From the War Nerd:
"We could do it, way more easily than the Romans. We'd burn only as many calories as it takes to press a button. If we had the will, we could wipe out the whole population of the Sunni Triangle in a few days. If we used neutron bombs, we could do it without even messing up the area too badly. It would sure stop the insurgency.
"Trouble is, that kind of genocide just isn't popular these days, and nobody, not even Professor Hanson, is ready to argue for it. It's hard to argue you want to bring democracy to the Sunnis by making them extinct. And what Hanson and morons like him won't admit is that short of genocide, there is no military solution to urban guerrilla warfare."
Which is a concern that I have been voicing all along.
That is all.
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Saturday, July 30, 2005
The Word "Terrorist"
A lot of people have expressed dismay at the reluctance in parts of the media to us the word "terrorist."
However, it has struck me that in some contexts, it makes perfect sense to avoid using that word and to use words such as "extremist" or "militant" instead.
The thing is, terrorism is, first and foremost, a tactic. Identifying someone as a terrorist identifies the general type of tactics they are willing to use, and definitely indicates something about their morality or lack thereof, but it doesn't indicate much about what they are fighting for or what group they belong to. Nor does it offer specific information on the tactics that would be useful in noticing and catching such persons, the way that "bomber," "sniper," or "suicide bomber" does.
Also, I feel that we need to look at what we are fighting in broader terms than just "terrorism." If we are fighting Islamic extremism, we are fighting against all kinds of Islamic extremism that might hurt us, not just terrorism. Or put another way, terrorism is the tactic of our enemy, not his goal. We seek not just to reduce Islamic terrorism, but to reduce any threat they may pose.
In some ways, many on the neoconservative side are so concerned with using terms to remind us of the evil of the enemy that they make it more difficult to accurately identify the enemy or to see what it is we should be fighting.
This is also a problem with the term "homicide bomber." In an attempt to remind us that the enemy is murdering innocents, the term used to identify the tactic loses important information or else misreporesents it. That is, either "homicide bomber" refers exclusively to people who blow themselves up in order to kill others, in which case blowing other people up without blowing one's self up is not "homicide bombing," in which case the term "homicide" is essentially used to mean "suicide," or else we refer to all bombings that kill people as "homicide bombings," in which case the term we use doesn't include the important tactical information as to whether the bomb was set off remotely or as to whether we are dealing with people who are willing to die to kill us. Some people argue that we shouldn't care whether or not the terrorist blows themselves up, and should either mention it far down in articles describing the attack or not at all, because our concern should be for the victims and not the terrorist. But that is ridiculous. We want to know how the people were killed. We want to know the tactics that the enemy uses.
Propaganda for the purpose of demonizing the enemy is a fine thing in war, and can be used effecctively. But it should not be used at the expense of clarity.
That is all.
However, it has struck me that in some contexts, it makes perfect sense to avoid using that word and to use words such as "extremist" or "militant" instead.
The thing is, terrorism is, first and foremost, a tactic. Identifying someone as a terrorist identifies the general type of tactics they are willing to use, and definitely indicates something about their morality or lack thereof, but it doesn't indicate much about what they are fighting for or what group they belong to. Nor does it offer specific information on the tactics that would be useful in noticing and catching such persons, the way that "bomber," "sniper," or "suicide bomber" does.
Also, I feel that we need to look at what we are fighting in broader terms than just "terrorism." If we are fighting Islamic extremism, we are fighting against all kinds of Islamic extremism that might hurt us, not just terrorism. Or put another way, terrorism is the tactic of our enemy, not his goal. We seek not just to reduce Islamic terrorism, but to reduce any threat they may pose.
In some ways, many on the neoconservative side are so concerned with using terms to remind us of the evil of the enemy that they make it more difficult to accurately identify the enemy or to see what it is we should be fighting.
This is also a problem with the term "homicide bomber." In an attempt to remind us that the enemy is murdering innocents, the term used to identify the tactic loses important information or else misreporesents it. That is, either "homicide bomber" refers exclusively to people who blow themselves up in order to kill others, in which case blowing other people up without blowing one's self up is not "homicide bombing," in which case the term "homicide" is essentially used to mean "suicide," or else we refer to all bombings that kill people as "homicide bombings," in which case the term we use doesn't include the important tactical information as to whether the bomb was set off remotely or as to whether we are dealing with people who are willing to die to kill us. Some people argue that we shouldn't care whether or not the terrorist blows themselves up, and should either mention it far down in articles describing the attack or not at all, because our concern should be for the victims and not the terrorist. But that is ridiculous. We want to know how the people were killed. We want to know the tactics that the enemy uses.
Propaganda for the purpose of demonizing the enemy is a fine thing in war, and can be used effecctively. But it should not be used at the expense of clarity.
That is all.
Thoughts on the War on Terror
Jacob G. Hornberger observes the problems that our current policies have.
I think the essential problem with the current crop of neoconservatives justifying anything our government does is that they are employing terms that are, strictly speakng, not applicable.
Supposedly, we are at war, and all of the people at Guantanamo are unlawful enemy combatants, so we can essentially hold them as long as we want without pressing charges. Even if they are POWs, we are allowed to hold them until the end of hostilities, so we have the right to hold them indefinitely, as this war has no clear end.
The problem with this type of talk is, of course, that it ignores the possibility that if this war has no clear ending, perhaps it should not be though of as a war, per se. Listen, if these people are suspected of being unlawful enemy combatants, they should have a trial to determine this, and then if convicted, we can imprison them, execute them, or whatever we need to do with them. Yes, I agree that we don't need to worry about protecting the rights of unlawful combatants, but we do need to worry about protecting the rights of people wrongly accused of being unlawful enemy combatants. Without trials, we do not have a good way of distinguishing the two.
And what if they are legal prisoners of war? Well, the first thing to do is to determine what war. A general war against terror? Please. The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? And then we need to determine how we know whether or not we have won, so we can dfine an "end to hostilities" when the POWs will be let out.
We have already overthrown the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, and are not at war with any other Middle Eastern country, so if we define victory as in World War II, we have already won and POWs need to have releases scheduled. People who are unlawful combatants need to be tried or released.
We need to use the system as it was intended, not play word games to allow us to do whatever we want and whatever is convenient.
That is all.
I think the essential problem with the current crop of neoconservatives justifying anything our government does is that they are employing terms that are, strictly speakng, not applicable.
Supposedly, we are at war, and all of the people at Guantanamo are unlawful enemy combatants, so we can essentially hold them as long as we want without pressing charges. Even if they are POWs, we are allowed to hold them until the end of hostilities, so we have the right to hold them indefinitely, as this war has no clear end.
The problem with this type of talk is, of course, that it ignores the possibility that if this war has no clear ending, perhaps it should not be though of as a war, per se. Listen, if these people are suspected of being unlawful enemy combatants, they should have a trial to determine this, and then if convicted, we can imprison them, execute them, or whatever we need to do with them. Yes, I agree that we don't need to worry about protecting the rights of unlawful combatants, but we do need to worry about protecting the rights of people wrongly accused of being unlawful enemy combatants. Without trials, we do not have a good way of distinguishing the two.
And what if they are legal prisoners of war? Well, the first thing to do is to determine what war. A general war against terror? Please. The war in Afghanistan? The war in Iraq? And then we need to determine how we know whether or not we have won, so we can dfine an "end to hostilities" when the POWs will be let out.
We have already overthrown the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan, and are not at war with any other Middle Eastern country, so if we define victory as in World War II, we have already won and POWs need to have releases scheduled. People who are unlawful combatants need to be tried or released.
We need to use the system as it was intended, not play word games to allow us to do whatever we want and whatever is convenient.
That is all.
Friday, July 29, 2005
The Danger of Euphemisms
Apparently desiring to avoid offending Muslims, Emanuele Ottoleigh attempts to define "terror" as an ideology:
"It is not realistic, because terrorism exploits the openness of free societies to pursue its deadly designs."
"Tolerant immigration laws, due process, and a host of mechanisms expressing confidence in the freedom we cherish and the desire of all human beings to enjoy its gift have made it easier for terrorists, who loath freedom and exalt death, to strike."
"Ultimately, terror’s goal is not just to influence a change in policy among Western societies, as many in Europe claim. Terror’s ultimate target is the Western way of life itself, which is built on freedom."
This is ludicrous euphemizing. Terrorists do not necessarily hate freedom, nor do they hate the western way of life. Also, terror does not have a goal. Terrorism, as many have said before, is a tactic; in theory, a terrorist could want anything; a person who loves and desires freedom could commit terrorist acts to fight a society that oppresses him, or he could be trying to get a dictator installed.
What Ottoleigh really means by terrorist is specifically "Muslim extremist" (I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether he thinks that there is such a thing as a non-extreme Muslim). However, because it is un-PC to point out the common thread uniting our current enemy (that is, that they are all professed Muslims), he does not once mention the words "Muslim" or "Islam."
Don't get me wrong, I am not using "Muslim extremist" as a euphemism for "terrorist," rather, I am simply poinitng out that terrorism is not the ideology we are dealing with, it is the tactic they are using.
There are really two issues regarding the morality of terrorism; first, is it justified to deliberately attack civilians in order to terrorize a populace to achieve your goals; second, are the goals one is trying to advance good ones? If one is attacking the terrorists simply for their methods, then it is appropriate to refer to "terrorists" generally. But if one is trying to attack the goals they are trying to achieve, then using the word "terrorist" as the defining feature of the enemy, or defining the ideology we are fighting as "terror," is not very useful.
That is all.
"It is not realistic, because terrorism exploits the openness of free societies to pursue its deadly designs."
"Tolerant immigration laws, due process, and a host of mechanisms expressing confidence in the freedom we cherish and the desire of all human beings to enjoy its gift have made it easier for terrorists, who loath freedom and exalt death, to strike."
"Ultimately, terror’s goal is not just to influence a change in policy among Western societies, as many in Europe claim. Terror’s ultimate target is the Western way of life itself, which is built on freedom."
This is ludicrous euphemizing. Terrorists do not necessarily hate freedom, nor do they hate the western way of life. Also, terror does not have a goal. Terrorism, as many have said before, is a tactic; in theory, a terrorist could want anything; a person who loves and desires freedom could commit terrorist acts to fight a society that oppresses him, or he could be trying to get a dictator installed.
What Ottoleigh really means by terrorist is specifically "Muslim extremist" (I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether he thinks that there is such a thing as a non-extreme Muslim). However, because it is un-PC to point out the common thread uniting our current enemy (that is, that they are all professed Muslims), he does not once mention the words "Muslim" or "Islam."
Don't get me wrong, I am not using "Muslim extremist" as a euphemism for "terrorist," rather, I am simply poinitng out that terrorism is not the ideology we are dealing with, it is the tactic they are using.
There are really two issues regarding the morality of terrorism; first, is it justified to deliberately attack civilians in order to terrorize a populace to achieve your goals; second, are the goals one is trying to advance good ones? If one is attacking the terrorists simply for their methods, then it is appropriate to refer to "terrorists" generally. But if one is trying to attack the goals they are trying to achieve, then using the word "terrorist" as the defining feature of the enemy, or defining the ideology we are fighting as "terror," is not very useful.
That is all.
Thursday, July 28, 2005
Our Unelected Rulers
Hugh McInnish makes the conservative case that we should know about Supreme Court nominee's stands on issues.
I totally agree. If the court is to deal with political issues, court members should have to deal with political questions.
That is all.
I totally agree. If the court is to deal with political issues, court members should have to deal with political questions.
That is all.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
July Iraq Fatality Figures
So far, the coalition fatalities for July: 37 hostile, 7 non-hostile.
Iraqi fatalities: Civilian: 481, police/miilitary: 232
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Icasualties.
That is all.
Iraqi fatalities: Civilian: 481, police/miilitary: 232
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to Icasualties.
That is all.
Tuesday, July 26, 2005
Steve Sailer Pledge Drive
Steve Sailer is having a pledge drive.
Maybe I'll do something like that soon. Or put ads up. Not now, though.
That is all.
Maybe I'll do something like that soon. Or put ads up. Not now, though.
That is all.
Monday, July 25, 2005
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Saturday, July 23, 2005
Value vs. Price: Marginal vs. Average Price
Ruminations by Michael S. Rozeff on the issues of stock prices aand values.
Essentially, this is somewhat similar to the issue of marginal vs. average revenue/cost/profit, although there are some differences.
I think this may indicate one reason for bubbles; more on that as I have time to think about it.
That is all.
Essentially, this is somewhat similar to the issue of marginal vs. average revenue/cost/profit, although there are some differences.
I think this may indicate one reason for bubbles; more on that as I have time to think about it.
That is all.
Thoughts on the SCOTUS
I will try to get some thoughts together about Mr. Roberts and the Supreme Court.
But I'm tired now.
That is all.
But I'm tired now.
That is all.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Funny Thing
I watched some of Rescue Me the other night. The episode with the "sensitivity training" class.
I loved the scenes where Denis Leary's character raised his hand when asked "is anyone here prejuficed?"
I also loved the conversation, particularly where the Puerto Rican firefighter started the discussion of why they only got one racial slur when all the other groups got four or five. Particularly amusing was the look on the face of the guy teaching the class.
Of course, the language was a little rougher than I normally listen to.
But it was a funny episode.
Just thought I would post something that wasn't grousing about the government or the Bush administration for a change. Political blogs, particularly ones by people who are somewhat outside the political mainstream, can sometimes get a little too serious and a little too grousy. Thought it would be nice to post somethign light-hearted for a change.
That is all.
I loved the scenes where Denis Leary's character raised his hand when asked "is anyone here prejuficed?"
I also loved the conversation, particularly where the Puerto Rican firefighter started the discussion of why they only got one racial slur when all the other groups got four or five. Particularly amusing was the look on the face of the guy teaching the class.
Of course, the language was a little rougher than I normally listen to.
But it was a funny episode.
Just thought I would post something that wasn't grousing about the government or the Bush administration for a change. Political blogs, particularly ones by people who are somewhat outside the political mainstream, can sometimes get a little too serious and a little too grousy. Thought it would be nice to post somethign light-hearted for a change.
That is all.
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
More on our Mexico Policy
So Mexico won't deport mass murderers unless we agree not to give them life imprisonment or the death penalty?
My solution is more extreme than Bryanna Bevins' (end immigration from Mexico until they give us better terms):
Send troops into Mexico to get these outlaws, and kill any Mexican who gets in our way. If we can locate the criminal, then start carpet-bombing whatever city he is in.
Mexico is not Iraq. It is invading us.
I don't want to conquer them, it would be too much work.
But if they don't start being good neighbors, the US should bomb them to Hell.
That is all.
My solution is more extreme than Bryanna Bevins' (end immigration from Mexico until they give us better terms):
Send troops into Mexico to get these outlaws, and kill any Mexican who gets in our way. If we can locate the criminal, then start carpet-bombing whatever city he is in.
Mexico is not Iraq. It is invading us.
I don't want to conquer them, it would be too much work.
But if they don't start being good neighbors, the US should bomb them to Hell.
That is all.
Slow Blogging
I may be blogging rather sparsely for a few days. My nephews are visiting, and I have a lot on my plate.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
Look Who has a Fanlisting!
My favorite Marvel character!
UPDATE: I have added the fanlisting to my links on the side of the blog.
That is all.
UPDATE: I have added the fanlisting to my links on the side of the blog.
That is all.
The G-Gnome Fact-Checks the War Nerd
With some of the statements made by Gary Brecher in a recent column that I mentioned here.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to GayLikeaFox.
That is all.
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to GayLikeaFox.
That is all.
Thoughts on Poddy
Steve Sailer here brings up an important point.
Part of the reason that neoconservatives, particularly those who are Jewish and/or particularly suportive of Israel, are disliked is because so many of them seem to have no problem with the US having ethnically suicidal policies and Israel not having them.
John Podhoretz and Tamar Jacoby both seem to think that because their forbears immigrated to the US in the early 20th century, that it is necessary for us to allow Mexicans and others to immigrate in the same ways. There is also a sense in some of the writing that the concern is to reduce the relative population of Gentile whites in the country in order to prevent there from being a dominant culture, other than that of tolerance and diversity, because of a fear that, not being the dominant community, any dominant community will persecute them.
As Jewish people are the dominant community in Israel, there is no such concern, so they have no problem with Israel having more restrictive immigration laws. All of which, of course, breeds resentment, of course, among American whites who feel that their culture is being degraded in a dishonest ploy.
Which is not to say that this is a strategy or a tendency among all Jews. Don Feder and Paul Gottfried are both very concerned with maintaining the cultures of Europe and America as well as Israel; and there are plenty of Jews who have decided that Israel needs to lose its identity and become multi-culti as well.
But to the extent that neoconservatism is associated with Jewish people, the dislike of it is more due to a sense of double standards and to a lack of conccern for American culture and interests than it is to any resentment of Jews per se.
That is all.
Part of the reason that neoconservatives, particularly those who are Jewish and/or particularly suportive of Israel, are disliked is because so many of them seem to have no problem with the US having ethnically suicidal policies and Israel not having them.
John Podhoretz and Tamar Jacoby both seem to think that because their forbears immigrated to the US in the early 20th century, that it is necessary for us to allow Mexicans and others to immigrate in the same ways. There is also a sense in some of the writing that the concern is to reduce the relative population of Gentile whites in the country in order to prevent there from being a dominant culture, other than that of tolerance and diversity, because of a fear that, not being the dominant community, any dominant community will persecute them.
As Jewish people are the dominant community in Israel, there is no such concern, so they have no problem with Israel having more restrictive immigration laws. All of which, of course, breeds resentment, of course, among American whites who feel that their culture is being degraded in a dishonest ploy.
Which is not to say that this is a strategy or a tendency among all Jews. Don Feder and Paul Gottfried are both very concerned with maintaining the cultures of Europe and America as well as Israel; and there are plenty of Jews who have decided that Israel needs to lose its identity and become multi-culti as well.
But to the extent that neoconservatism is associated with Jewish people, the dislike of it is more due to a sense of double standards and to a lack of conccern for American culture and interests than it is to any resentment of Jews per se.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)