Back a lot more quickly than anticipated, but I felt inspired at last.
In the immediate wake of the 9/11 attacks I advocated carpet-bombing every place that danced in celebration of them. That would have sent a VERY clear message and made zero difference to the terrorists’ antipathy toward us. As well, they would have to high-tail it for whatever hole in the ground they could find because if the locals know that they will suffer severely to pin-prick the infidel with miniscule attacks, support will rapidly dry up.
My opinions have if anything only hardened since then, and the Americans particularly have begun to reap the harvest of being too soft on their enemies. Diane West’s op ed piece here (hat tip: LGF) says everything I’m thinking better than I could do so myself.
Divide and conquer is the oldest trick in the books, and it also applies to people you have no inclination to conquer. Hardly anyone cares that millions of people have died in Africa in the last few years (Sudan and the DRC specifically), and none of them have been trying to destroy our civilization. Why then should we cringe from letting the Muslims beat up on each other if it keeps al Queda and Iran away from us?
We are losing our painfully acquired western traditions to the demographic impingement of people with no interest in them. We (the West) can’t be militarily defeated, even (especially) by terrorism, but we can collapse under our own apathy, and this looks like it’s happening.
Here’s a quote to put the Middle East in perspective:
"First of all, I oppose any external intervention in Arab affairs. If the Arabs are so inept that they cannot be democratic by themselves, they can never be democratic through the intervention of others.
"If we want to be democratic, we must be so by ourselves. But the preconditions for democracy do not exist in Arab society, and cannot exist unless religion is reexamined in a new and accurate way, and unless religion becomes a personal and spiritual experience, which must be respected."
This comes from an Arab, so it’s a bit of self-awareness that so many factions in the Arab (and Muslim) world try so hard to suppress. This “tradition” of intolerance of different opinions is something that the Jihadists would export to the world. The immediacy of this threat, especially to this continent, is debatable, but anything that focuses the efforts of those groups away from “us” is a good thing.
Despite the general bloodthirstiness suggested by a lot of my opinions, there will be a majority in any of these countries that don’t deserve what will happen to them and I wish that was preventable. However, there is no magic that will separate all those who could live with our society from all those who wish to destroy it, so it’s up to whatever afterlives there may be to sort them out.
The West can’t allow itself to be handcuffed by soft-hearted concerns when its’ very existence is at stake. We did what needed to be done to win WW2, but history has shown since then that every time we “pull our punches” the job doesn’t get finished. Korea, Israel/Palestine, Vietnam and Somalia are all examples of things that either went against what “we” were hoping to accomplish and/or are still in a state of flux pending some more permanent solution.
Sometimes doing nothing is exactly the right decision, provided it is a deliberate, considered choice and not the result of some mental paralysis. Iraq at least looks like it’ll provide its’ own exit strategy for the US if they want to take it.
Sunday 17 December 2006
Wednesday 13 December 2006
Cold-Warriors and the holiday slowdown
Ok, the pace of posts is flagging somewhat, so I’ll see what I can dredge up.
Well, General Pinochet is dead. I don’t know a whole lot about the events leading up to or the reality of the communist threat posed by Allende, but I will say that Chile isn’t another Cuba. I have my own views on how to deal with threats (quickly and mercilessly if possible) and apparently I’m not the only one.
It was a different time, and the possibility of a communist regime arising from a democratically elected “socialist” government was real. We’ll never know if that would have happened, but we do know that it didn’t; it’s one of the CIA’s few successful coups, and the only one in a “real” country. We can see the way that Chavez is headed in Venezuela and know that the foolishness continues.
Interestingly at the same time that’s all happening, another Cold War stalwart is on his way out. In standard style Fidel's health is kept secret but there is a sign that his brother will try to shake the Cuba-US deadlock loose. The Americans are famously slow to give up the grudge (Libya in 1993, anyone?) so predictions are that they’ll stay true to form and drag things out unnecessarily.
I’m finding it difficult to get really worked up about a lot of things that are happening, so it’ll likely be a slow month for any of you who actually read this. There are a few goodies that I’ve trolled, like this holiday gem: I do wonder who has the time and inclination to post all this stuff, but I’m sometimes happy that they do.
I’ll leave it there for now, but in case I’m not back before then, a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, a good Solstice, and anything else I’ve missed. I should have something else to say before New Years though…
Well, General Pinochet is dead. I don’t know a whole lot about the events leading up to or the reality of the communist threat posed by Allende, but I will say that Chile isn’t another Cuba. I have my own views on how to deal with threats (quickly and mercilessly if possible) and apparently I’m not the only one.
It was a different time, and the possibility of a communist regime arising from a democratically elected “socialist” government was real. We’ll never know if that would have happened, but we do know that it didn’t; it’s one of the CIA’s few successful coups, and the only one in a “real” country. We can see the way that Chavez is headed in Venezuela and know that the foolishness continues.
Interestingly at the same time that’s all happening, another Cold War stalwart is on his way out. In standard style Fidel's health is kept secret but there is a sign that his brother will try to shake the Cuba-US deadlock loose. The Americans are famously slow to give up the grudge (Libya in 1993, anyone?) so predictions are that they’ll stay true to form and drag things out unnecessarily.
I’m finding it difficult to get really worked up about a lot of things that are happening, so it’ll likely be a slow month for any of you who actually read this. There are a few goodies that I’ve trolled, like this holiday gem: I do wonder who has the time and inclination to post all this stuff, but I’m sometimes happy that they do.
I’ll leave it there for now, but in case I’m not back before then, a Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, a good Solstice, and anything else I’ve missed. I should have something else to say before New Years though…
Thursday 30 November 2006
Time-wasting speculation
A little research I was doing yesterday brought me across some stuff on Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and it made me think about how different things could have been…
I have in the past expressed the opinion that the US should have taken the gloves off and gone after the real wellspring of (Wahabbi) terrorism. That’s right, the Kingdom of Saud, not Baathist Iraq.
What if, for example someone had done that for us back in 1990/1? At the time it looked like a bad idea, all that oil under the control of one nasty dictator. I’ll engage in a bit of blatant hindsight to show how that might have been the lesser of at least two evils.
Say Saddam Hussein had rolled right over the border into Saudi Arabia before G.H. Bush had lifted the bulk of the US Army into that sandy corner of arrested development; what’s the worst that would happen?
Well, the Saudi family would be dispossessed, all 25,000 of them. Crying shame really, but the effects on the world could be a lot more far-ranging than a few thousand dispossessed princelings. I suspect that Saddam’s secret police would sweep trough the place and uproot anything they thought might be a threat. This would naturally include any fundamentalist religious groups that could be a base of resistance to the Baathist New Order.
The financial underpinning of all those Wahabbi/Salafist madrassas would be removed, with a corresponding drop in the number of young men brainwashed into that particular cult of death. Osama bin-Laden would likely be strapped for cash, and al-Qaeda would be on a bit of a shoestring. I doubt it would stop them, but they wouldn’t have the resources they did as of 9/11/2001, and just maybe their attention would have been elsewhere…
As for that oil that we (presently) need so badly? Well, I’m sure that Saddam could be convinced to sell it to us, and a few US carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf could help those negotiations. Saddam could no more hold (now non-Saudi) Arabia against the Americans than he held Kuwait. From another angle, those CTFs could be there to keep the Iranians from getting any ideas after we cut a deal with “Greater Iraq”.
Yes, human rights would still be in the toilet in the Middle East, but how is that different from now? We would have removed the supposed root of bin-Laden’s hatred of the US by not having any US troops in the cradle of Islam, and avoided Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom (maybe). Iran could be contained (something we need to do now) and the US wouldn’t be bankrupting itself in major military operations.
At this point we have to take a good hard look at our interests. Sure, concentrating that large a proportion of the world’s proven oil reserves in the hands of one man wouldn’t be the best thing ever. But the spread of secularism, not democracy would have been accomplished, and I argue that this is much more in the West’s long-term interests in that region than democracy is.
Democracy is for countries that have fought and bled specifically for it, and it can’t be imposed on anyone who hasn’t. One of these days we’re going to have to get off our high horse and accept that there are things that liberalism can’t do to people who really don’t want it. I’m not holding my breath for that day.
I have in the past expressed the opinion that the US should have taken the gloves off and gone after the real wellspring of (Wahabbi) terrorism. That’s right, the Kingdom of Saud, not Baathist Iraq.
What if, for example someone had done that for us back in 1990/1? At the time it looked like a bad idea, all that oil under the control of one nasty dictator. I’ll engage in a bit of blatant hindsight to show how that might have been the lesser of at least two evils.
Say Saddam Hussein had rolled right over the border into Saudi Arabia before G.H. Bush had lifted the bulk of the US Army into that sandy corner of arrested development; what’s the worst that would happen?
Well, the Saudi family would be dispossessed, all 25,000 of them. Crying shame really, but the effects on the world could be a lot more far-ranging than a few thousand dispossessed princelings. I suspect that Saddam’s secret police would sweep trough the place and uproot anything they thought might be a threat. This would naturally include any fundamentalist religious groups that could be a base of resistance to the Baathist New Order.
The financial underpinning of all those Wahabbi/Salafist madrassas would be removed, with a corresponding drop in the number of young men brainwashed into that particular cult of death. Osama bin-Laden would likely be strapped for cash, and al-Qaeda would be on a bit of a shoestring. I doubt it would stop them, but they wouldn’t have the resources they did as of 9/11/2001, and just maybe their attention would have been elsewhere…
As for that oil that we (presently) need so badly? Well, I’m sure that Saddam could be convinced to sell it to us, and a few US carrier task forces in the Persian Gulf could help those negotiations. Saddam could no more hold (now non-Saudi) Arabia against the Americans than he held Kuwait. From another angle, those CTFs could be there to keep the Iranians from getting any ideas after we cut a deal with “Greater Iraq”.
Yes, human rights would still be in the toilet in the Middle East, but how is that different from now? We would have removed the supposed root of bin-Laden’s hatred of the US by not having any US troops in the cradle of Islam, and avoided Operation Iraqi Freedom/Enduring Freedom (maybe). Iran could be contained (something we need to do now) and the US wouldn’t be bankrupting itself in major military operations.
At this point we have to take a good hard look at our interests. Sure, concentrating that large a proportion of the world’s proven oil reserves in the hands of one man wouldn’t be the best thing ever. But the spread of secularism, not democracy would have been accomplished, and I argue that this is much more in the West’s long-term interests in that region than democracy is.
Democracy is for countries that have fought and bled specifically for it, and it can’t be imposed on anyone who hasn’t. One of these days we’re going to have to get off our high horse and accept that there are things that liberalism can’t do to people who really don’t want it. I’m not holding my breath for that day.
Friday 24 November 2006
Honi Soit Qui Mal Y Pense
Louise Arbour is at it again:
'Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.
"In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic." '(Jerusalem Post)
If she really thinks this way, I'm distressed (though not surprised) that she was ever responsible for making the laws of this country.
I can get behind the idea that trying to slaughter civilians (full stop, not part of a specific military op) is "very bad". However, the idea that it's criminally "reckless" to engage legitimate military targets if there happen to be civilians there, and that this is worse than "very bad" is not merely a crock, it's illogical. I don't imagine that I'm alone in feeling that murderous intent is no less "bad" for not being executed very effectively.
To me this suggests that she has lost all touch with reality, and I will refer you back to some previous posts of mine dealing with the Laws of Armed Conflict and with Ms Arbours' fecklessness on this subject.
As a parting shot, I would like ask Louise Arbour one question: if the Islamist scum that you keep enabling ever do take over, what chance is there for another woman to ever rise to a position of (self) importance like yours?
PS: if you can work out the relation of the title to the subject matter of this piece you'll have a bit of a window into the circuitous workings of my mind. If not, rest assured that it makes sense to me. ;)
'Asked by the Post if there was a distinction under human rights law between missile attacks aimed at killing civilians and military strikes in which civilians are unintentionally killed, Arbour said the two could not be equated.
"In one case you could have, for instance, a very objectionable intent - the intent to harm civilians, which is very bad - but effectively not a lot of harm is actually achieved," she said. "But how can you compare that with a case where you may not have an intent but you have recklessness [in which] civilian casualties are foreseeable? The culpability or the intent may not sound as severe, but the actual harm is catastrophic." '(Jerusalem Post)
If she really thinks this way, I'm distressed (though not surprised) that she was ever responsible for making the laws of this country.
I can get behind the idea that trying to slaughter civilians (full stop, not part of a specific military op) is "very bad". However, the idea that it's criminally "reckless" to engage legitimate military targets if there happen to be civilians there, and that this is worse than "very bad" is not merely a crock, it's illogical. I don't imagine that I'm alone in feeling that murderous intent is no less "bad" for not being executed very effectively.
To me this suggests that she has lost all touch with reality, and I will refer you back to some previous posts of mine dealing with the Laws of Armed Conflict and with Ms Arbours' fecklessness on this subject.
As a parting shot, I would like ask Louise Arbour one question: if the Islamist scum that you keep enabling ever do take over, what chance is there for another woman to ever rise to a position of (self) importance like yours?
PS: if you can work out the relation of the title to the subject matter of this piece you'll have a bit of a window into the circuitous workings of my mind. If not, rest assured that it makes sense to me. ;)
Saturday 18 November 2006
RIP: George Blackburn, MC
The news item gives the big picture, but I had the chance to meet him a few weeks ago. I consider myself fortunate to have had the opportunity, and men of his generation are passing quickly these days. I've had the chance to meet a number of WW2 veterans, (my grandfathers included of course) and if any of you are interested in a more active connection with that bit of history I suggest you talk to some of these guys before the opportunity passes forever.
George's books are highly recommended (and not just by me), and tell a remarkable story of a normal man who managed to beat the odds of a very dangerous front-line job (Artillery Forward Observation Officer or FOO) and survive longer in that position in NW Europe than pretty much anybody else. This is a link to an item on George and his wartime signaller Mel Squissato (whom I also had the pleasure to talk to a few weeks back) in The Netherlands last year.
He had a good run, and had a lot of "fans" in the Canadian military and elsewhere, so I'd say it was a life well-lived and he departed on as good a note as possible. The memorial service is in Ottawa today, and although I can't be there I'm sure it will be well attended. He will be remembered, as will all of our soldiers who didn't (and won't) make it home, just as George himself wished.
George's books are highly recommended (and not just by me), and tell a remarkable story of a normal man who managed to beat the odds of a very dangerous front-line job (Artillery Forward Observation Officer or FOO) and survive longer in that position in NW Europe than pretty much anybody else. This is a link to an item on George and his wartime signaller Mel Squissato (whom I also had the pleasure to talk to a few weeks back) in The Netherlands last year.
He had a good run, and had a lot of "fans" in the Canadian military and elsewhere, so I'd say it was a life well-lived and he departed on as good a note as possible. The memorial service is in Ottawa today, and although I can't be there I'm sure it will be well attended. He will be remembered, as will all of our soldiers who didn't (and won't) make it home, just as George himself wished.
Monday 13 November 2006
It's the UN so it must be a good idea!
Yes, another council of concerned dignitaries will solve all of our ills! So all we have to do is resolve the Arab-Israeli thing and change almost every single government in the Muslim world. Should take a week or two...
Well that was subtle. As for the premise:
'They say that the critical symbol of discord is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, along with Western military interventions in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, contributes significantly to the growing sense of resentment and mistrust that mars relations among communities.
"Moreover, the perception of double standards in the application of international law and the protection of human rights is increasing resentment and the sense of vulnerability felt by many Muslims around the globe," the report says.'
I have a few issues with this view. First, the Israel thing is a result of the failure of the Arabs/Muslims to manage their own interests, since they had plenty of opportunity in the first 10 years of the existance of Israel to obliterate it, and they couldn't pull it off. It looks like the Iranians are gearing up to directly join the effort to wipe out the only true democracy in the ME, so stay tuned for the end result.
I won't touch Iraq, except to say that nobody forced the locals to start slaughtering each other as soon as the Baathists were overthrown, and the fact that they're doing so is NOT the Americans' fault.
Afghanistan. Well, we could have ignored a blatant terrorist training base and the government that supported it, but strangely that doesn't seem like a viable option. The same people who carp about "Western military intervention" don't seem to make note of the attempts to rebuild the country and give it a functional government. What exactly is the message we're supposed to come away with here?
In the past I've advocated just smashing things as a warning to cease and desist. This has been frowned upon by many as being counter-productive in the long run, and I have been able to see their perspective. Increasingly I'm not convinced I'm wrong.
If trying to change governments in what we perceive to be the best interest of the subject peoples is just going to generate charges of, well whatever you can imagine, then WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?
Leaving them be is a bad idea, since we're obviously despised as the infidel pigs that we are, so a little power projection can convince them that the Crusader-Zionist conspiracy is best left unprovoked.
Islam as a religion isn't a particular threat to Western society. However, unlike Christianity, there is no "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's" in the Koran, so there is no possibility of the separation of church and state. Turkey has been trying it for the last 80 years or so and secularism is only held in place by the mailed fist of the Army. I think we could take a lesson from that.
I think "bridges" to the muslim world are a fine idea. You can set up access control on bridges, and if necessay blow them up to keep the Caliphate at bay. SomehowI don't think that's exactly what our "dignitaries" at the UN have in mind though...
Well that was subtle. As for the premise:
'They say that the critical symbol of discord is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict which, along with Western military interventions in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, contributes significantly to the growing sense of resentment and mistrust that mars relations among communities.
"Moreover, the perception of double standards in the application of international law and the protection of human rights is increasing resentment and the sense of vulnerability felt by many Muslims around the globe," the report says.'
I have a few issues with this view. First, the Israel thing is a result of the failure of the Arabs/Muslims to manage their own interests, since they had plenty of opportunity in the first 10 years of the existance of Israel to obliterate it, and they couldn't pull it off. It looks like the Iranians are gearing up to directly join the effort to wipe out the only true democracy in the ME, so stay tuned for the end result.
I won't touch Iraq, except to say that nobody forced the locals to start slaughtering each other as soon as the Baathists were overthrown, and the fact that they're doing so is NOT the Americans' fault.
Afghanistan. Well, we could have ignored a blatant terrorist training base and the government that supported it, but strangely that doesn't seem like a viable option. The same people who carp about "Western military intervention" don't seem to make note of the attempts to rebuild the country and give it a functional government. What exactly is the message we're supposed to come away with here?
In the past I've advocated just smashing things as a warning to cease and desist. This has been frowned upon by many as being counter-productive in the long run, and I have been able to see their perspective. Increasingly I'm not convinced I'm wrong.
If trying to change governments in what we perceive to be the best interest of the subject peoples is just going to generate charges of, well whatever you can imagine, then WHY SHOULD WE BOTHER?
Leaving them be is a bad idea, since we're obviously despised as the infidel pigs that we are, so a little power projection can convince them that the Crusader-Zionist conspiracy is best left unprovoked.
Islam as a religion isn't a particular threat to Western society. However, unlike Christianity, there is no "render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's" in the Koran, so there is no possibility of the separation of church and state. Turkey has been trying it for the last 80 years or so and secularism is only held in place by the mailed fist of the Army. I think we could take a lesson from that.
I think "bridges" to the muslim world are a fine idea. You can set up access control on bridges, and if necessay blow them up to keep the Caliphate at bay. SomehowI don't think that's exactly what our "dignitaries" at the UN have in mind though...
Sunday 5 November 2006
Orson Scott Card on Bush and the War on Terror
This is long, but definitely worth a read. I've not digested it fully yet (I read it 5 minutes ago) but it rings quite true to me so I'll go with my gut and recommend you look at it. It's an excellent complement to that "Ghost of Patton" rant I linked to a short time ago, but a lot more balanced, looking at the nuances of America's actions and intentions.
I'd like hear from anyone about either/both of these items, so don't be shy.
I'd like hear from anyone about either/both of these items, so don't be shy.
Pour décourager les autres…
Ok, I’m not going to pull any punches on this one. This is another example of the successful use of the human shield by the other side. You can check the link above, or see Al-Jazeera’s take on it. The material facts of the case are the same, and AJ’s coverage (other than the headline) seems at least as balanced as the CTV’s. These two excerpts from the Canadian story will show why we’re never going to effectively deal with similar situations in Afghanistan or elsewhere:
"The Israeli army said troops were reluctant to fire into the crowd but noticed two militants hiding among the women. And as the crowd dispersed, at least two men were seen disguised as women.
The large crowd that had gathered by mid-morning Friday helped the militants to escape, because there weren't enough ground troops to keep the protesters away from the building, the military said.
Israeli troops had bombarded the mosque with stun and smoke grenades, and bulldozed an outer wall of the structure in an attempt to force the gunmen to surrender.
Around the town, Israeli forces lowered their profile. Soldiers stopped patrolling the streets, though snipers were still perched on rooftops and tanks were still in position on the streets.
Despite the crackdown on Beit Hanoun, rockets have continued to land in Israel."
This mob of “innocent” women was gathered according to a Hamas radio appeal, and was there to trump the Israeli military option. You may notice the lack of brutal military determination to deal with these armed guys hiding in a mosque (stun and smoke grenades aren’t exactly decisive), and then the effective retreat of the IDF from the area after this embarrassing debacle.
You will notice that the cause of the IDF incursion (the rocket attacks) continued unabated, so they got a bit of bad press for nothing.
This keeps working, so it’ll keep being done. Now, just for the sake of argument, say you had flattened the mosque as soon as the bad guys (your perspective, of course) decided to use it for a fort, this human shield thing wouldn’t have had time to materialize, and no women would have been shot and the bad guys would have been effectively neutralized if not killed outright.
Failing that, send a message. The Laws of Armed Conflict (see earlier post) do not deny forces the right to fire on civilian targets if hostile forces are there. This clause is there because if it were not, all that were required to stop operations would be the opposing force hiding in a house. Obviously this won’t fly, so we MAKE IT CLEAR to our potential enemies to “Just send in your Chief and surrender, it’s worse if you fights or you runs, you can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns!”. (quote from guess who)
In short, gun the whole lot of them down. This doesn’t mean indiscriminately target non-combatants (which is very much against the LOAC), but these were merely unarmed combatants. In my books if you engage in a ruse de guerre like pulling out a white flag to help your armed compatriots escape, this doesn’t safeguard you from armed retaliation. It's not just my twisted opinion either; I'm pretty sure it's international law, for whatever that's worth these days.
Our squeamishness about killing “civilians” is meaningless when the enemy doesn’t play by our rules, or even wear uniforms. There will be an international outrage no matter what you do in this case, but I argue that making it clear that you have accepted the gauntlet that has been thrown down will do a lot more good in the long run.
There were cases in Lebanon this past summer of certain villages defending their territory against Hezbollah, because they knew what would happen if the bastards were allowed to set up shop there. You’ll notice how little press that got. If being a bullet-catcher is made to look like a bad idea (i.e. you’ll be taken up on it!) a lot less people will be willing to do it.
"The Israeli army said troops were reluctant to fire into the crowd but noticed two militants hiding among the women. And as the crowd dispersed, at least two men were seen disguised as women.
The large crowd that had gathered by mid-morning Friday helped the militants to escape, because there weren't enough ground troops to keep the protesters away from the building, the military said.
Israeli troops had bombarded the mosque with stun and smoke grenades, and bulldozed an outer wall of the structure in an attempt to force the gunmen to surrender.
Around the town, Israeli forces lowered their profile. Soldiers stopped patrolling the streets, though snipers were still perched on rooftops and tanks were still in position on the streets.
Despite the crackdown on Beit Hanoun, rockets have continued to land in Israel."
This mob of “innocent” women was gathered according to a Hamas radio appeal, and was there to trump the Israeli military option. You may notice the lack of brutal military determination to deal with these armed guys hiding in a mosque (stun and smoke grenades aren’t exactly decisive), and then the effective retreat of the IDF from the area after this embarrassing debacle.
You will notice that the cause of the IDF incursion (the rocket attacks) continued unabated, so they got a bit of bad press for nothing.
This keeps working, so it’ll keep being done. Now, just for the sake of argument, say you had flattened the mosque as soon as the bad guys (your perspective, of course) decided to use it for a fort, this human shield thing wouldn’t have had time to materialize, and no women would have been shot and the bad guys would have been effectively neutralized if not killed outright.
Failing that, send a message. The Laws of Armed Conflict (see earlier post) do not deny forces the right to fire on civilian targets if hostile forces are there. This clause is there because if it were not, all that were required to stop operations would be the opposing force hiding in a house. Obviously this won’t fly, so we MAKE IT CLEAR to our potential enemies to “Just send in your Chief and surrender, it’s worse if you fights or you runs, you can go where you please, you can skid up the trees, but you don’t get away from the guns!”. (quote from guess who)
In short, gun the whole lot of them down. This doesn’t mean indiscriminately target non-combatants (which is very much against the LOAC), but these were merely unarmed combatants. In my books if you engage in a ruse de guerre like pulling out a white flag to help your armed compatriots escape, this doesn’t safeguard you from armed retaliation. It's not just my twisted opinion either; I'm pretty sure it's international law, for whatever that's worth these days.
Our squeamishness about killing “civilians” is meaningless when the enemy doesn’t play by our rules, or even wear uniforms. There will be an international outrage no matter what you do in this case, but I argue that making it clear that you have accepted the gauntlet that has been thrown down will do a lot more good in the long run.
There were cases in Lebanon this past summer of certain villages defending their territory against Hezbollah, because they knew what would happen if the bastards were allowed to set up shop there. You’ll notice how little press that got. If being a bullet-catcher is made to look like a bad idea (i.e. you’ll be taken up on it!) a lot less people will be willing to do it.
Monday 30 October 2006
Read if you dare.
The link above comes with a simple warning: it is extremely Politically Incorrect and not for everyone. You will in fact find a similar warning at the page it delivers you to.
I have my opinions on it, and I'd be very interested to hear those of others if you are so inclined as to leave some. Other than that, I'll let it speak for itself (as long as it lasts).
I have my opinions on it, and I'd be very interested to hear those of others if you are so inclined as to leave some. Other than that, I'll let it speak for itself (as long as it lasts).
Tuesday 24 October 2006
Cart before the horse, as usual.
This has been going on for a while and it serves as another example of people who just don't get it. Work has been a bit hectic, so I’m not on top of stuff, (i.e. the delay has caused me to lose the link to this story) but hey, nobody’s paying me for this. ;)
"The mission in Afghanistan is fundamentally unbalanced," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday in Parliament's question period."Approximately one dollar in aid is spent for every nine dollars on combat ... will the prime minister heed the calls of Canadians, including more and more military families, and rethink this mission?" (CTV News, 25 Oct)
Yes, I've been on this guy (Layton) before, and this is more of the same. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect with a lot of people about cause and effect. Let me see if I can use small enough words to get it across...
The catch-all group of malcontents in Afghanistan that we call the "Taliban" don't want us there, and are willing to go to extensive lengths to get us to leave so they can run the place again. That is the situation, and although there are a lot of factions at work, that doesn't change anything about what needs to be done.
Another revealing quote:
"The U.S.-led international community's narrow, homeland security interpretation of security has misdirected urgent development funds towards physical security-related objectives, to the extent that military spending outpaces development and reconstruction spending by a colossal 900 per cent."
Well, duh. War is expensive, and the same person described Kandahar as "a complete war zone". Why would you then be surprised that these funds have been “misdirected” to killing the bad guys? I suspect these people would have complained about us blowing up French farmhouses to kill the Germans shooting at us from them in 1944.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll likely say it again, we need MORE troops in Afghanistan, and I mean a lot more. We need to interdict the bad guys BEFORE they get to the villages, and we need a lot of boots on the ground for that.
The Americans are the key element in this, and if there is any hope for a civilized Afghanistan (and I don’t necessarily mean it’ll look like us) the Americans will have to pull out of Iraq and re-invest in Afghanistan. I can’t foresee that happening exactly, so we’ll have to muddle through as best we can with the current program.
So, yes the locals are getting (justifiably) annoyed or worse that we’re breaking things and hurting people unintentionally, but the alternative is to abandon large parts of the country because we’re afraid to do any damage. This is, coincidentally EXACTLY what the other side wants to see, and they tailor their tactics to accomplish it. Look at the last scrap in south Lebanon, with Hamas winning the media battle by making the Israelis look badly for targeting civilian areas.
Our adversaries are far from stupid, and the preponderance of carping articles about NATO ruining peoples’ livelihood suggests to me that we’re in for a repeat of Tet 1968. If you don’t know what I mean by that, a few clicks (and a bit of critical analysis…) should get you the answer.
"The mission in Afghanistan is fundamentally unbalanced," NDP Leader Jack Layton said Tuesday in Parliament's question period."Approximately one dollar in aid is spent for every nine dollars on combat ... will the prime minister heed the calls of Canadians, including more and more military families, and rethink this mission?" (CTV News, 25 Oct)
Yes, I've been on this guy (Layton) before, and this is more of the same. There seems to be a fundamental disconnect with a lot of people about cause and effect. Let me see if I can use small enough words to get it across...
The catch-all group of malcontents in Afghanistan that we call the "Taliban" don't want us there, and are willing to go to extensive lengths to get us to leave so they can run the place again. That is the situation, and although there are a lot of factions at work, that doesn't change anything about what needs to be done.
Another revealing quote:
"The U.S.-led international community's narrow, homeland security interpretation of security has misdirected urgent development funds towards physical security-related objectives, to the extent that military spending outpaces development and reconstruction spending by a colossal 900 per cent."
Well, duh. War is expensive, and the same person described Kandahar as "a complete war zone". Why would you then be surprised that these funds have been “misdirected” to killing the bad guys? I suspect these people would have complained about us blowing up French farmhouses to kill the Germans shooting at us from them in 1944.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll likely say it again, we need MORE troops in Afghanistan, and I mean a lot more. We need to interdict the bad guys BEFORE they get to the villages, and we need a lot of boots on the ground for that.
The Americans are the key element in this, and if there is any hope for a civilized Afghanistan (and I don’t necessarily mean it’ll look like us) the Americans will have to pull out of Iraq and re-invest in Afghanistan. I can’t foresee that happening exactly, so we’ll have to muddle through as best we can with the current program.
So, yes the locals are getting (justifiably) annoyed or worse that we’re breaking things and hurting people unintentionally, but the alternative is to abandon large parts of the country because we’re afraid to do any damage. This is, coincidentally EXACTLY what the other side wants to see, and they tailor their tactics to accomplish it. Look at the last scrap in south Lebanon, with Hamas winning the media battle by making the Israelis look badly for targeting civilian areas.
Our adversaries are far from stupid, and the preponderance of carping articles about NATO ruining peoples’ livelihood suggests to me that we’re in for a repeat of Tet 1968. If you don’t know what I mean by that, a few clicks (and a bit of critical analysis…) should get you the answer.
Sunday 15 October 2006
Let's Roll.
In my ongoing attempt to keep this spot from turning into a one-note symphony rant against the Islamist threat to my way of life, I bring you this:
'BURLESON, Texas (AP) -- Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
But school officials in Burleson said they are drawing on the lessons learned from a string of disasters such as Columbine in 1999 and the Amish schoolhouse attack in Pennsylvania last week.'
The article can be found in full here, and as always I’ll leave it you to make up your own mind about the utility/advisability of this tactic. However, also as always, you won’t get out of here without hearing what I think about it. ;)
For the record, I think it’s about bloody time we stop thinking like victims-in-waiting and start being prepared to ass-kick anyone who wants to do us harm. The gist of the tactics are to overwhelm armed attackers with numbers, chaos and noise, swarming them and taking them down instead of cowering on the floor hoping not to get shot. For those of you who think this won’t work, I can again offer a bit of Kipling:
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.
To save some of my loyal readers a bit of research/head-scratching, the poem refers to the fact that mobs of Sudanese warriors armed with medieval weapons managed to overrun the strongest formation (the Square) of the best conventional troops of the late 1800s due to sheer numbers and gumption. And oh yes, in this context a Martini is a breech loading rifle, not a mixed drink.
So my example isn’t precisely analogous, so what? The principle is the same, and 20 kids and a teacher in close quarters armed with books, binders, pencils or just hands to grab hold of arms, legs, etc. will be able to overpower pretty much any single gunman before he can get off more than a few aimed shots. Once he’s down, he can be disarmed by whatever means are available (kids taking turns stomping on his neck, for example) and neutralized. And now you, the hunted, have the gun, aimed at the door by anyone who’s ever watched a movie, ready to shoot anyone who isn’t one of yours who comes in.
Obviously this won’t work if the SAS/JTF2/Delta storms your school, but that’s not who does this sort of thing. It’s one or rarely two guys, usually students, and in any event, they won’t be highly trained, armed and equipped with the best kit and operating in teams.
The important thing here is to ensure that the training sticks, and that a critical mass of students, etc will do what needs to be done and not hesitate. This is a lot to ask of adults, let alone kids, and some of them will inevitably freeze. This couldn’t just be a one-shot training deal. This would have to be practiced regularly, even more than fire drills, and leaders would have to be identified and encouraged.
What I see as important is to get people, not just kids, mentally prepared to defend themselves, and give them a realistic appraisal of the options and likely outcomes. Hostage situations don’t seem to be what’s going on, and a shift in the threat means a shift in the response. 9/11 could only work once, and United Flight 93 that day marked the realization that you may die if you fight back, but you will definitely die if you sit around waiting for help that might not be coming.
'BURLESON, Texas (AP) -- Youngsters in a suburban Fort Worth, Texas, school district are being taught not to sit there like good boys and girls with their hands folded if a gunman invades the classroom, but to rush him and hit him with everything they've got -- books, pencils, legs and arms.
"Getting under desks and praying for rescue from professionals is not a recipe for success," said Robin Browne, a major in the British Army reserve and an instructor for Response Options, the company providing the training to the Burleson schools.
That kind of fight-back advice is all but unheard of among schools, and some fear it will get children killed.
But school officials in Burleson said they are drawing on the lessons learned from a string of disasters such as Columbine in 1999 and the Amish schoolhouse attack in Pennsylvania last week.'
The article can be found in full here, and as always I’ll leave it you to make up your own mind about the utility/advisability of this tactic. However, also as always, you won’t get out of here without hearing what I think about it. ;)
For the record, I think it’s about bloody time we stop thinking like victims-in-waiting and start being prepared to ass-kick anyone who wants to do us harm. The gist of the tactics are to overwhelm armed attackers with numbers, chaos and noise, swarming them and taking them down instead of cowering on the floor hoping not to get shot. For those of you who think this won’t work, I can again offer a bit of Kipling:
We sloshed you with Martinis, an' it wasn't 'ardly fair;
But for all the odds agin' you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square.
To save some of my loyal readers a bit of research/head-scratching, the poem refers to the fact that mobs of Sudanese warriors armed with medieval weapons managed to overrun the strongest formation (the Square) of the best conventional troops of the late 1800s due to sheer numbers and gumption. And oh yes, in this context a Martini is a breech loading rifle, not a mixed drink.
So my example isn’t precisely analogous, so what? The principle is the same, and 20 kids and a teacher in close quarters armed with books, binders, pencils or just hands to grab hold of arms, legs, etc. will be able to overpower pretty much any single gunman before he can get off more than a few aimed shots. Once he’s down, he can be disarmed by whatever means are available (kids taking turns stomping on his neck, for example) and neutralized. And now you, the hunted, have the gun, aimed at the door by anyone who’s ever watched a movie, ready to shoot anyone who isn’t one of yours who comes in.
Obviously this won’t work if the SAS/JTF2/Delta storms your school, but that’s not who does this sort of thing. It’s one or rarely two guys, usually students, and in any event, they won’t be highly trained, armed and equipped with the best kit and operating in teams.
The important thing here is to ensure that the training sticks, and that a critical mass of students, etc will do what needs to be done and not hesitate. This is a lot to ask of adults, let alone kids, and some of them will inevitably freeze. This couldn’t just be a one-shot training deal. This would have to be practiced regularly, even more than fire drills, and leaders would have to be identified and encouraged.
What I see as important is to get people, not just kids, mentally prepared to defend themselves, and give them a realistic appraisal of the options and likely outcomes. Hostage situations don’t seem to be what’s going on, and a shift in the threat means a shift in the response. 9/11 could only work once, and United Flight 93 that day marked the realization that you may die if you fight back, but you will definitely die if you sit around waiting for help that might not be coming.
Friday 13 October 2006
Well, that's one way...
We can apparently thank the British NHS for this one. A nice change from the unpleasantness, I thought. More of that later, I'm sure.
Friday 6 October 2006
A Veiled Threat
I'm a bit behind, but I couldn't leave this alone completely. There are some signs that parts of Europe are getting fed up with being pushed around by Islamists and the lack of integration into society, and I think this is one of them.
The other sign of hope for civil relations is the position of the Muslim Council of Britain, but of course that got nowhere near as much media attention as the the hotheads out to push their agenda. It has indeed gotten to the point that no one can say anything in any way negative about anything to do with Islam without running the risk of an unpleasant faction demanding your head (sometimes literally).
The British government is starting to make some sensible moves, such as backing Mr Straw's right to say what he thinks. I'm a bit under the weather today, so I'll see if I can catch up a bit later. The collapse of Western Society will have to get by without me for a little while. ;)
The other sign of hope for civil relations is the position of the Muslim Council of Britain, but of course that got nowhere near as much media attention as the the hotheads out to push their agenda. It has indeed gotten to the point that no one can say anything in any way negative about anything to do with Islam without running the risk of an unpleasant faction demanding your head (sometimes literally).
The British government is starting to make some sensible moves, such as backing Mr Straw's right to say what he thinks. I'm a bit under the weather today, so I'll see if I can catch up a bit later. The collapse of Western Society will have to get by without me for a little while. ;)
Saturday 30 September 2006
The Ice Age is comin', the sun's zoomin' in...
I just can't leave this topic alone, but I consider it important to preserve some semblance of a "debate" in the whole Global Warming thing. It seems to have been hijacked by some sort of Luddite soft-lefty/environmentalism cabal who have an agenda I don't quite fathom.
The US Senate speech the title links to gives me some hope that there is more than one side to the issue. For the record (again), I have enough geology and history to know that the Earth's climate isn't constant, "an inconvenient truth" that Al Gore and co. don't seem to want people to know about. Check out the link provided for "the Science" and see a lot of alarmist claptrap with no supporting evidence, and if you're so inclined go look it up. I've done my research already and I know it's taken from very self-interested sources who ignore things that conflict with what they want to put across. That, by the way, is NOT science.
I am a sensible person, and I'm very much in favour of us limiting the amount of waste we dump into the ecosystem just on general principle. This is where I think our efforts should go, to keep us from poisoning ourselves and everything else. However, I remember a geology poster session I went to in the late 1980s. The topic I reported on for class was "Holocene Proxy Climate Data from the Canadian Arctic".
It was a while ago, and before the current hysteria about warming, but the upshot was that 5000-8000 years ago it was a lot warmer in the arctic than it is now, evidenced by the remnants of plant life that couldn't possibly survive there now.
So is it getting warmer? Looks like it. There are a number of other questions, the big ones being: is this such a bad thing? And, is destroying the industrialized world's economy (Kyoto Protocol, if implemented) going to make a difference to the result?
I have yet to be convinced that the answer to either of these is anything but "no". It was warmer than this when humanity thrived in places we can't really live today (e.g. Greenland). China, Russia and the entire developing world have not ratified Kyoto, so it'll only screw us over and not cool a damned thing.
Al, spend your time and money on things that will produce results, like improved alternative energy sources. The writing is already on the wall for our dependence on oil, and I am not going to freeze in the dark in the meantime to meet some feel-good international agreement that most of the world has no time for.
The US Senate speech the title links to gives me some hope that there is more than one side to the issue. For the record (again), I have enough geology and history to know that the Earth's climate isn't constant, "an inconvenient truth" that Al Gore and co. don't seem to want people to know about. Check out the link provided for "the Science" and see a lot of alarmist claptrap with no supporting evidence, and if you're so inclined go look it up. I've done my research already and I know it's taken from very self-interested sources who ignore things that conflict with what they want to put across. That, by the way, is NOT science.
I am a sensible person, and I'm very much in favour of us limiting the amount of waste we dump into the ecosystem just on general principle. This is where I think our efforts should go, to keep us from poisoning ourselves and everything else. However, I remember a geology poster session I went to in the late 1980s. The topic I reported on for class was "Holocene Proxy Climate Data from the Canadian Arctic".
It was a while ago, and before the current hysteria about warming, but the upshot was that 5000-8000 years ago it was a lot warmer in the arctic than it is now, evidenced by the remnants of plant life that couldn't possibly survive there now.
So is it getting warmer? Looks like it. There are a number of other questions, the big ones being: is this such a bad thing? And, is destroying the industrialized world's economy (Kyoto Protocol, if implemented) going to make a difference to the result?
I have yet to be convinced that the answer to either of these is anything but "no". It was warmer than this when humanity thrived in places we can't really live today (e.g. Greenland). China, Russia and the entire developing world have not ratified Kyoto, so it'll only screw us over and not cool a damned thing.
Al, spend your time and money on things that will produce results, like improved alternative energy sources. The writing is already on the wall for our dependence on oil, and I am not going to freeze in the dark in the meantime to meet some feel-good international agreement that most of the world has no time for.
Friday 22 September 2006
Talk - Action = uh, something, maybe?
This encapsulates as well as anything else the problems the West has to survive.
I can understand that a lot of people are wary of another war, though it might be necessary. However, to be worried about something, and yet so mentally paralyzed as to be incapable of thinking of ANYTHING to do about it, even in theory, is something any thinking person in the “West’ should be very concerned about.
When countries are democracies, for good or ill they get the governments they deserve. With the bunch of puddin’ heads suggested by those poll results there is a lot of trouble ahead for some of these countries (not mine for the moment, but this is a minority government…) until something radical happens to make things better or much worse.
A more reasonable government could arise in Iran (odds low without outside “assistance”) or they could get nukes and give one or more to somebody who wants to use it against us. It’s not hard for me to see which option I’d prefer, and I don’t see a lot of others right now.
Personally I don’t look forward to the idea of another big war either, but with the noises Iran has made/is making and the governments’ increasing lack of relevance to the Iranian population, there may be no decent alternative. There is a long history of governments whipping up external trouble to distract from domestic trouble, and Iran seems to be on that road. How far they want to go on it will likely determine how hostile things get.
Changing topics slightly, Hamid Karzai gave a very effective speech to Canadian Parliament today, dealing fairly effectively with the self-interested political statements of certain groups (see back a few posts). NATO is not in Afghanistan for fun or profit, but because it’s the way to keep the forces that wish us ill from re-establishing there.
Others may wish to look at it as restoring a functional country to the world, but the end result is the same, and both are accomplished the same way, fighting fire with (more) fire. And now that we’re at last sending some tanks to Afghanistan, that’s exactly what we’ll be able to do more effectively.
I can understand that a lot of people are wary of another war, though it might be necessary. However, to be worried about something, and yet so mentally paralyzed as to be incapable of thinking of ANYTHING to do about it, even in theory, is something any thinking person in the “West’ should be very concerned about.
When countries are democracies, for good or ill they get the governments they deserve. With the bunch of puddin’ heads suggested by those poll results there is a lot of trouble ahead for some of these countries (not mine for the moment, but this is a minority government…) until something radical happens to make things better or much worse.
A more reasonable government could arise in Iran (odds low without outside “assistance”) or they could get nukes and give one or more to somebody who wants to use it against us. It’s not hard for me to see which option I’d prefer, and I don’t see a lot of others right now.
Personally I don’t look forward to the idea of another big war either, but with the noises Iran has made/is making and the governments’ increasing lack of relevance to the Iranian population, there may be no decent alternative. There is a long history of governments whipping up external trouble to distract from domestic trouble, and Iran seems to be on that road. How far they want to go on it will likely determine how hostile things get.
Changing topics slightly, Hamid Karzai gave a very effective speech to Canadian Parliament today, dealing fairly effectively with the self-interested political statements of certain groups (see back a few posts). NATO is not in Afghanistan for fun or profit, but because it’s the way to keep the forces that wish us ill from re-establishing there.
Others may wish to look at it as restoring a functional country to the world, but the end result is the same, and both are accomplished the same way, fighting fire with (more) fire. And now that we’re at last sending some tanks to Afghanistan, that’s exactly what we’ll be able to do more effectively.
Sunday 17 September 2006
Ice Fishing in Hell
I didn’t think I’d see the day that I would be supporting the Pope, but that day has come.
Actually, I’d like him to tell the idiots demanding an apology for a QUOTE taken (deliberately) out of context to get stuffed, but he did the next best thing by only saying he was “sorry“ that they were upset. An old tactic of mine when I wanted to avoid trouble, but had no intention of retracting what I’d said. Well, maybe this will rile up enough Catholics to balance the equation a bit, but I doubt it.
It’s been said many other places, but I’ll put myself in the same camp; if there are any “moderate” Muslims left, I’d like someone to explain to me why every perceived slight to Islam calls for a death sentence. It’s probably in the Koran somewhere, but I think that just makes it even less likely that the West and what passes for Islam most places today will be able to live in harmony.
Free speech, or at least the ability to say things and not be sentenced to death over them, is a key element of functional democracies. Democracy of course is the worst form of government except for all the others, so I’d rather we stuck with it. If you have a problem with people saying things you don’t agree with, to the point you’ll lay a Fatwah on their ass every time, I suggest you stay out of countries (like mine) which don’t operate that way.
A snippet I culled from reports on this; “hundreds” of people were reported to have protested in major cities in Iran. Hundreds, eh? Seems the Revolution’s novelty has worn off…
Actually, I’d like him to tell the idiots demanding an apology for a QUOTE taken (deliberately) out of context to get stuffed, but he did the next best thing by only saying he was “sorry“ that they were upset. An old tactic of mine when I wanted to avoid trouble, but had no intention of retracting what I’d said. Well, maybe this will rile up enough Catholics to balance the equation a bit, but I doubt it.
It’s been said many other places, but I’ll put myself in the same camp; if there are any “moderate” Muslims left, I’d like someone to explain to me why every perceived slight to Islam calls for a death sentence. It’s probably in the Koran somewhere, but I think that just makes it even less likely that the West and what passes for Islam most places today will be able to live in harmony.
Free speech, or at least the ability to say things and not be sentenced to death over them, is a key element of functional democracies. Democracy of course is the worst form of government except for all the others, so I’d rather we stuck with it. If you have a problem with people saying things you don’t agree with, to the point you’ll lay a Fatwah on their ass every time, I suggest you stay out of countries (like mine) which don’t operate that way.
A snippet I culled from reports on this; “hundreds” of people were reported to have protested in major cities in Iran. Hundreds, eh? Seems the Revolution’s novelty has worn off…
Friday 15 September 2006
Canadian political opportunism
I don’t know why I even bother, but I do have to say something about the political reaction to the latest shooting spree in Montreal.
Because this clown used a gun, the usual suspects are calling for the retention of the Long gun Registry in Canada. This law, for those who don’t know, relates to things like hunting rifles, shotguns, and other low-magazine-capacity, bolt/pump/lever or semi-automatic weapons.
It has come out that the weapon used, a Beretta CX4 Storm 9mm carbine was a restricted weapon that the shooter acquired legally and was registered according to the law. Thus, retaining the expensive, inefficient boondoggle of a non-restricted firearms registry would have no bearing on an exact repeat of this event, nor would it have had any impact on this crime.
Some sociopath slipped through the system and decided to take a bunch of other people with him as he committed suicide. That’s what happened, and all of it was against the laws we already have (murder and all), so more laws aren’t likely to have helped, just given him more to break.
Again I’m disgusted that politicians are trying to make political capital from bloodshed, but that’s what they do.
Because this clown used a gun, the usual suspects are calling for the retention of the Long gun Registry in Canada. This law, for those who don’t know, relates to things like hunting rifles, shotguns, and other low-magazine-capacity, bolt/pump/lever or semi-automatic weapons.
It has come out that the weapon used, a Beretta CX4 Storm 9mm carbine was a restricted weapon that the shooter acquired legally and was registered according to the law. Thus, retaining the expensive, inefficient boondoggle of a non-restricted firearms registry would have no bearing on an exact repeat of this event, nor would it have had any impact on this crime.
Some sociopath slipped through the system and decided to take a bunch of other people with him as he committed suicide. That’s what happened, and all of it was against the laws we already have (murder and all), so more laws aren’t likely to have helped, just given him more to break.
Again I’m disgusted that politicians are trying to make political capital from bloodshed, but that’s what they do.
Thursday 14 September 2006
It took two months to figure this out?
Gee thanks, Amnesty International, for finding the time to accuse the instigators of the latest unpleasantness in Lebanon of “crimes against humanity”. They were right quick to accuse Israel of the same thing, but hey, they’re a democracy trying to fight a terrorist organization so they MUST be amoral monsters, right?
I’d like for AI to explain to me why they take two months to determine that the indiscriminate targeting of exclusively civilian targets in Israel by Hezbollah is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict and any number of other things. As for the LOAC, I quote from the official Canadian source (available on the net)
403. DISTINCTION PRINCIPLE
1. To ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, commanders shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
AP l Arts 48, 51, 52 & 57; AP II Arts 13
404. BASIC RULE
1. Military operations shall be directed only against legitimate targets. Military operations directed against such targets must also meet the requirement of proportionality discussed below.
AP l Art 48, 51 (5) (b) & 57 (2) (a)
SECTION 2 - LEGITIMATE TARGETS
405. SCOPE
1. This section defines “legitimate targets” and provides examples of objects and personnel that are legitimate targets.
406. DEFINITION OF LEGITIMATE TARGETS
1. “Legitimate targets” include combatants, unlawful combatants and military objectives.
AP I Arts 43 (2), 46, 47, 51 (3) & 52 (2)
2. “Military objectives” are objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offer a definite military advantage. A specific area of land may constitute a military objective.
AP l Art 52 (2)
407. EXAMPLES OF OBJECTS WHICH ARE MILITARY OBJECTIVES
1. The following are generally accepted as being military objectives:
a. military bases, warehouses, petroleum storage areas, ports and airfields; and
b. military aircraft, weapons, ammunition, buildings and objects that provide administrative and
logistical support for military operations.
2. Civilian vessels, aircraft, vehicles and buildings are military objectives if they contain combatants, military equipment or supplies.
AP l Art 52 (2)
3. The following objects, depending on the circumstances, may constitute military objectives:
a. transportation systems for military supplies;
b. transportation centres where lines of communication converge;
c. rail yards;
d. industrial installations producing material for armed forces;
e. conventional power plants; and
f. fuel dumps.
You will note from this (internationally accepted) definition, Israel targeting Hezbollah’s rocket launch positions is at all times legal, and no sort of a crime under international law, regardless of the presence of civilians. The REAL “crime against humanity” is the use of these civilians as human shields by Hezbollah, but I don’t see Amnesty or any other “rights” group saying anything about that.
Good work guys; keep on keeping the world safe from the right of democracies to defend themselves against terrorists.
I’d like for AI to explain to me why they take two months to determine that the indiscriminate targeting of exclusively civilian targets in Israel by Hezbollah is contrary to the Laws of Armed Conflict and any number of other things. As for the LOAC, I quote from the official Canadian source (available on the net)
403. DISTINCTION PRINCIPLE
1. To ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, commanders shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
AP l Arts 48, 51, 52 & 57; AP II Arts 13
404. BASIC RULE
1. Military operations shall be directed only against legitimate targets. Military operations directed against such targets must also meet the requirement of proportionality discussed below.
AP l Art 48, 51 (5) (b) & 57 (2) (a)
SECTION 2 - LEGITIMATE TARGETS
405. SCOPE
1. This section defines “legitimate targets” and provides examples of objects and personnel that are legitimate targets.
406. DEFINITION OF LEGITIMATE TARGETS
1. “Legitimate targets” include combatants, unlawful combatants and military objectives.
AP I Arts 43 (2), 46, 47, 51 (3) & 52 (2)
2. “Military objectives” are objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offer a definite military advantage. A specific area of land may constitute a military objective.
AP l Art 52 (2)
407. EXAMPLES OF OBJECTS WHICH ARE MILITARY OBJECTIVES
1. The following are generally accepted as being military objectives:
a. military bases, warehouses, petroleum storage areas, ports and airfields; and
b. military aircraft, weapons, ammunition, buildings and objects that provide administrative and
logistical support for military operations.
2. Civilian vessels, aircraft, vehicles and buildings are military objectives if they contain combatants, military equipment or supplies.
AP l Art 52 (2)
3. The following objects, depending on the circumstances, may constitute military objectives:
a. transportation systems for military supplies;
b. transportation centres where lines of communication converge;
c. rail yards;
d. industrial installations producing material for armed forces;
e. conventional power plants; and
f. fuel dumps.
You will note from this (internationally accepted) definition, Israel targeting Hezbollah’s rocket launch positions is at all times legal, and no sort of a crime under international law, regardless of the presence of civilians. The REAL “crime against humanity” is the use of these civilians as human shields by Hezbollah, but I don’t see Amnesty or any other “rights” group saying anything about that.
Good work guys; keep on keeping the world safe from the right of democracies to defend themselves against terrorists.
Wednesday 6 September 2006
Jack Layton has a Plan, does he?
As I am a Canadian, the posturing of certain of my political leaders is occasionally of passing interest. Also being a military guy, the Afghanistan thing is a bit of a hot button issue for me (us) these days.
With that in mind, I’m hard pressed to be too concerned that Jack Layton, leader of the federal New Democratic Party “has a plan” to get us out of Afghanistan. This phrase was used by a woman in some shop who told my wife not to worry about me going over there for that reason.
Last I checked, he was as far from being in charge of things as he could get, even in a minority government situation. The opposition is smelling blood, and it of course comes at the price of our troops who are shedding theirs. I can see some attempt to push the government into a non-confidence situation, and I won’t waste my time speculating here about what their chances are.
What I will say is that if our casualties are used as a reason to get out of a vital mission to stabilize a perennially failed state with a recent history of exporting terror we will have contributed to losing the “war on terror” and our people will have died for nothing.
I definitely have some ideas on how this “war” should be executed, and in this case there should have been MORE troops in Afghanistan, not less. The Americans should have followed up Operation Anaconda with all the light divisions they had and all the air resources that they used in Iraq. The Taliban could then have been winkled out of every last significant hole, pushed back over the Pakistani or Iranian borders. At that point NATO could have deployed a force a bit smaller than the current one, with abundant air mobility and firepower assets to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams that would actually have a chance to do their thing.
This would of course have spared Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but History will yet judge the utility of that regime change. I am of the opinion that making an effective example of the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been a sufficiently big stick to walk a bit more softly with.
Rebuilding failed states is a tricky business, and my personal feeling is that all of our good intentions will eventually come to naught in Afghanistan. It might still be possible before the political will of the West collapses, but things were not ruthless enough to begin with, and we pay the price for that now.
The recent move by Pakistan to create a “no-go” zone on the NW Frontier may point to us a possible, if to some unpalatable, solution. If we box all the backwards fuckers who want to live in the dark ages into that general zone and then tell them we’ll leave them alone if they play nice and STAY THERE, we’ll effectively write off the ungovernable parts of two countries.
This would give us borders we could watch, and set up small highly mobile forces to obliterate any terrorist/bandit sally from it. High endurance UAVs, airmobile troops operating out of firebases, and gobs of short notice firepower would keep them contained, giving the NATO countries an ongoing deployment to hone their special and light forces. And finally, the more civilized elements in Afghanistan could with our assistance get on with their lives, largely if not completely unmolested.
The de-facto Islamic bandit kingdom between Pakistan and Afghanistan isn’t a very Westphalian solution to the problem, but I think it’s past time we started thinking about what will work, as opposed to what we’d ideally like to see.
I’d love to see Jack Layton top that plan.
With that in mind, I’m hard pressed to be too concerned that Jack Layton, leader of the federal New Democratic Party “has a plan” to get us out of Afghanistan. This phrase was used by a woman in some shop who told my wife not to worry about me going over there for that reason.
Last I checked, he was as far from being in charge of things as he could get, even in a minority government situation. The opposition is smelling blood, and it of course comes at the price of our troops who are shedding theirs. I can see some attempt to push the government into a non-confidence situation, and I won’t waste my time speculating here about what their chances are.
What I will say is that if our casualties are used as a reason to get out of a vital mission to stabilize a perennially failed state with a recent history of exporting terror we will have contributed to losing the “war on terror” and our people will have died for nothing.
I definitely have some ideas on how this “war” should be executed, and in this case there should have been MORE troops in Afghanistan, not less. The Americans should have followed up Operation Anaconda with all the light divisions they had and all the air resources that they used in Iraq. The Taliban could then have been winkled out of every last significant hole, pushed back over the Pakistani or Iranian borders. At that point NATO could have deployed a force a bit smaller than the current one, with abundant air mobility and firepower assets to support Provincial Reconstruction Teams that would actually have a chance to do their thing.
This would of course have spared Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, but History will yet judge the utility of that regime change. I am of the opinion that making an effective example of the Taliban in Afghanistan would have been a sufficiently big stick to walk a bit more softly with.
Rebuilding failed states is a tricky business, and my personal feeling is that all of our good intentions will eventually come to naught in Afghanistan. It might still be possible before the political will of the West collapses, but things were not ruthless enough to begin with, and we pay the price for that now.
The recent move by Pakistan to create a “no-go” zone on the NW Frontier may point to us a possible, if to some unpalatable, solution. If we box all the backwards fuckers who want to live in the dark ages into that general zone and then tell them we’ll leave them alone if they play nice and STAY THERE, we’ll effectively write off the ungovernable parts of two countries.
This would give us borders we could watch, and set up small highly mobile forces to obliterate any terrorist/bandit sally from it. High endurance UAVs, airmobile troops operating out of firebases, and gobs of short notice firepower would keep them contained, giving the NATO countries an ongoing deployment to hone their special and light forces. And finally, the more civilized elements in Afghanistan could with our assistance get on with their lives, largely if not completely unmolested.
The de-facto Islamic bandit kingdom between Pakistan and Afghanistan isn’t a very Westphalian solution to the problem, but I think it’s past time we started thinking about what will work, as opposed to what we’d ideally like to see.
I’d love to see Jack Layton top that plan.
Friday 1 September 2006
Jaw-Jaw during War-War?
(My apologies to the late Sir Winston for mangling his quote for my own mundane purposes)
I misplaced the link, but I read somewhere today a question about whether we should be negotiating with al-Qaeda.
The keystone to getting along in the world is finding a meeting of interests, if not minds. If as these people claim, Bin Laden and co. “merely” wants the US out of the mid-east, it’ll probably be a while before they get together at the table. The loss of the Saudi government (the inevitable result of said disengagement) would be no skin off our noses, since they’re at least as repressive as anything Bin Laden would like to put in their place. Indeed, as long as we have an agreement with whoever controls the stuff we want, we have, well, the status quo. If only it were that simple…
For the sake of argument, I’d happily shop the Saudis to some other Wahabbist group, albeit on the model of the US disengagement from South Vietnam by simply moving my troops elsewhere, like say Iran, on the condition that the “jihad” bullshit was ceased and desisted from. That would likely keep the Sunnis off our backs, so then just to deal with the Israel issue and the government in Iran.
Well, abandoning Israel is out of the question, but the status quo there isn’t tenable either. Carrot to the Sunni extremists would have to be balanced with one massive dose of Stick to the Shiite factions. Instead of taking the troop dividend from pulling out of Saudi and dumping it straight into Iran, send it into Lebanon (with Israeli Int support at least) and settle Hezbollah’s hash for good and all. I’m sure that some sort of proof of Iran’s involvement (better than that against Iraq, for sure) could be found picking through the wreckage of Hezbollah bunkers and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bodies that would be the result.
This would necessitate sorting Syria out, but I think they are amenable to some arm-twisting short of regime change. The last thing I want to see in the current political state of the ME is a decapitation of Syria’s power structure (aka "Son of Iraq"). Hopefully the result would be political justification to launch a decapitating strike on the Iranian government, which is something I’d very much like to see as would, I believe, most of the Iranian population.
I won’t worry about the details of all this since it won’t happen, and in any event I’ll have nothing to do with it. The upshot is that as long as you can reach an accommodation with the bad guys, as long as that won’t make the situation worse than it is or is likely to be otherwise, it’s not out of the question to try.
However, the universal rule of negotiations is to do so from a position of strength, so keep kicking ass while you’re talking so they don’t think you’re doing it through fear or lassitude. US foreign policy is the source of a lot of discontent, but most of that discontent is manufactured for other political purposes and would disappear if the ringleaders could be co-opted. Killing them will just lead to more of the same, but until we have a better option we’d better keep smacking them.
I misplaced the link, but I read somewhere today a question about whether we should be negotiating with al-Qaeda.
The keystone to getting along in the world is finding a meeting of interests, if not minds. If as these people claim, Bin Laden and co. “merely” wants the US out of the mid-east, it’ll probably be a while before they get together at the table. The loss of the Saudi government (the inevitable result of said disengagement) would be no skin off our noses, since they’re at least as repressive as anything Bin Laden would like to put in their place. Indeed, as long as we have an agreement with whoever controls the stuff we want, we have, well, the status quo. If only it were that simple…
For the sake of argument, I’d happily shop the Saudis to some other Wahabbist group, albeit on the model of the US disengagement from South Vietnam by simply moving my troops elsewhere, like say Iran, on the condition that the “jihad” bullshit was ceased and desisted from. That would likely keep the Sunnis off our backs, so then just to deal with the Israel issue and the government in Iran.
Well, abandoning Israel is out of the question, but the status quo there isn’t tenable either. Carrot to the Sunni extremists would have to be balanced with one massive dose of Stick to the Shiite factions. Instead of taking the troop dividend from pulling out of Saudi and dumping it straight into Iran, send it into Lebanon (with Israeli Int support at least) and settle Hezbollah’s hash for good and all. I’m sure that some sort of proof of Iran’s involvement (better than that against Iraq, for sure) could be found picking through the wreckage of Hezbollah bunkers and on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard bodies that would be the result.
This would necessitate sorting Syria out, but I think they are amenable to some arm-twisting short of regime change. The last thing I want to see in the current political state of the ME is a decapitation of Syria’s power structure (aka "Son of Iraq"). Hopefully the result would be political justification to launch a decapitating strike on the Iranian government, which is something I’d very much like to see as would, I believe, most of the Iranian population.
I won’t worry about the details of all this since it won’t happen, and in any event I’ll have nothing to do with it. The upshot is that as long as you can reach an accommodation with the bad guys, as long as that won’t make the situation worse than it is or is likely to be otherwise, it’s not out of the question to try.
However, the universal rule of negotiations is to do so from a position of strength, so keep kicking ass while you’re talking so they don’t think you’re doing it through fear or lassitude. US foreign policy is the source of a lot of discontent, but most of that discontent is manufactured for other political purposes and would disappear if the ringleaders could be co-opted. Killing them will just lead to more of the same, but until we have a better option we’d better keep smacking them.
Saturday 26 August 2006
A Different Take
Props to the Sandmonkey (of all people) for this Jewish newsletter link.
I still hold that the war was a tactical failure for the IDF, but there are obviously people who feel that it is only a bump in the road. The Israelis are indeed a proud force with a lot of talented people and a LOT of motivation to finish the job, so I hope they take the lesson and are ready for next time.
Of course I lack the Int contacts to verify anything these (or pretty much any other) guys are saying here, but it sounds plausible. The stuff about the bunkers in South Lebanon is particularly interesting to me, as I wonder what the Israelis have done to root them out if they are in fact as prevalent as this article indicates. If I lacked the time/opportunity to destroy them, I’d just have the co-ordinates punched into the bunker busters that are hopefully waiting around for round 2…
I’ve seen some realpolitik stuff suggesting we use some more carrot than stick with the Syrians to unhinge Hizbollah’s logistics, and I concur. The Syrians have nothing to gain by advancing Iran’s agenda, and a lot to lose by giving either the Americans or Israelis a reason to take out or undermine the regime. I was also in favour of mending fences with Quadaffi in Libya years ago when he first started making an effort, but I’m a pragmatic guy. Libya does however show that it can be done, and something different is definitely needed. There remains the Golan thing, but I’ll just bury that fly deeper in the ointment for now.
I still hold that the war was a tactical failure for the IDF, but there are obviously people who feel that it is only a bump in the road. The Israelis are indeed a proud force with a lot of talented people and a LOT of motivation to finish the job, so I hope they take the lesson and are ready for next time.
Of course I lack the Int contacts to verify anything these (or pretty much any other) guys are saying here, but it sounds plausible. The stuff about the bunkers in South Lebanon is particularly interesting to me, as I wonder what the Israelis have done to root them out if they are in fact as prevalent as this article indicates. If I lacked the time/opportunity to destroy them, I’d just have the co-ordinates punched into the bunker busters that are hopefully waiting around for round 2…
I’ve seen some realpolitik stuff suggesting we use some more carrot than stick with the Syrians to unhinge Hizbollah’s logistics, and I concur. The Syrians have nothing to gain by advancing Iran’s agenda, and a lot to lose by giving either the Americans or Israelis a reason to take out or undermine the regime. I was also in favour of mending fences with Quadaffi in Libya years ago when he first started making an effort, but I’m a pragmatic guy. Libya does however show that it can be done, and something different is definitely needed. There remains the Golan thing, but I’ll just bury that fly deeper in the ointment for now.
Monday 21 August 2006
More Political Genius
Once again, leave it to the puddin’ heads to make Canada look good, and the CBC to promote their message.
Taking Hezbollah off the terror list would simply give Iran and everyone else with an axe to grind against the West carte blanche to do whatever they want AND get political recognition for it too.
Canadian MPs Boris Wrzesnewskyj and Peggy Nash come across as the sort of soft-headed appeasers who could yet spell the death of progressive western society. As apologists for those who think us infidel pigs to be conquered or killed, I think they should both be packed off to Iran (patron of Hezbollah, after all) to live for a while, and let them gob off about what the government does there. They should last about 2 days.
I was trying to come up with something clever here, but I’m just beating the same dog; just couldn’t entirely leave it lie though…
Taking Hezbollah off the terror list would simply give Iran and everyone else with an axe to grind against the West carte blanche to do whatever they want AND get political recognition for it too.
Canadian MPs Boris Wrzesnewskyj and Peggy Nash come across as the sort of soft-headed appeasers who could yet spell the death of progressive western society. As apologists for those who think us infidel pigs to be conquered or killed, I think they should both be packed off to Iran (patron of Hezbollah, after all) to live for a while, and let them gob off about what the government does there. They should last about 2 days.
I was trying to come up with something clever here, but I’m just beating the same dog; just couldn’t entirely leave it lie though…
Tuesday 15 August 2006
Death by 1001 Cuts
I’ll be blunt: Israel has lost this one.
Not news to anyone paying any attention to the latest war in Lebanon, but I had to go on the record with it. The only way to eliminate Hezbollah is to “ideologically cleanse” out every last supporter of them from within range of Israel and keep them out. Killing most of them would have been a step in the right direction too.
The reasons Israel couldn’t do that (their particular history and generally being an enlightened democracy) are the same reasons that the West’s whole “War on Terror” is going in the wrong direction. As has been said before (including by me of course) a lot more people have to die before there’s a meaningful change in the status quo.
What the hell do I mean by that, you ask? A good question, and let’s see if I can answer it.
Well, wholesale slaughter and/or effective containment will do a lot of our work for us. Less people who want the decadent Crusader-Zionist countries assimilated into some Universal Caliphate means less potential terrorists, or at least a nice contained area that we could pit our volunteer armed forces against them. I’ve read some stuff that suggested that was the Americans’ plan for Iraq, but I don’t credit them with that kind of foresight. While on that topic however, any kind of “divide and conquer” the Yanks may have been attempting there seems about ready to fall into the lap of Iran, but I won’t go there right now. Wouldn’t be the first time the US backed the wrong “enemy of my enemy”…
This of course is anathema to us enlightened democracies, and it would take a LOT to get us back into a Dresden/nuke-‘em-til-they-glow mindset. It rather surprised me, but even 9/11 didn’t do it. If the Americans had really taken the gloves off Riyadh would be a crater, the Arabian oilfields would be occupied by and run by the US for the US, and every bit of Saudi money the Yanks could get near would be as frozen as the inner circle of hell. Oh yeah, and they would have knocked over the theocracy in Iran instead of taking out (secular) Saddam Hussein.
The Americans talk about the money that finances/inspires terrorists, but a lot of it comes from their buddies in Saudi, so they go after the small fish instead. If you pluck the leaves the roots are still there, and the two main sources of money to trouble western interests come from Saudi Arabia and Tehran. Short of the Iranians getting the bomb and actually being suicidal enough to use it (or give to someone who would), I don’t see the “enemy” being able to kill enough of us at once to really put the Fear of God into us and then show the radical parts of the Muslim world what we’re capable of..
However, I think at this point they’ve seen as much as they need to of what we’re REALLY made of these days. We’re too soft to do what is required to ensure the continuance of Western civilization and we will eventually reap the results of that. Israel is already being destroyed on the instalment plan, and any hare-brained scheme to take over or destroy an airliner or two can paralyse us for days on end. It won’t end with our toothpaste and bottled water, but it could if we wanted it to.
Not news to anyone paying any attention to the latest war in Lebanon, but I had to go on the record with it. The only way to eliminate Hezbollah is to “ideologically cleanse” out every last supporter of them from within range of Israel and keep them out. Killing most of them would have been a step in the right direction too.
The reasons Israel couldn’t do that (their particular history and generally being an enlightened democracy) are the same reasons that the West’s whole “War on Terror” is going in the wrong direction. As has been said before (including by me of course) a lot more people have to die before there’s a meaningful change in the status quo.
What the hell do I mean by that, you ask? A good question, and let’s see if I can answer it.
Well, wholesale slaughter and/or effective containment will do a lot of our work for us. Less people who want the decadent Crusader-Zionist countries assimilated into some Universal Caliphate means less potential terrorists, or at least a nice contained area that we could pit our volunteer armed forces against them. I’ve read some stuff that suggested that was the Americans’ plan for Iraq, but I don’t credit them with that kind of foresight. While on that topic however, any kind of “divide and conquer” the Yanks may have been attempting there seems about ready to fall into the lap of Iran, but I won’t go there right now. Wouldn’t be the first time the US backed the wrong “enemy of my enemy”…
This of course is anathema to us enlightened democracies, and it would take a LOT to get us back into a Dresden/nuke-‘em-til-they-glow mindset. It rather surprised me, but even 9/11 didn’t do it. If the Americans had really taken the gloves off Riyadh would be a crater, the Arabian oilfields would be occupied by and run by the US for the US, and every bit of Saudi money the Yanks could get near would be as frozen as the inner circle of hell. Oh yeah, and they would have knocked over the theocracy in Iran instead of taking out (secular) Saddam Hussein.
The Americans talk about the money that finances/inspires terrorists, but a lot of it comes from their buddies in Saudi, so they go after the small fish instead. If you pluck the leaves the roots are still there, and the two main sources of money to trouble western interests come from Saudi Arabia and Tehran. Short of the Iranians getting the bomb and actually being suicidal enough to use it (or give to someone who would), I don’t see the “enemy” being able to kill enough of us at once to really put the Fear of God into us and then show the radical parts of the Muslim world what we’re capable of..
However, I think at this point they’ve seen as much as they need to of what we’re REALLY made of these days. We’re too soft to do what is required to ensure the continuance of Western civilization and we will eventually reap the results of that. Israel is already being destroyed on the instalment plan, and any hare-brained scheme to take over or destroy an airliner or two can paralyse us for days on end. It won’t end with our toothpaste and bottled water, but it could if we wanted it to.
Wednesday 9 August 2006
Lucky it wasn't a retinal scanner...
I'm sick to death of all the mid-east stuff, so I'll hare off in another direction, and find as many others as I can so as not to get bogged down.
I like security for my stuff as much as the next guy, but you have to weigh the consequences of "fool proof" biometrics, as this article points out. Things are just things, and with the insurance you (should) have on big stuff, you can get another one. The article covers it quite well, but I thought it could use more circulation, as I've been saying something similar for a long time. Something to think about if you're looking to upgrade security.
If you had something that was worth your life to defend, something scanning your mental state or whatever might do the job, but the technology hasn't caught up with human ruthlessness adequately to achieve a balance. Protect those PINs people, it's the safest thing we've got...
I like security for my stuff as much as the next guy, but you have to weigh the consequences of "fool proof" biometrics, as this article points out. Things are just things, and with the insurance you (should) have on big stuff, you can get another one. The article covers it quite well, but I thought it could use more circulation, as I've been saying something similar for a long time. Something to think about if you're looking to upgrade security.
If you had something that was worth your life to defend, something scanning your mental state or whatever might do the job, but the technology hasn't caught up with human ruthlessness adequately to achieve a balance. Protect those PINs people, it's the safest thing we've got...
Friday 4 August 2006
In for a Penny, In for a Pounding
In the continuing war against dark-ages revanchism (aka the “War on Terror”) we continue to lose troops in ongoing combat operations. Yesterday was a bad day for Canadian troops in Afghanistan, with 4 dead and 10 wounded.
Again, this is the cost of defending our way of life, since we must be defended against things that menace us as far from our shores as possible. So far Canada has lost 20 soldiers to enemy activity (and 4 more to a trigger-happy American pilot) in the ‘stan, and there will be more. I won’t get into the casualties the US has suffered, but I will add a bit of historical perspective for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Canada, since they seem to need it.
All-Canadian forces took the “impregnable” Vimy Ridge position from the Germans between 9th and 14th April 1917, and suffered 3598 DEAD in that one battle. Five days (most of the casualties on the first day) versus 4 years with an average to date of 5 dead per YEAR. Yes I know that average is a meaningless statistic, but I think I’ve made my point.
All of our troops are volunteers, and a lot of them are quite eager to pay these Taliban, etc. idiots back with interest for every one of our people who gets hurt or killed. Our side’s taking some stick, but we’re more than happy to give it back, and despite the cursory news coverage, we’ve been doing so.
Pansy-ass politicians (who aren’t even in power) should keep in mind the fact that people out on the sharp end signed up knowing what the risk was, and had every opportunity to get out of the Forces if they felt they didn’t want to deal with it. Comments suggesting that things are “too dangerous” are an insult to the troops, since (a) they’re professional soldiers, and (b) the guys making these comments were in power when Canada was committed to Afghanistan. That’s right Liberal Party; YOU put the troops there, so shut up and let us do the job that YOU saddled us with.
I could get in some trouble for making statements like this, but that’s why my name isn’t all over this. I’ll take a few chances, or I shouldn’t be in the military. To dig things a bit deeper for myself, I’m impressed with how our present government is handling things, and I know the troops appreciate the fact that the people who took over have our backs.
Don’t get the idea that I think troops are disposable; I don’t. One thing you can say though; I want a lot of payback for our losses, and I don’t care that a lot of pudding heads would say “that won’t solve anything”. If you haven’t yet read the poem that my space is named after, I’ll give you the relevant passage:
With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troopships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.
Again, change the names and technology, but the concept hasn’t even budged since Kipling’s time.
Again, this is the cost of defending our way of life, since we must be defended against things that menace us as far from our shores as possible. So far Canada has lost 20 soldiers to enemy activity (and 4 more to a trigger-happy American pilot) in the ‘stan, and there will be more. I won’t get into the casualties the US has suffered, but I will add a bit of historical perspective for Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition in Canada, since they seem to need it.
All-Canadian forces took the “impregnable” Vimy Ridge position from the Germans between 9th and 14th April 1917, and suffered 3598 DEAD in that one battle. Five days (most of the casualties on the first day) versus 4 years with an average to date of 5 dead per YEAR. Yes I know that average is a meaningless statistic, but I think I’ve made my point.
All of our troops are volunteers, and a lot of them are quite eager to pay these Taliban, etc. idiots back with interest for every one of our people who gets hurt or killed. Our side’s taking some stick, but we’re more than happy to give it back, and despite the cursory news coverage, we’ve been doing so.
Pansy-ass politicians (who aren’t even in power) should keep in mind the fact that people out on the sharp end signed up knowing what the risk was, and had every opportunity to get out of the Forces if they felt they didn’t want to deal with it. Comments suggesting that things are “too dangerous” are an insult to the troops, since (a) they’re professional soldiers, and (b) the guys making these comments were in power when Canada was committed to Afghanistan. That’s right Liberal Party; YOU put the troops there, so shut up and let us do the job that YOU saddled us with.
I could get in some trouble for making statements like this, but that’s why my name isn’t all over this. I’ll take a few chances, or I shouldn’t be in the military. To dig things a bit deeper for myself, I’m impressed with how our present government is handling things, and I know the troops appreciate the fact that the people who took over have our backs.
Don’t get the idea that I think troops are disposable; I don’t. One thing you can say though; I want a lot of payback for our losses, and I don’t care that a lot of pudding heads would say “that won’t solve anything”. If you haven’t yet read the poem that my space is named after, I’ll give you the relevant passage:
With home-bred hordes the hillsides teem,
The troopships bring us one by one,
At vast expense of time and steam,
To slay Afridis where they run.
The "captives of our bow and spear"
Are cheap, alas! as we are dear.
Again, change the names and technology, but the concept hasn’t even budged since Kipling’s time.
Sunday 30 July 2006
Let Allah sort them out
The way things are shaking out, I think it’s time to revisit Samuel Huntington.
I can’t say I agree completely with his conclusions, but he’s been in the ballpark for a lot of it, so the whole “clash of civilizations” idea is still in the running. This snippet from “Clash of Civilizations” says most of it for me:
“Fifth, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor and the poor rich, but Russians cannot become Estonians and Azeris cannot become Armenians. In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was "Which side are you on?" and people could and did choose sides and change sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed. And as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head. Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.”
That said, I’d say that the REAL divide right now is between progress and regress, and that really gums up the works. Yes, it’s “us vs. them”, but who are we and who exactly are they?
Well, I’m a white Anglo-Scot male, and I haven’t fallen too far from that tree. I’m a believer in (sustainable) progress, and I’m not interested in any kind of organized religion, but I’m not hostile to any that leave me alone. The first sentence may explain the second, but my worldview/beliefs are my identifiers, not my background.
So who do I see as allies? Anyone anywhere who looks forward, not backward; if you’re interested in the tangible progress of humanity (meaning science and new frontiers of discovery in any discipline) we have something in common.
That’s nice and simple. There is no requirement for any ethnic or religious affiliation, but ones’ implementation of religion is an “us or them” determinant. That brings me to the Enemy…
Those crack-head jihadist sons (and daughters) of multiple fathers are “Number 1 with a bullet”. Bullet is the operative word, because in the short term bullets are the only cure for them. There is any number of Luddite apocalyptic cults of various affiliations, but this Islamic throwback to the bad old days puts all of them in the shade.
I share the opinion that Western Civilization is in mortal danger, but the danger isn’t from idiots with car bombs. The real enemy is those in our civilization who are paving the road to hell with their “good intentions”. Tolerance is great, but there are things that we should NOT be allowing. Top of that list is anyone who wants to destroy our civilization. I know I can speak for a lot of other people, but I’ll speak for myself; if you don’t like progressive (“decadent”) western democracy, stay the hell away from it.
Indeed, feel free to start up your Taliban-style repressive dark-ages shithole countries and live in them. Just be prepared that if you do anything to threaten our interests, we will return and settle your hash again, as many times as necessary, leaving you at that stone-age level that you wish so badly to revisit.
Anyone who opposes that sort of system, THOSE are the people I want immigrating to the western democracies. At all costs we have to screen out all of those who want to turn our countries into that circle of hell, and help the people who want the freedom to live well and dress pretty much how they’d like.
As for countries that we’re trying to sort out, I’ll say right now we can’t do it. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot more people will have to die than we would be willing to kill before you could affect a cultural shift of sufficient magnitude to have any chance of governments arising there that were compatible with our ideas.
Taking the current situation with Lebanon, if the west and Israel moved in, organized all the non-Shia factions, armed them and helped them kill or drive out every last Hezbollah supporter, maybe then there’d be a chance to stabilize the country and allow it to live peacefully with Israel, and Israel could help (in their own self-interest if naught else) keep the Syrians or Iranians from stirring the pot again.
The cold hard truth is that a lot of people would have to be in some way “ideologically cleansed” from places to separate “us” from “them”. However, one of the ideals of Western thought these days is to not slaughter people who don’t agree with you. This makes our civilization more pleasant than others to live in, but at the same time leaves us vulnerable to those more ruthless than us.
The various Islamist terrorist groups want nothing more than to convert by force the entire world to their repressive and backwards theology, period, full-stop. Anyone who thinks we can negotiate or reach any kind of accommodation with them is a fool. They see all such attempts, (correctly) as a sign of weakness and they will exploit it.
I’d waste my time if I seriously advocated slaughtering our enemies and their support base, but we have potential allies in a lot of these messed-up countries and we should be looking for ways to support them effectively. Israel is dropping the ball in that regard in Lebanon at this moment. There are noises to that effect coming out of the region, so we’ll see if anything useful comes out of the current carnage. My money’s on “no”.
I can’t say I agree completely with his conclusions, but he’s been in the ballpark for a lot of it, so the whole “clash of civilizations” idea is still in the running. This snippet from “Clash of Civilizations” says most of it for me:
“Fifth, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor and the poor rich, but Russians cannot become Estonians and Azeris cannot become Armenians. In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was "Which side are you on?" and people could and did choose sides and change sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed. And as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head. Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.”
That said, I’d say that the REAL divide right now is between progress and regress, and that really gums up the works. Yes, it’s “us vs. them”, but who are we and who exactly are they?
Well, I’m a white Anglo-Scot male, and I haven’t fallen too far from that tree. I’m a believer in (sustainable) progress, and I’m not interested in any kind of organized religion, but I’m not hostile to any that leave me alone. The first sentence may explain the second, but my worldview/beliefs are my identifiers, not my background.
So who do I see as allies? Anyone anywhere who looks forward, not backward; if you’re interested in the tangible progress of humanity (meaning science and new frontiers of discovery in any discipline) we have something in common.
That’s nice and simple. There is no requirement for any ethnic or religious affiliation, but ones’ implementation of religion is an “us or them” determinant. That brings me to the Enemy…
Those crack-head jihadist sons (and daughters) of multiple fathers are “Number 1 with a bullet”. Bullet is the operative word, because in the short term bullets are the only cure for them. There is any number of Luddite apocalyptic cults of various affiliations, but this Islamic throwback to the bad old days puts all of them in the shade.
I share the opinion that Western Civilization is in mortal danger, but the danger isn’t from idiots with car bombs. The real enemy is those in our civilization who are paving the road to hell with their “good intentions”. Tolerance is great, but there are things that we should NOT be allowing. Top of that list is anyone who wants to destroy our civilization. I know I can speak for a lot of other people, but I’ll speak for myself; if you don’t like progressive (“decadent”) western democracy, stay the hell away from it.
Indeed, feel free to start up your Taliban-style repressive dark-ages shithole countries and live in them. Just be prepared that if you do anything to threaten our interests, we will return and settle your hash again, as many times as necessary, leaving you at that stone-age level that you wish so badly to revisit.
Anyone who opposes that sort of system, THOSE are the people I want immigrating to the western democracies. At all costs we have to screen out all of those who want to turn our countries into that circle of hell, and help the people who want the freedom to live well and dress pretty much how they’d like.
As for countries that we’re trying to sort out, I’ll say right now we can’t do it. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot more people will have to die than we would be willing to kill before you could affect a cultural shift of sufficient magnitude to have any chance of governments arising there that were compatible with our ideas.
Taking the current situation with Lebanon, if the west and Israel moved in, organized all the non-Shia factions, armed them and helped them kill or drive out every last Hezbollah supporter, maybe then there’d be a chance to stabilize the country and allow it to live peacefully with Israel, and Israel could help (in their own self-interest if naught else) keep the Syrians or Iranians from stirring the pot again.
The cold hard truth is that a lot of people would have to be in some way “ideologically cleansed” from places to separate “us” from “them”. However, one of the ideals of Western thought these days is to not slaughter people who don’t agree with you. This makes our civilization more pleasant than others to live in, but at the same time leaves us vulnerable to those more ruthless than us.
The various Islamist terrorist groups want nothing more than to convert by force the entire world to their repressive and backwards theology, period, full-stop. Anyone who thinks we can negotiate or reach any kind of accommodation with them is a fool. They see all such attempts, (correctly) as a sign of weakness and they will exploit it.
I’d waste my time if I seriously advocated slaughtering our enemies and their support base, but we have potential allies in a lot of these messed-up countries and we should be looking for ways to support them effectively. Israel is dropping the ball in that regard in Lebanon at this moment. There are noises to that effect coming out of the region, so we’ll see if anything useful comes out of the current carnage. My money’s on “no”.
Wednesday 26 July 2006
No Reasonable Explanation
No reasonable explanation, from ANYONE involved.
I can see no reason myself that the Israelis would do something as obviously stupid (and wasteful of more innocent life) as try to kill UN observers.
It may come out in this investigation that Olmert has said he'd do how exactly this came about, but the IDF has to answer to the taxpayers and international law, so it doesn't just throw wads of (expensive) ordnance at things that aren't at least perceived to be a threat. This being said, I have two questions:
I can see no reason myself that the Israelis would do something as obviously stupid (and wasteful of more innocent life) as try to kill UN observers.
It may come out in this investigation that Olmert has said he'd do how exactly this came about, but the IDF has to answer to the taxpayers and international law, so it doesn't just throw wads of (expensive) ordnance at things that aren't at least perceived to be a threat. This being said, I have two questions:
- Why did the UN not pull them out of there?
- Why did the IDF not co-ordinate with the observers to do so?
I can probably answer the first question. The UN is worse than useless when things go balls-up, so I can easily see them failing to do anything except complain until somebody gets killed, and then express outrage at the fact that (whatever bad thing) happened.
The next question is a bit more difficult. They were obviously in radio contact, and if Hezbollah was sniping at the UN post and/or operating close to it, the reasonable (under the circumstances) course of action would be to launch an aggressive rescue mission, bagging some jihadist sheisskopfs in the bargain.
Is the IDF really that lazy/cowardly that they won't do such a thing these days? I hope not, or the only progressive democracy in the area is doomed. Avoiding the huge Hezbollah public-relations windfall resulting from this idiocy alone would have made it worth it. To show themselves co-operating with the UN to rescue some unarmed observers would have had some much-needed good publicity for the Israelis, and saved the lives of those observers who should have been protected by SOMEBODY.
The UN has no business anymore with troops, because it's proved over and over again that it has no clue how to use and if need be protect them. The IDF needs a kick in the ass to smarten it up, as the "optics" of what it's doing are not great for the results achieved.
The IDF may be hurting Hezbollah (however it's spelled), but it's not making any new friends, and may be alienating people it has some common cause with (read: Lebanese Christians). And the bottom line, it's not hurting the terrorist wankers terminally, so think hard and think fast, because it's not going to get any easier if shit like this keeps happening.
Saturday 22 July 2006
Like I said...
Israeli ambassador says Louise Arbour doesn't get it
He says his country is attacking legitimate Hezbollah military targets and she should be careful with her language.
"I completely reject Louise Arbour's warning. Israel doesn't target civilian concentrations, and I think that by merely giving such a warning she's jumping to conclusions and as a judge she should know better," he says. CBC news 21 July 06
A representative of the UN yapping off politically with no balanced appraisal of the situation? I simply can't believe it! Oh wait, maybe I can. I don't agree with everything our American allies do, but I can say I can see where they were coming from when they didn't want to pay their UN dues.
The UN is approaching the uselessness of the old League of Nations unless you count endless hot air as a useful output. Those parts of the UN that do some good work could be spun off as more NGOs (not that I think we need more of those) and the assembly just plain dissolved. The Security Council would persist in some fashion even without the UN proper, but I can't see France and Britain maintaining anything like a veto unless allied with one of the current superpowers. Hell, France had no place there in 1945; I seem to remember them as losing that war and being liberated by the rest of us...
The world is just plain buggered, but I have enough history to know it's always been like that. The fact that people can't get along doesn't surprise me at all, but the muddle-headedness about how to manage it (notice I didn't say "fix") is unsettling. There are a load of people who need to read (and UNDERSTAND) their Machiavelli and Sun-tsu, then take a fresh look around them at what's going on, and then maybe open their mouths again.
In the fight against trans-national Islamic terrorism, it's US vs THEM and nobody who has an interest in progress, relative personal liberty and any kind of human rights must realize that. However, I certainly won't say that nobody can criticize how things get done, because I have a lot of opinions myself about short-sighted foreign policy and the like.
For example, I actually think the Americans have run into more trouble from not being ruthless enough than from blowing up the odd mosque. If they dropped a 2000lb bomb on EVERY mosque that militants were using to stage attacks or store weapons, I think it would get the point across very effectively. Again I can turn to Kipling who understood the concept.
He says his country is attacking legitimate Hezbollah military targets and she should be careful with her language.
"I completely reject Louise Arbour's warning. Israel doesn't target civilian concentrations, and I think that by merely giving such a warning she's jumping to conclusions and as a judge she should know better," he says. CBC news 21 July 06
A representative of the UN yapping off politically with no balanced appraisal of the situation? I simply can't believe it! Oh wait, maybe I can. I don't agree with everything our American allies do, but I can say I can see where they were coming from when they didn't want to pay their UN dues.
The UN is approaching the uselessness of the old League of Nations unless you count endless hot air as a useful output. Those parts of the UN that do some good work could be spun off as more NGOs (not that I think we need more of those) and the assembly just plain dissolved. The Security Council would persist in some fashion even without the UN proper, but I can't see France and Britain maintaining anything like a veto unless allied with one of the current superpowers. Hell, France had no place there in 1945; I seem to remember them as losing that war and being liberated by the rest of us...
The world is just plain buggered, but I have enough history to know it's always been like that. The fact that people can't get along doesn't surprise me at all, but the muddle-headedness about how to manage it (notice I didn't say "fix") is unsettling. There are a load of people who need to read (and UNDERSTAND) their Machiavelli and Sun-tsu, then take a fresh look around them at what's going on, and then maybe open their mouths again.
In the fight against trans-national Islamic terrorism, it's US vs THEM and nobody who has an interest in progress, relative personal liberty and any kind of human rights must realize that. However, I certainly won't say that nobody can criticize how things get done, because I have a lot of opinions myself about short-sighted foreign policy and the like.
For example, I actually think the Americans have run into more trouble from not being ruthless enough than from blowing up the odd mosque. If they dropped a 2000lb bomb on EVERY mosque that militants were using to stage attacks or store weapons, I think it would get the point across very effectively. Again I can turn to Kipling who understood the concept.
Of course you can't always break heads to deal with things (I'm not a sociopath, just a frustrated realist) but when "jaw-jaw" doesn't do the job, it's time for "war-war", with my apologies to the late Sir Winston Churchill for stepping on his lines.
Thursday 20 July 2006
This Day in History...
Oh yes, and today is the 62nd anniversay of the incomptent attempt to assasinate Hitler in 1944. http://www.answers.com/topic/july-20-plot
Bloody amateurs muffed it, which shows the advantage of suicide bombers for certain jobs. If von Stauffenberg had been willing to sacrifice himself, he could have done the business, but he was no fanatic, and so we had to use the forces of the great powers for another 10 months to drive the crazy bastard to ground.
In the end Hitler managed to prove one thing; if you want a job done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself...
Bloody amateurs muffed it, which shows the advantage of suicide bombers for certain jobs. If von Stauffenberg had been willing to sacrifice himself, he could have done the business, but he was no fanatic, and so we had to use the forces of the great powers for another 10 months to drive the crazy bastard to ground.
In the end Hitler managed to prove one thing; if you want a job done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself...
Congestive (Bleeding) Heart Disease
Another sign of why Western civilization is doomed to be wiped out, this is from the head (?) war crimes judge in The Hague (all quotes from CBC News 20 July 06):
Meanwhile, UN human rights chief Louise Arbour said the scale of killings in the region could involve war crimes.
"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities," said Arbour in a statement Wednesday.
"This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. …The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."
Well, wake up everyone. They’re bloody TERRORISTS, and they hide in amoungst the people on PURPOSE to get yahoos like this to gob off about collateral damage. Score political points that way, they do. Also, I really doubt the Israelis are going to give a honk about the fine points of international law when they`re under attack, as they are now.
And this bit of genius from the WHO and UNICEF:
"The psychological impact is serious, as people, including children, have witnessed the death or injury of loved ones and destruction of their homes and communities," the organizations said in a joint statement.
Again, it’s a war, people, and it’s not like Lebanon isn’t already traumatized. These same people probably would send in those ghoulish `grief counsellors` that seem to have sprung up like weeds in the last 20 years. If they need 20 of them for a car accident at a High School, how many would they send to Lebanon? Or Iraq, or DR Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, ad infinitum.
Personally I think Israel is at least giving the impression of punishing the Lebanese people even if that’s not the intent of the exercise. I’m certain that making life difficult for the civilians is an unavoidable consequence of fighting this sort of enemy, but neither I nor the various news media outlets have the sort of intel required to say whether the Israelis are doing a lot more damage than necessary.
Radar can track incoming artillery or rockets, and you can be damned sure that a lot of the strikes that take out houses and that sort of thing are a result of tracing back the launch points of those Hezbollah Katushas and hammering it. The people in those houses may not have directly helped launch them, but a people get the government they deserve.
What that means, is that if Lebanon tolerates as part of its government an organization that is devoted to the destruction of a heavily armed and (justifiably) paranoid neighbour, well this is exactly what will happen. I will argue that since Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and it has engaged in acts of war against Israel, Israel is effectively at war with Lebanon. Looked at from that perspective, Israel has been fairly restrained.
As always, just my opinion.
Meanwhile, UN human rights chief Louise Arbour said the scale of killings in the region could involve war crimes.
"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities," said Arbour in a statement Wednesday.
"This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. …The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."
Well, wake up everyone. They’re bloody TERRORISTS, and they hide in amoungst the people on PURPOSE to get yahoos like this to gob off about collateral damage. Score political points that way, they do. Also, I really doubt the Israelis are going to give a honk about the fine points of international law when they`re under attack, as they are now.
And this bit of genius from the WHO and UNICEF:
"The psychological impact is serious, as people, including children, have witnessed the death or injury of loved ones and destruction of their homes and communities," the organizations said in a joint statement.
Again, it’s a war, people, and it’s not like Lebanon isn’t already traumatized. These same people probably would send in those ghoulish `grief counsellors` that seem to have sprung up like weeds in the last 20 years. If they need 20 of them for a car accident at a High School, how many would they send to Lebanon? Or Iraq, or DR Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, ad infinitum.
Personally I think Israel is at least giving the impression of punishing the Lebanese people even if that’s not the intent of the exercise. I’m certain that making life difficult for the civilians is an unavoidable consequence of fighting this sort of enemy, but neither I nor the various news media outlets have the sort of intel required to say whether the Israelis are doing a lot more damage than necessary.
Radar can track incoming artillery or rockets, and you can be damned sure that a lot of the strikes that take out houses and that sort of thing are a result of tracing back the launch points of those Hezbollah Katushas and hammering it. The people in those houses may not have directly helped launch them, but a people get the government they deserve.
What that means, is that if Lebanon tolerates as part of its government an organization that is devoted to the destruction of a heavily armed and (justifiably) paranoid neighbour, well this is exactly what will happen. I will argue that since Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and it has engaged in acts of war against Israel, Israel is effectively at war with Lebanon. Looked at from that perspective, Israel has been fairly restrained.
As always, just my opinion.
Tuesday 18 July 2006
All This From a Jehova's Witness...
Mickey Spillane, creator of the hardboiled detective Mike Hammer, died in South Carolina on Monday. He was 88.
He sold more than 100 million books, and Hammer inspired several TV series and movies. ... His books featured raw violence and sex, drawing condemnation from morality groups of the day. But they sold hugely, with lurid paperback covers often featuring a scantily dressed woman and a gun. CBC/AP
As a committed (ha!) agnostic, I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I'm always happy when people believe stuff and leave the rest of us alone about it. Spillane by all appearances did so, and should therefore (according to me, anyway) either rest peacefully or have a good time in whatever afterlife he may have believed in.
I'm not a big fan of his stuff, though I like my share of "pulps" but I do like people who entertain without beating me over the head with some not-so-hidden agenda.
For example, I used to think Angelina Jolie was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Well, I still think she looks good, but her relentless do-gooding has actually made her less appealing to me. In the interim, her place at the top of my notional "list" has been taken by Scarlett Johansson, because she's hot (and one of the few actresses in Hollywood who isn't a stick, but that's another rant) and whatever pet causes she has have yet to impinge on my blissful ignorance of anything other than that she looks good and seems to have a brain too. How's that for a run-on sentence?
He sold more than 100 million books, and Hammer inspired several TV series and movies. ... His books featured raw violence and sex, drawing condemnation from morality groups of the day. But they sold hugely, with lurid paperback covers often featuring a scantily dressed woman and a gun. CBC/AP
As a committed (ha!) agnostic, I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I'm always happy when people believe stuff and leave the rest of us alone about it. Spillane by all appearances did so, and should therefore (according to me, anyway) either rest peacefully or have a good time in whatever afterlife he may have believed in.
I'm not a big fan of his stuff, though I like my share of "pulps" but I do like people who entertain without beating me over the head with some not-so-hidden agenda.
For example, I used to think Angelina Jolie was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Well, I still think she looks good, but her relentless do-gooding has actually made her less appealing to me. In the interim, her place at the top of my notional "list" has been taken by Scarlett Johansson, because she's hot (and one of the few actresses in Hollywood who isn't a stick, but that's another rant) and whatever pet causes she has have yet to impinge on my blissful ignorance of anything other than that she looks good and seems to have a brain too. How's that for a run-on sentence?
That's all for now, but off that whole mid-east debacle at least.
Monday 17 July 2006
"Hot Topic" is NOT Punk Rock
At 35+ my bleeding-edge days are long behind me, but as a former punk-ska-industrial-alternative scene guy I certainly haven't moved to the Michael Boulton catalogue. Today's subject line comes courtesy of MC Lars:
http://www.mclars.com , and I couldn't agree more.
I must confess that before a few months ago (I've re-posted this from earlier) I'd never heard of him or Hot Topic, but once again thank you, Internet, for instant familiarity with almost anything. Back "in the day" my friends (well, some of them) and I went out to the gigs, listened to the music, wore the clothes and hung out with the other punks, which made me one of them, even if I was never a "smash the state" kind of guy.
At that point in my life (roughly age 17 to 22) I was in school, by 19 I had moved out of the house, and I was pretty poor. The ripped jeans were just old and worn out, the punk t-shirts were cool, but mainly cheap, and the 14-hole Docs and leather jacket were a legacy from the motorcycle that I never managed to get running. Like real punk bands, things were run on a shoestring, but by necessity and not as some sort of slumming affectation.
I won't (presently) bore everyone with tales of the old days, but I'll put it out here that I blame MTV/Much Music and Nirvana for the commercialization and concurrent extinction of the alternative scene as a real alternative. I haven't paid a lot of attention for a number of years, but the fact that I can find a site ( http://www.hottopic.com/) selling, well look at what they're selling and ask yourself if the word "Punk" should be associated with US$20.00 t-shirts and baby clothes.
Probably not the last word on this topic...
Who ever said violence never solved anything?
"Palestinian militants halt strategy of IDF abductions to secure prisoners
MOHAMMED NAJIB JDW Correspondent
Ramallah
Palestinian militant groups in the West Bank have suspended their new strategy to abduct Israel Defence Force (IDF) personnel to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails, Palestinian militant sources told Jane's on 13 July.
The sources said the abductions would be suspended until the resolution of the IDF operation in Lebanon.
The sources added they were concerned that the capture of additional IDF personnel could result in an unprecedented military response that would destroy the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority."
See? As I've maintained in the past, (stolen fron wherever) you can't make an omellete without breaking a few eggs. Hezbollah has more places to hide than Hamas, otherwise they'd likely be saying "uncle" by now too.
It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and in a way I'm encouraged by Hamas taking a step back, though admittedly they did it only after getting their asses handed to them again. However, the Israeli response in Gaza must pale in comparision to the steel flying downrange in Lebanon, and they must see how much worse it could be, and their supporters can too.
What this could mean, (optimistic, I know) is that Hamas has a sliver of rationalality to them as an organization, and from that there could eventually be some kind of arrangement made. Again, not likely, as the entire situation is the zero-sum thing I mentioned earlier.
The only real solution is an ethnic-cleansing type, and that's never popular with the losing side, nor (when they actually pay any attention) the international community. I should see if there are bets being taken on the next move (other than the stock markets), as I`m curious about, say, the odds on Israel attacking Syria, for example.
On va voir...
MOHAMMED NAJIB JDW Correspondent
Ramallah
Palestinian militant groups in the West Bank have suspended their new strategy to abduct Israel Defence Force (IDF) personnel to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails, Palestinian militant sources told Jane's on 13 July.
The sources said the abductions would be suspended until the resolution of the IDF operation in Lebanon.
The sources added they were concerned that the capture of additional IDF personnel could result in an unprecedented military response that would destroy the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority."
See? As I've maintained in the past, (stolen fron wherever) you can't make an omellete without breaking a few eggs. Hezbollah has more places to hide than Hamas, otherwise they'd likely be saying "uncle" by now too.
It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and in a way I'm encouraged by Hamas taking a step back, though admittedly they did it only after getting their asses handed to them again. However, the Israeli response in Gaza must pale in comparision to the steel flying downrange in Lebanon, and they must see how much worse it could be, and their supporters can too.
What this could mean, (optimistic, I know) is that Hamas has a sliver of rationalality to them as an organization, and from that there could eventually be some kind of arrangement made. Again, not likely, as the entire situation is the zero-sum thing I mentioned earlier.
The only real solution is an ethnic-cleansing type, and that's never popular with the losing side, nor (when they actually pay any attention) the international community. I should see if there are bets being taken on the next move (other than the stock markets), as I`m curious about, say, the odds on Israel attacking Syria, for example.
On va voir...
Saturday 15 July 2006
We all gotta duck, When the shit hits the fan.
(Before we start, 10 Punk Points to whoever can recognize the source of the title to this one.)
Ok, This was on my other blog a couple of days back, but things haven't moved much since then, but that could change any time... I'll take bets right now as to if/when Israel invades or otherwise provokes a war with Syria.
Taking this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178492.stm as the start point, I can see some geopolitical possibilities and rationale for the next "hot" Mideast war.
The Yanks have been talking for many years now about Syria as a major terrorist sponsor state, and there can be no doubt that along with Iran, they are a major conduit for various terrorist groups and the arms therefore that are playing hob with American and Israeli plans/ideas for the mid east. From there it's not a big step to see Israel buggering Syria badly enough to force some sort of regime change, at the very least.
I've been reading a sampling of mid east blogs, specifically from Egypt and Lebanon, and there's an interesting undercurrent to the expected outrage at the latest Crusader-Zionist outrages in Lebanon and Gaza. To see where I've been looking go here : http://www.sandmonkey.org/
This guy has a quite an atypical outlook for the region, so I'd certainly keep that in mind when reading his stuff and his fellow travelers in the region. That said, the fact that anyone over there is doing anything other than just screaming "Kill the Jews", yadda, yadda, is encouraging to me. However, moderates are vastly outnumbered, more so because by definition the hotheads are willing to crack other heads that don't agree with them, and not a lot of people will speak up in that environment.
Back to the main event. The Americans are too tied up to take out Assad in Syria, let alone deal appropriately with the Iranian government. The Israelis however, have the resources, the motivation, AND the tacit backing of said Americans to to the former job for them, and if they could I'm sure they'd like a crack at Iran too.
So, will Israel continue to bomb the hell out of Lebanon to put the pressure on Hezbollah, or will they, as one of the Lebanese bloggers said, pick on someone their own size, and send the troops knocking on Bashar al-Assad's door?
Damned if I know for sure, but I have my opinions on what should be done. They involve a fight to the finish, and although I'm reluctant to take sides in a messy situation like Israel/Palestine, if I had to see either side come out on top, I'll take the progressive democracy any day.
Ok, This was on my other blog a couple of days back, but things haven't moved much since then, but that could change any time... I'll take bets right now as to if/when Israel invades or otherwise provokes a war with Syria.
Taking this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178492.stm as the start point, I can see some geopolitical possibilities and rationale for the next "hot" Mideast war.
The Yanks have been talking for many years now about Syria as a major terrorist sponsor state, and there can be no doubt that along with Iran, they are a major conduit for various terrorist groups and the arms therefore that are playing hob with American and Israeli plans/ideas for the mid east. From there it's not a big step to see Israel buggering Syria badly enough to force some sort of regime change, at the very least.
I've been reading a sampling of mid east blogs, specifically from Egypt and Lebanon, and there's an interesting undercurrent to the expected outrage at the latest Crusader-Zionist outrages in Lebanon and Gaza. To see where I've been looking go here : http://www.sandmonkey.org/
This guy has a quite an atypical outlook for the region, so I'd certainly keep that in mind when reading his stuff and his fellow travelers in the region. That said, the fact that anyone over there is doing anything other than just screaming "Kill the Jews", yadda, yadda, is encouraging to me. However, moderates are vastly outnumbered, more so because by definition the hotheads are willing to crack other heads that don't agree with them, and not a lot of people will speak up in that environment.
Back to the main event. The Americans are too tied up to take out Assad in Syria, let alone deal appropriately with the Iranian government. The Israelis however, have the resources, the motivation, AND the tacit backing of said Americans to to the former job for them, and if they could I'm sure they'd like a crack at Iran too.
So, will Israel continue to bomb the hell out of Lebanon to put the pressure on Hezbollah, or will they, as one of the Lebanese bloggers said, pick on someone their own size, and send the troops knocking on Bashar al-Assad's door?
Damned if I know for sure, but I have my opinions on what should be done. They involve a fight to the finish, and although I'm reluctant to take sides in a messy situation like Israel/Palestine, if I had to see either side come out on top, I'll take the progressive democracy any day.
Plus ca change...
Well, with my initial experiment on the MSN blog thing a partial success I thought I'd move over here. I have a job where I'm not supposed to comment on some things, but I feel like doing it anyway, so a bit more anonymity won't hurt.
Of course, I'm not operating in high security mode, or I wouldn't be putting ANYTHING in public. I just like to rant, and if I can't do that at work, well I'm going to do it somewhere...
That said, if anyone figures out (or knows 'cause I told them!) who I am and/or who I work for (it won't be hard) anything said here is MY OPINION ONLY and in no way represents anyone or anything other than me personally. A lot of it is just me running off at the mouth, and I've had all sorts of ideas over the years that I know a lot better than to try and implement.
I'll move a few of my back posts over here to save me some work (I have other things to do than troll the net, after all) and you can see what I have going on. When you figure it out, please tell me, as I have no detailed plan for this at all.
One thing that will be apparent by the time you get here is that yes, I am a big Kipling fan, particularly his verse. His output was huge and very diverse, and with his range of life experiences and exposures, he has something to say about almost everything, especially if you can "adjust for inflation". For the namesake of my space go here . I can draw a lot of parallels from it to our (Western Civilization's) current "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I leave it to the alert reader to make up their own mind, as always.
Of course, I'm not operating in high security mode, or I wouldn't be putting ANYTHING in public. I just like to rant, and if I can't do that at work, well I'm going to do it somewhere...
That said, if anyone figures out (or knows 'cause I told them!) who I am and/or who I work for (it won't be hard) anything said here is MY OPINION ONLY and in no way represents anyone or anything other than me personally. A lot of it is just me running off at the mouth, and I've had all sorts of ideas over the years that I know a lot better than to try and implement.
I'll move a few of my back posts over here to save me some work (I have other things to do than troll the net, after all) and you can see what I have going on. When you figure it out, please tell me, as I have no detailed plan for this at all.
One thing that will be apparent by the time you get here is that yes, I am a big Kipling fan, particularly his verse. His output was huge and very diverse, and with his range of life experiences and exposures, he has something to say about almost everything, especially if you can "adjust for inflation". For the namesake of my space go here . I can draw a lot of parallels from it to our (Western Civilization's) current "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I leave it to the alert reader to make up their own mind, as always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)