Wednesday, August 16, 2006

I love me my Kung Fu Monkey

His post on terrorism is a joy to read.

FDR: Oh, I'm sorry, was wiping out our entire Pacific fleet supposed to intimidate us? We have nothing to fear but fear itself, and right now we're coming to kick your ass with brand new destroyers riveted by waitresses. How's that going to feel?

CHURCHILL
: Yeah, you keep bombing us. We'll be in the pub, flipping you off. I'm slapping Rolls-Royce engines into untested flying coffins to knock you out of the skies, and then I'm sending angry Welshmen to burn your country from the Rhine to the Polish border.

US. NOW: BE AFRAID!! Oh God, the Brown Bad people could strike any moment! They could strike ... NOW!! AHHHH. Okay, how about .. NOW!! AAGAGAHAHAHHAG! Quick, do whatever we tell you, and believe whatever we tell you, or YOU WILL BE KILLED BY BROWN PEOPLE!! PUT DOWN THAT SIPPY CUP!!

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Wait, regime change in two countries wasn't enough? Are you suggesting that we ought to now get really tough on terrorism? I doubt it. I suspect you'd disapprove of the Bush Administration no matter what.

Suppose there had been no heightened security at airports after this recent foiled attempt. The Bush Administration would be the subject of criticism. Suppose they instituted ethnic profiling. Criticism and tears from the left. Suppose they had heightened security, but stayed five miles from stepping on any civil liberties. Criticism (witness your post) of their... alertness?

What do you have by way of a positive suggestion? What should the Administration have done?

Also, the post suggests that the Bush Administration is (or at least believes the American people are) racist. Any evidence for that, or does it just give the liberal choir a good giggle?

Revised characterization:
US. NOW: We'll kick the crap out of two Arab dictatorships (in record time) that were known to sponser terror. Then, we'll fight you on foreign soil, instead of here. We'll also institute security measures that will prevent any terrorist attacks on our shores for at least 5 years after 9/11. And we'll do all this despite the sniveling mockery and footdragging aimlessness of the leftwing of our country.

Anonymous said...

*sponsor

Ole Blue The Heretic said...

Yes...that is about right.

Neil Sinhababu said...

I'd characterize the Iraq War as Osama terrorizing America into making a counterproductive decision. Global terrorism is a lot better off with Iraq in its current state than it was with Saddam.

Steven said...

"Global terrorism is a lot better off with Iraq in its current state than it was with Saddam."


Evidence?

Neil Sinhababu said...

Well, that's what they're saying at the CIA.

L.B.S. said...

Anonymous: while I appreciate that some criticism of the Bush administration is unproductive, I think that the point the article's author was trying to make was not about the effectiveness of the administration's plan, but rather the attitude they're propogating in order to garner support for it.

Personally, I disapprove of the administration's attitude because I feel it encourages us to be afraid rather than proud, submissive rather than cooperative, and suspicious rather than canny.

And by the way, in the parts of Texas I'm from, some people really do believe that all brown people are terrorists.

Anonymous said...

Neil,
You said this:
"Global terrorism is a lot better off with Iraq in its current state than it was with Saddam."

In support, you linked to an article about an NIC (not CIA) report that said:
-------------------------------
1- Iraq is now the primary training/breeding ground and magnet for terrorists
2- Before the war, Hussein had only circumstantial ties with Bin Laden. After the war, there are many foreign terrorists based in Iraq.
3- Foreign terrorists acquired weapons from the fallen Hussein regime in Iraq
4- The Iraq war helps spread radical Islamic ideology
5- The changing alliances of terror groups within Iraq are more difficult to uncover and defeat than centralized terror groups like Al Qaeda
-----------------------------


However, before I agree with you, I'd have to know the following things:
1- Given that terrorists are being killed by US forces in Iraq, what is the overall RATE of global growth for Islamic terrorist groups? Sure, they may be attracted to Iraq, and they may be recruited/inspired by Iraq. But they're also dying in Iraq.
2- Which was worse for the world (not just for the US!): Hussein and the Taliban in power, or Hussein and the Taliban out of power, but these countries serving the role they do for terror groups? Before I'd agree that the US-led Iraq war was "counterproductive" as you said, I'd have to somehow figure that out, which seems difficult, to say the least.
3- The US-led Iraq war is radicalizing some Muslims; but is it moderating others? That is, is there a gulf opening in the Muslim community between non-radicals and radicals, or did this war cause the entire Muslim community to shift towards radicalism/anti-Americanism?
4- I agree that a shifting set of alliances of small terror groups is more difficult to uncover and defeat than governments like Hussein and the Taliban, or even established terror groups like Al Qaeda. BUT, small shifting terror groups may be less dangerous. Without organization, perhaps these smaller terror groups will be limited to relatively minor, local attacks, rather than attacks like 9/11 or e.g. the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps in this case it's better to have several small enemies than a couple large enemies. If not, I'd have to see evidence before I'd agree with you.


So I just don't think that article proves nearly as much as you'd like it to. The article doesn't give much support to your statement about global terrorism quoted above.

Also, it was asked above: What do you have by way of a positive suggestion?

Anonymous said...

Neil,
You said this:
"Global terrorism is a lot better off with Iraq in its current state than it was with Saddam."

In support, you linked to an article about an NIC (not CIA) report that said:
-------------------------------
1- Iraq is now the primary training/breeding ground and magnet for terrorists
2- Before the war, Hussein had only circumstantial ties with Bin Laden. After the war, there are many foreign terrorists based in Iraq.
3- Foreign terrorists acquired weapons from the fallen Hussein regime in Iraq
4- The Iraq war helps spread radical Islamic ideology
5- The changing alliances of terror groups within Iraq are more difficult to uncover and defeat than centralized terror groups like Al Qaeda
-----------------------------


However, before I agree with you, I'd have to know the following things:
1- Given that terrorists are being killed by US forces in Iraq, what is the overall RATE of global growth for Islamic terrorist groups? Sure, they may be attracted to Iraq, and they may be recruited/inspired by Iraq. But they're also dying in Iraq.
2- Which was worse for the world (not just for the US!): Hussein and the Taliban in power, or Hussein and the Taliban out of power, but these countries serving the role they do for terror groups? Before I'd agree that the US-led Iraq war was "counterproductive" as you said, I'd have to somehow figure that out, which seems difficult, to say the least.
3- The US-led Iraq war is radicalizing some Muslims; but is it moderating others? That is, is there a gulf opening in the Muslim community between non-radicals and radicals, or did this war cause the entire Muslim community to shift towards radicalism/anti-Americanism?
4- I agree that a shifting set of alliances of small terror groups is more difficult to uncover and defeat than governments like Hussein and the Taliban, or even established terror groups like Al Qaeda. BUT, small shifting terror groups may be less dangerous. Without organization, perhaps these smaller terror groups will be limited to relatively minor, local attacks, rather than attacks like 9/11 or e.g. the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps in this case it's better to have several small enemies than a couple large enemies. If not, I'd have to see evidence before I'd agree with you.


So I just don't think that article proves nearly as much as you'd like it to. The article doesn't give much support to your statement about global terrorism quoted above.

Also, it was asked above: What do you have by way of a positive suggestion?

Finally, the original post suggests that the Bush Administration is (or at least believes the American people are) racist. Any evidence for that?