedom, but whose true goal is to destroy anyone or any nation that doesn’t convert to their fanatical religous ideology as they have interpreted it!

Wake up and smell the burning books, movies, and music for where they burn the above, soon they burn bodies! I hope and pray it will not take a mushroom or chemical/radiological cloud over a city killing hundreds of thousands of people before the rest of the world wakes up!

Liberty or Death on April 24, 2007 at 1:45 PM

Long winded diatribes still don’t justify the calls for killing 100 people in order to get the twenty bad ones.

How bad are the bad ones? If they are planning a terror attack on an American city, I am just fine with taking out 100 innocents to get 20 guilty.

Lehuster on April 24, 2007 at 5:03 PM

“Long-winded” ? That hurt, Bradky, and I worked really hard to get my GED. We can’t all be Einsteins, comme vous

Janos Hunyadi on April 24, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Liberty or Death, your Terminator analogy is right on. l’ve been using that for years with my lib friends, it’s easier to explain things to libs using a pop culture referrence.

“Now LISTEN! And understand … those terrorists are out there, they can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with, they don’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and they absolutely will not stop … EVER … until you are dead.

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM

When the day comes that our country eliminates fails to protect people based on religion our country is not the country that we know. We become no better than those who wish us dead.

Bradky on April 23, 2007 at 11:23 PM

Fixed!

Seeing how we don’t want to protect Americans due to our “religious sensativity”, we no longer are the country we were founded upon.

And war based on Religion does has roots with our Founding Fathers. Jefferson decided to kick the arses of Musliim nations for their acts of war. He justified the attacks based upon their acts were of a religious doctrine.

Finally, you are such an utter hypocrite to not want us to focus on destroying someone whose religion calls for the oppression and murder of those of other religions, yet ignore the religion that in the last couple of years have managed to kill 2.5 million Christians, Buddists and Hindus.

Your lack of moral outrage…Hell, your lack of morality is telling. I wonder if you would be so offended and defensive against destruction/conversion if you replaced Islam with Nazism…

Tim Burton on April 25, 2007 at 1:52 AM

Tim Burton on April 25, 2007 at 1:52 AM

You’ve discovered the multi-leveled secret of Bradky: no mention or knowledge of history beyond pop culture, the opposite of ‘higher intellect’, ad hominem and straw man arguments ( the favorite crutch of weak and lazy minds ) and relentless mis-representation of everyone and everything he cannot uderstand or doesn’t agree with

he DOES have moral outrage, but it is unfocused: sprayed like a spit-take onto various targets with no clue as to what others are actually saying to him

For dimwits like him, intelligent people who argue intelligently are speaking in a code which he cannot break

I wouldn’t call him and those like him ( they are legion ) a hypocrite, because he does not have enough principle to violate his own principles.

irony: if the jihadis every take over here, fools like him will be among the first to be beheaded

Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 2:40 AM

try this:

civilization is “sympathetic, merciful, tolerant, ready to discuss or argue, eager to avoid violence, to submit to law, to effect compromise.”

“Radical Islam derives from Islam but is an anti-modern, millenarian, misanthropic, misogynist, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, triumphalist, jihadistic, terroristic, and suicidal version of it. It is Islamic-flavored totalitarianism.”

So the problem is a certain kind of flavour of totalitarianism – i.e. a deviant form of Islam? Hold on. Islam, as Robert Spencer and others have painstakingly shown, has since its inception made no distinction between religion and ideology (or the state); all the seeds of violence exist within the Qura’n and other holy books (hadith and sira), with the world sharply divided into the dar el islam (house of submission) and dar el harb (house of war). Muhammad himself set off the first jihad (holy war, not some form of yoga) 1400 years ago. Why is Pipes saying that the problem is not Islam as a religion but radical, ideological Islam? Its a false distinction.

Calling it “radical” Islam is misleading. Since that implies there is a genuine “moderate” Islam. In truth there may be moderate Muslims that do not adhere to Islam’s inherent ideology. But they are considered my millions of Muslims around the world as unworthy Muslims, even apostates (defectors). Calling the problem “fundamentalist” Islam is also perhaps misleading. Since that implies there might be a “non-fundamentalist” Islam. As if it were possible to ignore the core tenets of Islamic doctrine as well as its violent blood letting history. If Islamic reformers were able to develop a strand of the so-called religion that confronted (not ignored) and rejected much of Islam’s misogyny, homophobia, anti-Semitism and intolerance, then we might be able to say there is also a moderate or non-fundamental Islam. Perhaps better put, only if Islam can throw off the ideological yoke, and in doctrine and practise be a religion without political aspirations, may we can begin to think there might be hope to reconcile Islam as a religion within our societies. Such hope is faint.

a well-known song Am Yisrael Hai (Israel Lives).

Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 2:44 AM

Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 2:40 AM

It is always entertaining to see zealots like you who would like nothing better to see the country fall to the Jihadists so that you could roam around playing “uber patriot”.

But you would likely be cowering under a pig sty somewhere begging for help. Maybe you would throw a keyboard or two at the attackers in your final moments.

Wishing for our country to become something very different such as a Fourth Reich with its final solutions is no better than the imagined legions of liberals you think are ready to turn the country over to extremists.

Get back to your freshman comp class– it is pretty clear where you are coming from. When the glorious apocalypse comes to validate your hopes and dreams you and Tim may be disappointed it didn’t turn out like your movie type fantasies. Heck you and him may be fighting over the last child bearing woman on the continent – Rosie.

Bradky on April 25, 2007 at 8:40 AM

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM

I am glad that you are only serving crackers and peanuts to customers at 30 thousand feet instead of being responsible for the complicated decisions made in the running of our country. Your logic is that we need to become the fourth reich before they form their own?

Bradky on April 25, 2007 at 8:45 AM

Ah calling someone a moron and pathetic negates the obvious bloodlust. Back to the Mad Max movies are we Freelancer?

Bradky on April 24, 2007 at 1:02 PM

But it is okay when you do it? Typical lefty. Hypocrisy is your thing, and you did it so well. please. keep talking people need to see you for what you are.

Noelie on April 25, 2007 at 8:06 PM

Tony737 on April 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM

Thank you Tony for reminding me of the complete wording that was used in the Terminator movie, I will remember to use its full and effective text next time when conveying the threat we face to our pop-culture absorbed liberal friends.

I’d also like to address some of Bradky’s many postings, yes Bradky, this is one long diatribe, not numerous short ones. I realize that some of the words used by some of the other posters here may seem a bit harsh to you Bradky, but I disagree with some of your interpretations and analogies on what is being communicated by them.

In regard to your post:

Wishing for our country to become something very different such as a Fourth Reich with its final solutions is no better than the imagined legions of liberals you think are ready to turn the country over to extremists.

Get back to your freshman comp class– it is pretty clear where you are coming from. When the glorious apocalypse comes to validate your hopes and dreams you and Tim may be disappointed it didn’t turn out like your movie type fantasies. Heck you and him may be fighting over the last child bearing woman on the continent – Rosie.

First of all, making the comparison of our nation protecting our freedoms and country from Islamic Fascism to the Third (or Fourth) Reich is way off base, there is no comparison. We didn’t ask for this war, this war with fascist Islam has been brewing for as long as I can remember (I’m 44) despite all the years of negotiation and appeasement with fascist Islam and culminated in the 9-11 attacks against our nation that killed 3,000 innocent non-military civilians. Our goal is not to rule the world with a “supreme race” through genocide as was Hitler and the Third Reich’s goal, we are merely protecting ourselves from an enemy whose goal is world domination in which all peoples and nations are submissive to the Caliphate of Islam under their strict and brutal Shari religious law.

Now that I’ve established that we are not the aggressor here, and that our goal is not the same as the Third Reich, I’d like to point out how I believe you are confusing the actions we as a nation have already undertaken and/or the actions other people on this blog would like to see our nation take against our enemies, which in my interpretation does not equate our people or nation with being like the Third Reich.

When a nation makes the difficult decision to go to war it must be with the absolute goal and conviction of defeating their enemy with all means at their disposal until the enemy has unconditionally surrendered. War is not something you do half-assed, going to war with anything less than the full conviction of being victorious is a recipe for disaster and defeat.

With that said, in order to be victorious against your enemy you must put aside politics, political correctness, appeasement, diplomacy, and negotiation until your enemy has capitulated and has unconditionally surrendered. Only once complete victory is achieved is it time for the politicians to step in to conduct diplomacy and negotiation, until then the politicians need to stay out of the way and not tie our military’s hands!

However, in order to come to this latter stage one must defeat its enemy, and in war that can only be achieved by force, which means people will die, including civilians, war is not PC, it is hell.

Bradky also made the comment:

Long winded diatribes still don’t justify the calls for killing 100 people in order to get the twenty bad ones. If you are more comfortable with a Nazi government that shares similar principles to the Jihadists at least be honest and admit that is what you want America to become.

Although this may offend Bradky’s sensibilities and sound harsh, my answer to his question if it’s justified to kill 100 people to get 20 bad ones is “yes!” Bradky, you need to learn that PC has no place in war, again, war is hell, and people die! Also, in war it is sometimes necessary to make such difficult decisions especially when your enemy is conducting a guerilla war, where they have no defined uniform, flag, etc. that readily identifies or distinguishes them as the enemy. What you fail to ask yourself is why is it our military must make such a difficult decision, to kill 100 civilians in order to kill 20 of the enemy? Here’s why, our enemy has little regard for human life, they prove it everyday with their suicide bombings, so they think nothing of danger they place civilians in when conducting its military operations within the civilian population; inside of Mosques, schools, homes, etc. If you want to paint someone as the Third, Fourth, of Fifth Reich (hell, Sixth Reich for that matter) then perhaps you may want to start painting our enemies with that brush of yours because the responsibility for placing civilians in harms way rests squarely on their shoulders!

Also, what do you recommend our soldiers do Bradky, should our brave soldiers simply throw down their weapons and be slaughtered because our enemy conducts its operations like cowards hiding behind women and children? Doing so plays right into their hands and is a sure path to defeat, the enemy knows this and takes full advantage of the situation at the expense and blood of innocent civilians and our brave soldiers. I would also like to note here that some of these “innocent civilians” aren’t always as innocent as the enemy would like you or us to think, the enemy never likes its adversary to know how many of their troops were killed, in addition, some of these “innocent civilians” are more than happy to assist them since they adhere to the same fascist ideology, therefore in a state of war they cannot be considered civilians, but must be viewed and dealt with as enemy combatants. It’s a catch 22, damned if we do and damned if we don’t, if we attack and kill our enemy along with innocent civilians, then they use it as propaganda against us, “look at the bloodthirsty Americans, they kill innocent people, they are the true terrorists!” If we don’t attack, then our soldiers die, then troop moral plummets because we have no chance for victor when our military leaders have their hands tied behind our backs. Next thing you know the dems are calling for “cut-and-run” we’ve been defeated, the enemy is emboldened, and they hit us again, only harder next time! So if it’s a choice between defeat and our soldiers dying needlessly or defeating our enemy by any means, then I say take them out.

Keep in mind Bradky, despite how brutal these types of judgments and mentality are, they are not equal to what the Third Reich was all about, as our goal is not to rule the world with a supreme race through genocide as was the Third Reich’s goal, rather, these types of judgments and mentality are a necessary part of war that are required in order to defeat a fascist ideological enemy that has declared war against us, plain and simple!

According to your logic Bradky, when Patton gave his famous pep-talk to his troops before joining the fight in WWI when he said, “we’re going to kill those Hun bastards by the bushel, we’re going to wade through them like sh** through a goose” he too was equivalent to the Third Reich? No, he wasn’t anymore than I am or the others posting on this blog, he was merely being realistic and preparing his men for victory by doing what he knew had to be done, and as he so eloquently put it, “no one ever won a war by dying for his country, you win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country”

I’m just thankful that we had people like General George Patton during WWII to fight the Germans, I know he wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to blow up a church, Mosque, or home into little pieces if it were being used to launch attacks against his troops, regardless of the potential for civilian casualties! If Patton were forced to fight WWII like the dems, PC crowd, peaceniks, and pacifists want us to fight this current war we’d all be slave laborers to Nazism or Imperialist Japan right now! In fact, if our politicians and the PC crowd would just get out of the way and allow the military to do its job and take out the enemy regardless of where they are operating from I can almost guarantee that after the first several “gloves off” assaults our enemy will come to realize we really mean business and there is no longer any safe haven for them. Doing so will force our enemy into the open as the truly innocent civilian population will see we aren’t playing their game anymore and won’t want our enemy within a 100 yards of their homes, Mosques, or anywhere where they will be caught in the middle!

One last thing, I can guarantee you that if Bradky were to make some of his comments to Patton during WWII he would have become the second soldier to be slapped by Patton!

Liberty or Death on April 25, 2007 at 10:13 PM

Sorry guys, I must have accidently placed a strike throughout my posting…some people (Bradky) may think that’s a good thing…hehehe!

Liberty or Death on April 25, 2007 at 10:15 PM

Thank you Tony for reminding me of the complete wording that was used in the Terminator movie, I will remember to use its full and effective text next time when conveying the threat we face to our pop-culture absorbed liberal friends.

I’d also like to address some of Bradky’s many postings, yes Bradky, this is one long diatribe, not numerous short ones. I realize that some of the words used by some of the other posters here may seem a bit harsh to you Bradky, but I disagree with some of your interpretations and analogies on what is being communicated by them.

In regard to Bradky’s post:

Wishing for our country to become something very different such as a Fourth Reich with its final solutions is no better than the imagined legions of liberals you think are ready to turn the country over to extremists.

Get back to your freshman comp class– it is pretty clear where you are coming from. When the glorious apocalypse comes to validate your hopes and dreams you and Tim may be disappointed it didn’t turn out like your movie type fantasies. Heck you and him may be fighting over the last child bearing woman on the continent – Rosie.

First of all, making the comparison of our nation protecting our freedoms and county from Islamic Fascism to the Third (or Fourth) Reich is way off base, there is no comparison. We didn’t ask for this war, this war with fascist Islam has been brewing for as long as I can remember (I’m 44) despite all the years of negotiation and appeasement with fascist Islam and culminated in the 9-11 attacks against our nation that killed 3,000 innocent non-military civilians. Our goal is not to rule the world with a “supreme race” as was Hitler and the Third Reich’s goal, we are merely protecting ourselves from an enemy whose goal is world domination in which all peoples and nations are submissive to the Caliphate of Islam under their strict and brutal Shari religious law.

Now that I’ve established that we are not the aggressor here, and that our goal is not the same as the Third Reich, I’d like to point out how I believe you are confusing the actions we as a nation have already undertaken and/or the actions other people on this blog would like to see our nation take against our enemies, which in my interpretation equates our people or nation with being like the Third Reich.

When a nation makes the difficult decision to go to war it must be with the absolute goal and conviction of defeating their enemy with all means at their disposal until the enemy has unconditionally surrendered. War is not something you do half-assed, going to war with anything less than the full conviction of being victorious is a recipe for disaster and defeat.

With that said in order to be victorious against your enemy you must put aside politics, political correctness, appeasement, diplomacy, and negotiation until your enemy has capitulated and has unconditionally surrendered. Only once complete victory is achieved is it time for the politicians to step in to conduct diplomacy and negotiation, until then the politicians need to stay out of the way and not tie our military’s hands!

However, in order to come to this latter stage one must defeat its enemy, and in war that can only be achieved by force, which means people will die, including civilians, war is not PC, it is hell.

Bradky also made the comment:

Long winded diatribes still don’t justify the calls for killing 100 people in order to get the twenty bad ones. If you are more comfortable with a Nazi government that shares similar principles to the Jihadists at least be honest and admit that is what you want America to become.

Although this may offend Bradky’s sensibilities and sound harsh, my answer to his question if it’s justified to kill 100 people to get 20 bad ones is “yes!” Bradky, you need to learn that PC has no place in war, again, war is hell, and people die! Also, in war it is sometimes necessary to make such difficult decisions especially when your enemy is conducting a guerilla war, where they have no defined uniform, flag, etc. that readily identifies or distinguishes them as the enemy. What you fail to ask yourself is why is it our military must make such a difficult decision, to kill 100 civilians in order to kill 20 of the enemy? Here’s why, our enemy thinks nothing of conducting its military operations within the civilian population, inside of Mosques, schools, homes, etc. If you want to paint someone as the Third, Fourth, of Fifth Reich then perhaps you may want to start painting our enemies with that brush of yours because the responsibility for placing civilians in harms way rests squarely on their shoulders!

Also, what do you recommend our soldiers do Bradky, should our brave soldiers simply throw down their weapons and be slaughtered because our enemy conducts its operations like cowards hiding behind women and children? Doing so plays right into their hands and is a sure path to defeat, the enemy knows this and takes full advantage of the situation at the expense and blood of innocent civilians and our brave soldiers. I would also like to note here that some of these “innocent civilians” aren’t always as innocent as the enemy would like you or us to think, the enemy never likes its adversary to know how many of their troops were killed, in addition, some of these “innocent civilians” are more than happy to assist them since they adhere to the same fascist ideology, therefore in a state of war they cannot be considered civilians, but must be viewed and dealt with as enemy combatants. It’s a catch 22, damned if we do and damned if we don’t, if we attack and kill our enemy along with innocent civilians, then they use it as propaganda against us, “look at the bloodthirsty Americans, they kill innocent people, they are the true terrorists!” If we don’t attack, then our soldiers die, then troop moral plummets because we have no chance for victor when our military leaders have their hands tied behind our backs. Next thing you know the dems are calling for “cut-and-run” we’ve been defeated, the enemy is emboldened, and they hit us again, only harder next time! So if it’s a choice between defeat and our soldiers dying needlessly or defeating our enemy by any means, then I say take them out.

Keep in mind Bradky, despite how brutal these types of judgments and mentality are, they are not equal to what the Third Reich was all about, as our goal is not to rule the world with a supreme race through genocide as was the Third Reich’s goal, rather, these types of judgments and mentality are a necessary part of war that are required in order to defeat a fascist ideological enemy that has declared war against us, plain and simple!

According to your logic Bradky, when Patton gave his famous pep-talk to his troops before joining the fight in WWI when he said, “we’re going to kill those Hun bastards by the bushel, we’re going to wade through them like sh** through a goose” then he too was equivalent to the Third Reich? No, he wasn’t, anymore than myself or the others posting on this blog. Patton was merely being realistic and preparing his men for victory by doing what he knew had to be done, and as he so eloquently put it, “no one ever won a war by dying for his country, you win wars by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country”

I’m just thankful that we had people like General George Patton during WWII to fight the Germans, I know he wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to blow up a church, Mosque, or home into little pieces if it were being used to launch attacks against his troops, regardless of the potential for civilian casualties! If Patton were forced to fight WWII like the dems, PC crowd, peaceniks, and pacifists want us to fight this current war we’d all be slave laborers to Nazism or Imperialist Japan right now! In fact, if our politicians and the PC crowd would just get out of the way and allow the military to do its job and take out the enemy regardless of where they are operating from I can almost guarantee that after the first several “gloves off” assaults our enemy will come to realize we really mean business and there is no longer any safe haven for them. Doing so will force our enemy into the open as the truly innocent civilian population will see we aren’t playing their game anymore and won’t want our enemy within a 100 yards of their homes, Mosques, or anywhere where they will be caught in the middle!

One last thing, I can guarantee you that if Bradky were to make some of his comments to Patton during WWII he would have become the second soldier to be slapped by Patton!

Liberty or Death on April 25, 2007 at 10:22 PM

Well, give me “Liberty or ( give me ) Death” anyday, but trying to instruct Bradky ( and the many Bradkys out there ) is like rollin’ that big rock uphill……

As for Patton, don’t use George’s name in the same sentence with Bradky: Patton was a Civilized Warrior, restrained but focused ( yes I said restrained ), and understood what it took to defeat an enemy whose essential motive was evil.

He was vain and arrogant and everything else they called him, but he was a genius at what needed to be done–and having him on our side saved thousands of lives

Janos Hunyadi on April 25, 2007 at 10:36 PM

I apologize, I’m new to this blog with all the cool text gadgets, this is why my original posting had strikes throughout. I also noticed an error in one paragraph that needs to be corrected:

Now that I’ve established that we are not the aggressor here, and that our goal is not the same as the Third Reich, I’d like to point out how I believe you are confusing the actions we as a nation have already undertaken and/or the actions other people on this blog would like to see our nation take against our enemies, which in my interpretation DOES NOT equate our people or nation with being like the Third Reich.

Liberty or Death on April 25, 2007 at 11:02 PM

I agree Janos, Patton was vain, arrogant, as well as some other choice verb-age some would label him as I’m certain, but at least he was man enough to admit it…hehehe!

But most importantly as you pointed out, he understood the evil we faced, he never doubted the war was just and right (unlike many in our country today) and he saved many lives. I also believe he could have done more if he hadn’t been held back by the politicos, which brings me to some of the points I made in my post, politicians, the PC crowd, etc. don’t and shouldn’t mix with wars, not until the bullets stop flying…period!

Liberty or Death on April 25, 2007 at 11:28 PM

I coming in late here, but I have to heap praise upon whomever chose that photo and that headline.

“I can’t get left!”

No really, I can’t.

saint kansas on April 26, 2007 at 8:59 AM