Search This Blog

Wednesday, July 20, 2016

This does not sit well

Now this comes to light:

What possible reason would the French government have for covering up the fact that many victims of the terrorist attack in Paris at the Bataclan music hall were apparently savagely tortured?

They not only covered it up, they're still lying about it today.
...
 The lies and coverup are the result of the government not trusting that the people can handle the truth. Horror of horrors if there's an anti-Muslim backlash or voters demand that the French government do more in the fight against ISIS. It's far easier to suppress the truth than deal with the reality that the terrorists are operating on another moral plane than the rest of us, which gives them a significant advantage. They don't have to worry about whether a bombing attack will kill civilians. It's part of their strategy for civilians to die. They don't care if we blanch when they execute a prisoner in a particularly gruesome way. They want us to be scared of them. And they have no qualms about carrying out the most gruesome torture on helpless victims. They want our horror to paralyze us.
...

But nations like France, which have done little to assist the U.S. in fighting ISIS in Syria and Iraq, don't want to acknowledge the truth. If they did, they would have to do something about it. So they treat their citizens like little children and try to suppress the knowledge that there are monsters under the bed who want to do them harm.

This is not a strategy for victory against ISIS.
In a free society, people have a right to know these things.

Dennis Prager has his take on the matter:
It appears that no matter how many men, women, and children Islamists slaughter or maim, few in the West take Islamic terror seriously. This may sound odd given how much talk there is about terror, but a compelling case can be made for this assertion.
...

It is inconceivable that this situation will long endure. Most people in the West do not share its elites’ broken moral compass.
Michael Walsh says, "enough"

...And yet still the West refuses to take even the most rudimentary steps to protect itself against a known, sworn enemy. Why?
Lots of reasons: ennui, cultural Marxism, the mutation of the Left into a suicide cult that wants to take the rest of us with it. A loss of faith in organized religion (some of it brought on by the faiths themselves, or rather the imperfect men who represent and administer them). The transformation of government schools into babysitting services for subsections of the populace with severe cultural learning disabilities, no matter the skin color of the pupil. The marginalization of the very notion of excellence. And a political class that is little more than a collection of criminals, throne-sniffers, pantywaists and bum-kissers, all dedicated to their own enrichment.
...
 Western civilization has defended us for centuries. Isn't it about time we defended it?

40 comments:

Harry Eagar said...

Name me a 'rudimentary step.'

Howard said...

rudimentary step #1 - Acknowledge that there are Islamic Supremacists at war with us.

Clovis e Adri said...

Howard,

I think your basic premise - that not enough is being done to fight ISIS - is hindered by:

1) A lack of effective proposals. What else should be done differently?

2) The lack of recognition of the shortcomings of past policy. How did ISIS come to existence? I understand the answer is not so comfortable as blaming cultural marxism or the Left. A mirror may come handy at that one.

Bret said...

Clovis,

"A lack of effective proposals" is in part due to the fact we won't even acknowledge what's going on. We can't even talk about it without screams of racism, fascism, and lots of other isms. How are we to come up with effective proposals if we're not even allowed to know about, identify, or talk about the problem?

Could or should something be done differently? I don't know, but since the information is hidden, distorted, and suppressed, I'll never know.

Also, I don't much care about "shortcomings of past policy." It doesn't matter. That was then, this is now. Here we are. I'm not interested in rolling over and dying because my ancestors weren't quite perfect.

Clovis e Adri said...

Bret,

I am not quite talking about your ancestors. I am actually talking about you - the policies were put in place under your nose, possibly with your approval. Most people decrying the PC rules against 'calling Islam for what it is' happens to be, most probably, the ones happy enough about the policies leading to ISIS.

Understandably, I have some difficulties on listening to their present complaints while they can't figure out their own mistakes.

That was then, this is now. Unless you learned anything at all from then, I don't want you telling me what's to do next.

Peter said...

I would be more impressed with these heated calls for a civilizational war if they were accompanied by calls for a general special war tax to pay for it.

ISIS and terrorism are huge threats, but we are not in an existential battle to save the West, not by a long shot, and I'm offended by people who want to stick my face into the gruesome details of torture to convince me we are. Nor do I think we are cowering in fear before an Islamist menace because of leftist moral pollution. The hard fact is that, between periodic bouts of rage and horror, much of the population is more fixated on the dispute between Taylor Swift and Kanye West or Tom Brady's legal fight with the NFL. They have never been asked to make personal sacrifices in the war on terror beyond airport security and there's not much indication I can see that they would be willing to do so.

Never mind the left, we don't who we are fighting or even who our friends and supporters are and we don't know how long or what it would take to defeat them. Sometimes the fear of quagmires is more than lefty rhetoric. I'll bet Howard would have a much harder time coming up with step two than he did with step one. We do know that the Western public does not have a lot of sustaining capacity for anything other than quick, no-cost-to-them military fixes, and who thinks one of those is a possibility?. What I find really upsetting about these pieces is that they attempt to lump anyone who doesn't share their simplistic John-Wayne-Bombs-Away and ugly domestic nativist solutions with leftist anti-West critics and cultural apologists. If they got their way, the public would become anti-war with the first lost battle. These are barroom calls born of desperation, not of knowledge, confidence and strength.

Bret, I couldn't disagree more that the conversation has been stifled by political correctness. We've been at this for fifteen years and through several wars and I think I've seen every conceivable opinion expressed in every conceivable way by pundits and politicians. Sometimes in a democracy you just have to accept that many people don't agree with you without telling yourself their minds have been bent by nefarious forces. That's just a conservative variation of the old leftist shibboleth about false consciousness.

Something robust has to be done, though. If I were king-for-a-day, I'd contract out our foreign policies to the Israelis. They don't cower before anyone and they always respond with strength and purpose, but they don't bet the pot on simplistic quick fixes, expect the lives of their citizens to be untouched or let themselves get swept up in dangerous nonsense about civilizational missions and our wonderfully robust, resilient ancestors.

erp said...

Peter, I'd put the Israeli's in charge too, but most of our leaders and definitely those on the left, are anti-Semites and pay only the barest lip service to them as allies.

I beg to differ that We, the People don't pay the price for war. We not only ante-up our treasure in copious amounts, but give up our our most treasured possessions, our young men to die in battle leaving behind grieving loved ones and unborn children to carry their names.

I also beg to differ that we don't know who the enemy is. We know very well who they are, but the left in all its iterations are so perverse that they'd rather pretend there are amorphous lone-wolves out there preying on us than to stop importing and protecting those who wish to destroy western culture for incorporeal virgins in the next world.

... also in what way is the "John Wayne, bombs away," approach different from the Israeli's "strength and purpose"? I've always believed that Israeli leaders used our wild west, "smile when you say that, pardner" as a model for the settlement of Israel.

Clovis, please elaborate on the mirror metaphor above. I don't get it.

Peter said...

We know very well who they are

So who are they, erp? Be specific. Extra credit for precision. After fifteen years, two wars, many military skirmishes and massive security operations, "Muslims who hate us for our freedoms" will earn a failing grade.

Bret said...

Peter,

I'm a little lost at your "civilizational war" comment. I don't see how the post, Howard, or I are calling for such a thing. I'm not even sure what it is.

Do you consider, say, temporarily limiting immigration "civilizational war"? How about talking about programs to assimilate immigrants?

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "I don't want you telling me what's to do next."

I have no interest in telling folks in other countries what to do next. You certainly get to approach the problem (or lack thereof) however you see fit, either in coordination with other nations or on your own.

Would you care to elaborate on what you think my (our) "mistakes" have been and what specifically we haven't learned from them?

erp said...

Peter, we know who they are because many of their fellows have already perpetrated atrocities. We have an immigration policy that vets immigrants to make sure they are people who want to be Americans.

We have no obligation to allow everybody who claims refugee status to come here with no intention of assimilating, but only disrupting and worse whether they are from south (or north) of our border or the Moslem world.

Bret, the rule of law is what separates us from most of the rest of the world and we should abide by our immigration laws and not make exceptions. The tsunami of people entering the U.S. without any regulation is madness and it doesn't need to be stopped temporarily, it needs to be stopped totally.

Howard said...

#1 - Acknowledge that there are Islamic Supremacists at war with us.

#2 - Adjust immigration policy accordingly, refine our approach, iterate.

#3 - Stop "blindfolding" the FBI, Intelligence Agencies and the Military by reinstating the use of appropriate language about jihad into reports and training.

#4 - Re prioritize which groups and regimes to work with and support in this effort.

#5 - Build a serious propaganda effort to discredit the idea of jihad.

#6 - Educate the public.

That would be a decent start before even thinking about military activity. I doubt that any of this can happen under the current administration. Also, events at home and abroad are likely to change the landscape dramatically at some point.

If we don't do some of these things, then we'll need to have this conversation at some point.

Clovis e Adri said...

Erp,

---
Clovis, please elaborate on the mirror metaphor above. I don't get it.
---
Sure Erp, it is simple: it was not a metaphor.


Bret,

----
Would you care to elaborate on what you think my (our) "mistakes" have been and what specifically we haven't learned from them?
----
Reading a few of your past posts on the begin of this Great blog, I would classify you as mildly supportive of the 2003 Iraq war. That was the mistake of your nation, and of the citizens who supported it. There would be no ISIS without Iraq 2003, the causal relationship here is straightforward.

But I am really sorry if I am getting your position back then wrong.



erp said...

Clovis, is it your position that if we hadn't responded to 9/11, an unprovoked attack on our land, which killed several thousand innocent people, there would be peace now?

I totally disagree. 9/11 was an escalation of previous terrorist acts which the lefties in charge basically treated as no biggies. This emboldened the perps to take down a couple of our landmarks -- okay an ugly ones, but still unacceptable. Swift action was needed and taken. Then the lefties got back in charge and looked the other way, when not actively encouraging them, add encouraging civil violence against the police and we now are bordering on anarchy.

Clovis e Adri said...

Erp,

No, that's not my position, 9/11 obviously asked for a strong response. Iraq 2003 had nothing to do with it, though.

Harry Eagar said...

#4 sounds fraught. You might want to tell us how a properly functioning administration would have dealt with that one with regards to, say, Pskistan.

Hmmmm.

The rest boil down to a distillation of a Bill-O tirade. You should have noticed the utter inability of the critics of what we perhaps should call Obamaism to make the slightest distinction between Islamic extremism and any other kind,just as rightwingers generally have never been able to distinguish between moderate leftism and communism; although thy have always claimed to be able to make significant distinctions between authoritarian and totalitarian regimes which people in the reality-based community found it hard to discern.

Teh problem with your argument is that you have Jeane Kirkpatrick hanging around your neck like a very big, very old, very smelly, very dead albatross.

Peter said...

Howard:

With respect, that reads like the agenda for a meeting on September 12th, 2001. It also reminds me a bit of leftists who are always calling for public dialogue and debate when they have a very fixed view of what the outcome should be. Nobody could criticize anything as general as that. My point is simply we should be long past the point where we are guided by white-hot anger and demands for revenge and retribution and should be putting specifics to the test of what is militarily, legally and politically feasible, both domestically and internationally, on the basis of what we have learned over the past fifteen years. Neither intense military operations on the other side of the world nor banning Muslims from immigrating come close to meeting those tests in my view.

erp said...

Peter, nobody to my knowledge is talking about a blanket ban on Moslem immigrants if they come here legally, i.e., they comply with our immigration laws. What's happening now is an illegal invasion of mostly young Moslem men without job skills or even a work ethic.

The flood of Hispanics is a horse of a different color. That one's for you Harry.

Clovis, what, IYO, would have been the proper response to 9/11?

erp said...

Harry, really? ... distinguish between moderate leftism and communism ...

That's like distinguishing between a little pregnant and delivering a baby. One inexorably leads to the other.

Clovis e Adri said...

Erp,

---
Clovis, what, IYO, would have been the proper response to 9/11?
---

To invade Afghanistan. You are conflating Iraq with that, which isn't accurate at all.

Howard said...

that reads like the agenda for a meeting...

That it would still be an upgrade from what is currently be done is a reflection of the fecklessness of the clowns currently running the show.

That's like distinguishing between a little pregnant and delivering a baby. One inexorably leads to the other.

Nice erp. That definitely applies to leftists with no respect for limited government like our friend Harry.

erp said...

Clovis, perhaps the military had more info about that than we do. The problem wasn't going to Iraq, the problem was leaving it.

Bret said...

Clovis wrote: "I would classify you as mildly supportive of the 2003 Iraq war."

So then was I mildly mistaken? :-)

I think my thinking was most thoughtfully thought out in this post, with the following excerpt:

"I wasn't particularly keen on invading Iraq at that time. But then I had a long political conversation with my Dad, who clearly remembered the late thirties. He described to me the peace protests, Neville Chamberlain's "Peace in our Time" speech, the antiwar media, the French wringing their hands and imploring and threatening Hitler not to continue violating the Treaty of Versailles (but doing nothing). He was stunned by the similarity of that time with 2002. He asked me, "when is the world going to learn that you shouldn't ever appease power hungry dictators?" I couldn't come up with a good answer to his question and since then I've supported the invasion and occupation of Iraq."

So my hesitant support of the Iraq war really wasn't related to terrorism or 9/11, but rather Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, Saddam's ignoring the UN, Saddam's aspirations of becoming a regional power, Saddam's aspirations of building a powerful military, etc., and my dad (a veteran) convincing me that there were too many parallels with events in the 1930s. Yes, there were a lot of differences as well, but my crystal ball was cloudy, so that was my best guess.

But I find your following statement rather astounding:

Clovis wrote: "There would be no ISIS without Iraq 2003, the causal relationship here is straightforward."

Because you have an alternative universe where there was no Iraq 2003 and in said universe there's no ISIS? Any statement about the middle east and the word "straightforward" generally should not appear in the same sentence in my opinion.

But lastly, now you've identified (one of) my "mistakes," but you haven't yet identified what I should've learned from it but haven't. Please enlighten me.

Bret said...

erp wrote: "The problem wasn't going to Iraq, the problem was leaving it."

I agree with that. For example, after WWII we stayed in Germany ... oh, wait, we're still there and in force!

Clovis e Adri said...

Erp,

---
Clovis, perhaps the military had more info about that than we do. The problem wasn't going to Iraq, the problem was leaving it.
---
Now we know they hadn't. You have been played if you then believed supporting the Iraq war was related to 9/11.

And I invite you to rethink about the wisdom of invading a country you are not supposed to ever leave on its own again.



Bret,

Thanks for sharing that memory. It is good to know you had such conversations with your father (last time you only spoke about him in other terms), and quite interesting to know he was a veteran (from which war?).

---
But I find your following statement rather astounding:

Clovis wrote: "There would be no ISIS without Iraq 2003, the causal relationship here is straightforward."

Because you have an alternative universe where there was no Iraq 2003 and in said universe there's no ISIS?
---

The main argument - used even in Iraq 1991 - to not remove Saddam has always been the certain disintegration of the country into Shia and Sunni lines. ISIS is the foreseable - so easily foreseable that it was indeed foreseen numerous times - of that.

Same with Syria. Or Lybia. Or Egypt. Even Turkey. The innate instabilities following interventions in such places were all too easily foreseable. Actually, in some of them the intervention absolutely counted on that.

There is a limit to how long you can play the fool and say "I didn't know".


---
But lastly, now you've identified (one of) my "mistakes," but you haven't yet identified what I should've learned from it but haven't. Please enlighten me.
---
I am sure you are smart enough to do that on your own. That is, if you even want to.

Clovis e Adri said...

Howard,

Nice 6 steps. I would prefer 10, as they do in the AA, but six may well be right too.

Now, suppose we implement those 6 steps - not only in America, but in Europe too. Now, how do you see any of them stopping that truck in Nice? I can't quite connect the dots...

Howard said...

Clovis,

It is uncertain what we would learn that might be useful in thwarting such attacks. We would learn many things that we are blinded to now.

erp said...

Clovis, if you mean that we went to Iraq for oil, you are a victim of the media's obsession with oil, insurance companies ... and we needn't have stayed for almost three-quarters a century just until things were stabilized.

Bret, U.S. troops in Germany? Boggles my mind too.

Clovis e Adri said...

Erp,

Oil played a role, how could it not? But it was not the only reason. I guess that, ultimately, ideologues with little respect for real life limitations are really what made the diffference, at least as far as US policy goes.

A wise man put it better like this: pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before stumbling.

erp said...

Clovis, we got no oil from Iraq and as for imperialism, Colin Powell, whom I do not admire for much else, said it best, We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works.

Harry Eagar said...

'you shouldn't ever appease power hungry dictators'


Let me count the ways: Pinochet, shah, Franco, Erdogan, Thieu, Chiang, . . . I could go on. You guys agreed with Kirkpatrick so you cannot then get on your high horses about particular dictators. The American rightwing is fine with dictators, prefers them.

So I find your complaining about unlimited government silly

'That's like distinguishing between a little pregnant and delivering a baby. One inexorably leads to the other.'

Give me even one example of that happening.

erp said...

The U.S. of A. is a very good example. We started off with Wilson and slowly and surely with a couple of blips on the way we got to Obama and with the election of Hillary, our journey to crony capitalism aka fascism will be complete.

Right wing dictators - how droll.

Harry Eagar said...

You don't have any idea what fascism is, or democracy, or communism. It's sad. The history unrolled in front of your ideas and you refused to look.

I could extend my list a long time, Vargas, Rios Montt, Salazar, Mobutu, Smith . . .

Clovis e Adri said...

Erp,

You are mistaken, you've sure got oil from Iraq - initially only American and British companies were authorized to operate there. It may be just a coincidence that said companies were the same ones discussing market access there with the invaders a year before.

What you did not get, as a country, was profits from that oil. But "private profits with socialized losses" has been the rule of the game for a while now, isn't it?

As for Powell citation (hey, I did not said the word "imperialism"), the saddest part is the fact it is mostly true. IMHO, the good will of a kind people such as the Americans has been long abused by their leadership. Just look for Bret's reconstitution of his conversation with his father. Decent and good people thinking they were supporting the making of good, end up giving a hand to the making of evil. A classical tragedy.

erp said...

Clovis, agree to disagree.

Hey Skipper said...

[harry:] Name me a 'rudimentary step.'

Stop Muslim immigration.

Once upon a time there was a pretty odious ideology — communism — that was completely antithetical to Western civilization. I don't recall any squeamishness at barring the door to avowed communists.

Take Islam at its word: Quran, shurah, haddiths, abrogation, the whole nine yards. Now explain how it is possible to be both a devout Muslim and not be antithetical to Western civilization. Let's start with something easy: the tenets of Islam, and apostasy.

Oh, and draw Mohammed every day, twice on Sundays, and have a Ramadan Drawathon. Instead of putting a Seattle cartoonist into witness protection.


[Clovis:] I think your basic premise - that not enough is being done to fight ISIS - is hindered by:

Your number 1 makes sense. There are no easy ways of dealing with Islamic certitude.

Two, not at all. ISIS was a long time coming, deriving from the cognitive dissonance between Islamic superiority and the cultural and material deficiencies of Muslim countries. The US didn't cause the Syrian civil war, and it is a real stretch to assume that the eventual passing of Hussein would have been anything other than a horror show.


[Peter:] ISIS and terrorism are huge threats, but we are not in an existential battle to save the West, not by a long shot, and I'm offended by people who want to stick my face into the gruesome details of torture to convince me we are.

And I'm offended by people who bask in unearned moral superiority.

You say we are not in an existential battle to save the West. If by that you mean free from physical collapse, sure. But It is pollyannish to think hostile immigration had nothing to do with brexit.

Or that Europe can continue to absorb murderous rampages without consequences.

Bret, I couldn't disagree more that the conversation has been stifled by political correctness.

Are you kidding?

I wish I could find the article in Arts & Letters Daily from just after the latest Paris atrocity from a very left writer taking the left to task for throwing the "islamophobe" card every time someone asserts that Islam might not be quite so peaceful. Unfortunately, my google-fu is failing me this evening.

The NYT is perpetually does that, with exactly the same goal as Harry does every time he trots out that racism slander: to first ostracize, then silence, unwelcome opinions.

It has been going on for a long time in Europe, with horrible results, and now a backlash. Couldn't have seen that coming.


[Clovis:] Reading a few of your past posts on the begin of this Great blog, I would classify you as mildly supportive of the 2003 Iraq war. That was the mistake of your nation, and of the citizens who supported it. There would be no ISIS without Iraq 2003, the causal relationship here is straightforward.

No, it isn't. Not even close. The Syrian civil war was going to happen regardless of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And you completely ignore the consequences not only of Hussein remaining in power, but also his inevitable passing.

Think Tito and Yugoslavia.

Sometime ago I wrote Nothing is Not an Option in response to the astonishingly empty objections of those against invading Iraq, including by those who shouldn't be let off the hook of arguing a null.

I'm not going to maintain that post makes an ironclad case, only that it presents an arguable strategic case, in complete contrast to everyone who chants "Bush lied, people died".

[harry:] Let me count the ways: Pinochet, shah, Franco, Erdogan, Thieu, Chiang, . . . I could go on.

Just as uselessly have you have done so many times before — a mind-numbing litany of uncaused effects.

Hey Skipper said...

Bret, I couldn't disagree more that the conversation has been stifled by political correctness.

Forgot to mention ...

Remember Maj Hassan? Fellow officers did not report his pointed comments about Islam for fear of the repercussions.

Remember San Bernardino? Neighbors didn't report suspicious activity for fear of the repercussions.

I think that counts as stifling.

Clovis e Adri said...

Skipper,

---
[Clovis] There would be no ISIS without Iraq 2003, the causal relationship here is straightforward.
[Skipper] No, it isn't. Not even close. The Syrian civil war was going to happen regardless of Operation Iraqi Freedom. And you completely ignore the consequences not only of Hussein remaining in power, but also his inevitable passing.
---
Syrian civil war: It was greatly amplified by external aid, initially done by the Saudis but with consent of the West Intelligentsia, the USA very much included. Later on a direct hand by the USA, with material support given.

And that was not even the point. You - by denying a link to Operation Iraqi Freedom - look to deny the fact that ISIS only got strong by the Sunni uprising that made the North of Iraq a country by itself. That only happened because Iraq 2003 - and out of Iraq 2011 - happened first. As I said, a causal relationship.


---
Sometime ago I wrote Nothing is Not an Option in response to the astonishingly empty objections of those against invading Iraq, including by those who shouldn't be let off the hook of arguing a null.
---
I remember to have answered you directly in that thread.

I will reduce it to minimum complexity: if you kill me, you have responsibility for that action and its consequences. If I die of natural causes, you have not. Simple like that. Your fortune telling arguments in that thread amount to wild guesses. They are unable to justify the major mess your country facilitated in the whole region.

Hey Skipper said...

[Clovis:] And that was not even the point. You - by denying a link to Operation Iraqi Freedom - look to deny the fact that ISIS only got strong by the Sunni uprising that made the North of Iraq a country by itself. That only happened because Iraq 2003 - and out of Iraq 2011 - happened first. As I said, a causal relationship.

The problem with going post hoc is that you can't discard it at will, which you have done. How? Because you completely ignored Saddam Hussein's brutal suppression of the Shia, and the reversal of Sunni fortune after we deposed him. Since Hussein was not immortal, he was going to pass eventually, no matter what we did.

Yet in your post hoc world, the only thing that matters is the means of Saddam's passing, as if nothing else mattered at all. Unfortunately for your theory, the Syrian civil war has proven that Muslims are very good at first oppressing another sect (Alawite v. Sunni), then when it all blows up, resorting to internecine slaughter.

Moreover, it is entirely possible to come to a different conclusion: had Obama not precipitously quite the field, ISIS would have had no opportunity in northern Iraq, and would not only have been restricted to Syria, but also would have had much less oil with which to finance their atrocities.

Of course, that alternative would have required us staying around until muslims preferred civil society to slaughtering each other.

But that problem is completely separate from us.

I remember to have answered you directly in that thread.

Not that one; perhaps another on a similar subject.

Your fortune telling arguments in that thread amount to wild guesses.

Must have been a different one. The post to which I linked contained not one guess, wild or otherwise.

Hey Skipper said...

[Peter:] Bret, I couldn't disagree more that the conversation has been stifled by political correctness.

Even those on the left admit PC has stifled conversation.