Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time for Straight Talk [Hackworth Barf!]
STFF.Org (Hackworth's Column) ^ | 09-15-2003 | David H. Hackworth

Posted on 09/18/2003 7:49:56 AM PDT by jjm2111

Recent polls reveal that 70 percent of Americans honestly believe that Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11 – a powerful testimony to Karl Rove and the neoconservative propaganda machine.

Connecting the dots where there aren’t any in order to pin the rap on Saddam is about as bent as ignoring Saudi Arabia’s very real involvement in 9/11. But that linkage just might inconvenience a bunch of crooked oil barons doing “bidnezz” with their porker pals in Washington.

The cold facts are that the destruction of the twin towers was carefully planned by the al-Qaeda gang led by Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fundamentalist Muslim who would probably sooner form some sort of alliance with the state of Israel than join forces with Saddam, whom he’s always considered as corrupt an infidel as the rest of us. Count on it – no fingerprints from former top Iraqi leadership will ever be found tying Baghdad to 9/11.

Several years before that sad, calamitous September day, my wife and I moved from New York City to Connecticut. As a contributing editor for Newsweek who’s spent a fair amount of my life studying terrorism and insurgency, I could see a tsunami-grade terrorist attack coming as clearly as the cityscapes of the towers we used to seek out during early morning constitutionals. That is, until my fears finally convinced my wife that we should move to safer ground.

As I pumped grunt sources, read thousands of reports and slowly put the terrible puzzle together, all the arrows pointed toward our being whacked – just as the fall of Saigon seemed inevitable to me after comparing that bloody reality to the Nixon/Kissinger spin on how well the phony “peace with honor” Vietnamization program was going.

And as in Vietnam in 1971, I began sounding the alarm about this imminent new terrorist threat during well-attended speeches across America, as a talking head on hundreds of TV and radio shows and in this column. I even did a major piece for Maxim’s August 2000 issue called “World War III: Terrorism,” which outlined five possible scenarios Osama’s boys might use in five U.S. cities – including the Big Apple.

The general underwhelming reaction was: “Well, Hackworth's finally lost it, and he should fade away.”

Instead, I held my position and kept putting out the word while Eilhys and I built our house of bricks at a careful distance from what's now known as Ground Zero.

On the two-year anniversary of 9/11, both the hardliners within the administration and the chicken hawks on the airwaves are stubbornly continuing to blame the strikes on Saddam, painting his tyrannical regime as a major player in the Islamic fundamentalist jihad to maintain support for our gigantic misadventure in Iraq. It was the same sort of scare tactics the manipulators used during the Vietnam War when they kept asserting that a defeat there would be the key domino falling and we’d soon be defending the beaches of the West Coast from invading commies.

Once again, most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick: Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it.

The losers are our soldiers still stuck in the sand, the scores of fallen warriors who were quietly buried from “sea to shining sea,” the hundreds of maimed who are maxing out our military hospitals, and the American taxpayers who’ll be laying out big bucks for a war against terrorism that has struck the wrong target.

And we’re talking another big win for Osama, who’s out there somewhere sucking the sweet Pakistani mountain air as he plots yet more genocide against an America whose homeland defenses – despite the billions of dollars blown – are perhaps only marginally better than pre-9/11.

The Bush administration has a responsibility to tell the American people the truth, not feed us more self-serving lies – now more than ever, since so many good folks are too busy looking for jobs to separate the cow mounds from the grass.

And the buck doesn’t stop there: We the people need to understand that if we aren’t vigilant and insistent on the truth, then we are one with the liars who got us into this mess in the first place.


TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 911; barf; bindladen; hackworth; iraq; osama; saddam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last
"Osama bin Laden, a Saudi fundamentalist Muslim who would probably sooner form some sort of alliance with the state of Israel than join forces with Saddam, whom he’s always considered as corrupt an infidel as the rest of us."

Hackworth is really gone off his rocker. This is the biggest crock of Bull. Hackworth constantly whines while offering no solutions. He bitches and moans about training and readiness in the military after they wiped up the floor with Saddam's forces. Not to mention all his correct (not!) predictions.

And to think I used to respect the man. I still do to some extent, but only for his service. The only important thing he does point out is our lack of pressure on the Saudis. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a major terror backer and we should see them for what they are.

1 posted on 09/18/2003 7:49:57 AM PDT by jjm2111
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Barney Gumble
Ping!
2 posted on 09/18/2003 7:50:33 AM PDT by jjm2111 (Wear earthy colors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
STFF.org? I think for Hackworthless, they ought to change the name to STFU.org.
3 posted on 09/18/2003 7:51:17 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
all the arrows pointed toward our being whacked

talk about whacked

4 posted on 09/18/2003 7:53:51 AM PDT by woofie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
"On the two-year anniversary of 9/11, both the hardliners within the administration and the chicken hawks on the airwaves are stubbornly continuing to blame the strikes on Saddam . . . "

This is a flat-out lie. Has Hackworth gone crazy?
5 posted on 09/18/2003 7:56:00 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Hackworth is really gone off his rocker.

Yup. I especially like that part about laying bricks "a careful distance from Ground Zero," as if he just knew those towers were coming down....

And to think I used to respect the man. I still do to some extent, but only for his service. The only important thing he does point out is our lack of pressure on the Saudis. IMO, Saudi Arabia is a major terror backer and we should see them for what they are.

You think an invasion of Iraq, and a huge American army on the ground next door, doesn't represent pressure on Saudi?

The Saudis have a tendency to play to whoever represents the biggest danger to their rule. Of late, they've been pretty active against A-Q, who probably do represent the biggest threat, primarily because we're over there. As long as the US has an army stirring up A-Q opposition, the Saudis will keep cracking down on them.

6 posted on 09/18/2003 7:57:20 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
"Saudi Arabia is a major terror backer and we should see them for what they are."

I think we do. The perception is that the Saudis are cowards who can eventually be brought in line using other forms of pressure besides military action. Saddam, on the other hand, would never give up without a fight. Saddam was a militarist, which the Saudis are not, and he had to be brought down using the military.
7 posted on 09/18/2003 7:59:02 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle (uo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Dime to donuts Hack endorses Clark.
8 posted on 09/18/2003 7:59:02 AM PDT by rintense (9-11-01: Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Hackworth is really gone off his rocker.

---------

Don't be so certain.

9 posted on 09/18/2003 7:59:02 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Once again, most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick

Now Hack is using the Bush is Hitler image. What color is the atmosphere on the planet where he lives?

10 posted on 09/18/2003 7:59:03 AM PDT by tx_eggman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Hackworth is a revisionist historian.
11 posted on 09/18/2003 8:02:55 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
This whole debate of Iraq and 9/11 is a non-starter. Am I the only one in America that knew from the start Saddam was not involved. No one, certainly from the White House, told me that Saddam did it.

I saw the Dems blaming the President for the American pulbic's stupidity. If your too dumb to read a paper or watch the news occasionally then don't vote.

12 posted on 09/18/2003 8:07:20 AM PDT by Lance Romance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
No one, certainly from the White House, told me that Saddam did it.

Interesting. Has anyone from the WH told you the exact cause of the Blackout? Will you only believe the reason, if you hear it "from the horses mouth"?

13 posted on 09/18/2003 8:11:00 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Hack has a Clooney complex.

He's just a MIchael Moore with several plastic surgeries and a black turtleneck.

He's a demented crybaby trying to rewrite past and current events to prove his unprovable point.

Fie upon the rascal, I say...I ain't gonna lend him my ears no mo'.
14 posted on 09/18/2003 8:15:30 AM PDT by jwfiv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
I am now convinced that some people DO subscribe to some newsletter where they get their talking points from. First, it was the claim that Bush claimed the WMD threat was imminent. How many stories have you read about that? I CLEARLY recall, and I thought it was one of his best lines, that we did not need to wait until the threat was imminent to do something about it. Now, its the "Bush claimed that Iraq was somehow behind 9-11". I have asked several people if they thought that Bush or the admin had said that, and even the liberals I have asked have said "no". However, it is probably only a matter of time before those same liberals will start believing it.. you know the old saw about repeating a lie often enough...
15 posted on 09/18/2003 8:16:10 AM PDT by Paradox (I dont believe in taglines, in fact, this tagline does not exist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
As far as I can tell, official Saudi "cooperation" with AQ consists of a "don't ask don't tell" policy in which they strive to keep fundimentalists out of their kingdom by turning a blind eye to Osama'a activities. Any finanacial help may be a payoff of blackmail to the same end. It is much more believeable to me that the Saudis prefer to subvert by supporting worldwide Islamic schools and centers. Too much damage to infrastructure puts a crimp on their investments.

Other than that, Hack is just that. And for those who always get on we non veterans about his service, may I remind everyone that up until he decided to turn over West Point to the redcoaks that Benedict Arnold was an absolute war hero.

16 posted on 09/18/2003 8:25:26 AM PDT by SoCal Pubbie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Bush's congressional resolution to Congress:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker:

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.


Sincerely,



GEORGE W. BUSH

17 posted on 09/18/2003 8:25:27 AM PDT by CMClay (A Face in the Crowd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
9-11 has definitely highlighted the flawed foreign policy of many pundits and politicians, Hackworth being one of them.

He is not the only one who believes a fanatical religious leader could not make a marriage of convenience for its own benefit. I heard a pundit on the news make the same point just yesterday, and have heard similar statements by others. It is a rather naive belief.
18 posted on 09/18/2003 8:30:33 AM PDT by TheDon (Why do liberals always side with the enemies of the United States?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CMClay
Does that prove something?
19 posted on 09/18/2003 8:32:49 AM PDT by Lance Romance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
>>... big bucks for a war against terrorism that has struck the wrong target...<<

People need to look at the STRATEGIC goals of our being in Iraq.

Take a look at a map of the region. Looks like we're doing a "divide and conquer" strategy against the major terrorist nations in the region.

Prior to this, the only presence we had was in Kuwait. Now we've got a MAJOR foothold in the region and it's only a matter of time until we turn left into Syria or right into Iran.

Bush is planning on cleaning house, once and for all. IMHO.

20 posted on 09/18/2003 8:33:51 AM PDT by FReepaholic (www.september-11-videos.com Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
"... most Americans – including a lot of red-faced lawmakers – have fallen for the old Hitler trick: Tell a lie often enough and the people will believe it. "

This is EXACTLY what the libs do. There is nothing that comes out of a lib's mouth that isn't a lie, except vomit; then again, it's the same thing coming from them.

21 posted on 09/18/2003 8:44:35 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw
Hackworth never moved above the rank of Colonel because he could NEVER see the strategic (i.e big picture) value of anything. I am sure he was a great commander of smaller military units in tactical situations. Colonels that can see the larger (stratgeic) views are promoted...Hackworth was not.
22 posted on 09/18/2003 8:46:50 AM PDT by SONbrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw
Bush is planning on cleaning house, once and for all.

He needs more time than this remaining term. If he is not reelected, all of what we have done will revert back to Carter / Clinton ineffectiveness and conditions in the middle-east hell hole and will stagnate and fester back to what they were two years ago. IMOHO

23 posted on 09/18/2003 8:54:35 AM PDT by Cobra64 (Babes should wear Bullet Bras - www.BulletBras.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content/public/articles/000/000/003/033jgqyi.asp
24 posted on 09/18/2003 9:45:50 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Am I the only one in America that knew from the start Saddam was not involved. No one, certainly from the White House, told me that Saddam did it.

--------------

You are not the only one. However, the White House ACTED as if Hussein were the problem because a boy president wanted to believe he was doing something. Saddam was a safe scapegoat and an easy victory that would be a repeat of daddy's easy victory. As far as accomplishing anything substantial, we haven't.

Mohammedism is the problem and has been for more than fourteen hundred years.

25 posted on 09/18/2003 9:47:16 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: RLK
You're right, all Saddam did was invade a neighboring country, gas his own people, ignore 17 UN resolutions and fail to declare his weapons.

As far as I'm concerned that without concrete evidence that his arsenal didn't exist, we had no other choice. It's not like he wasn't given a second and third chance. He thought Clinton was still President.

26 posted on 09/18/2003 10:51:34 AM PDT by Lance Romance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yans Wife
Thanks. Very good article. You should forward it to Derrick Z. Jackson of the Boston Globe.
27 posted on 09/18/2003 10:57:02 AM PDT by Lance Romance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SONbrad
"Hackworth never moved above the rank of Colonel because he could NEVER see the strategic (i.e big picture) value of anything. I am sure he was a great commander of smaller military units in tactical situations. Colonels that can see the larger (stratgeic) views are promoted...Hackworth was not."

Actually, I think it was because he jumped up on a table in Saigon and screamed how the war in Vietnam was a waste and all his superiors were idiots (or something along those lines). That sort of killed his career.

28 posted on 09/18/2003 10:59:04 AM PDT by jjm2111 (Wear earthy colors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Why, pray tell, don't you? Why would I wish to forward this to Mr. Jackson?
29 posted on 09/18/2003 11:01:49 AM PDT by Pan_Yans Wife ("Life isn't fair. It's fairer than death, is all.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
I'll bet Hackworth and Scott Ritter sleep spoons together.
30 posted on 09/18/2003 11:50:27 AM PDT by hang 'em (Por Cruz PutaGrande, nada)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
bttt
31 posted on 09/18/2003 1:35:36 PM PDT by Deadeye Division
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Hackworth is spotlight driven and his desperate diatribe means the spotlight has passed him by.
32 posted on 09/18/2003 1:48:41 PM PDT by TADSLOS (Right Wing Infidel since 1954)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
Actually, I think it was because he jumped up on a table in Saigon and screamed how the war in Vietnam was a waste and all his superiors were idiots (or something along those lines). That sort of killed his career.

-------------------------

It was because he refused to leave the front lines to go to the War College, which is a prerequisite for general grade.

33 posted on 09/18/2003 2:32:47 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
You're right, all Saddam did was invade a neighboring country, gas his own people, ignore 17 UN resolutions and fail to declare his weapons.

---------------------

But none of this had anything to do with 9/11, which was what this war was supposed to be about.

As far as I'm concerned that without concrete evidence that his arsenal didn't exist, we had no other choice.

--------------------------

It is impossible to prove something doesn't exist, even if it doesn't exist, in the face of concocted theory that it does. The theories asserting existenc mass destruction border upon paranoid circularity of reasoning. What I want is the missing hard evidence.

I hope you are never on a jury trying me for a murder committed while I was alone in bed asleep. You'd send me to the electric chair on the basis of your cooked up theories.

34 posted on 09/18/2003 2:40:31 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: jjm2111
Hackworth is absolutly ignorant of Middle Eastern events. Beginning in April 1991 Iraqi intelligence began to cooperate with Sudan's Hasan al-Turabi, one of the handful of original thinkers in the Islamist world. Within two years Turabi had forged an alliance between Al Qaida and elements of the Iraqi government that succeeded in ousting the Marxists in Yemen, and forcing the US to flee Somalia. Turabi even succeeded in getting intelligence agents from Iran, Iraq and international Islamist terrorist groups to meet on a regular basis. Until April 1996, when OBL prepared his plan to flee Sudan, Turabi, Iraqi and AQ members worked within the Khartoum-based Popular Arab and Islamic Conference to attack the USA and the West. Hackworth should know by now that in the Islamist world, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
36 posted on 09/18/2003 4:38:12 PM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Hackworth only made Light Colonel. Did not going to War College prevent him from making Full Bird?
37 posted on 09/18/2003 4:48:48 PM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111
The administration NEVER, to my knowledge, said Saddam had a hand in 911. The only reference made of any connection at all was the SALMAN PAK training site for OBL's terrorists. IMHO training the terrorists to hijack an aircraft in a real fuselage on IRAQ'S soil, is all I need to know to assumne that the COUNTRY allowing such training is complicit in 911. I don't need a tape of them conspiring together.
38 posted on 09/18/2003 4:59:27 PM PDT by PISANO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RLK
So, he also refused to follow orders. I see. He was insubordinate as well. The army did well to keep him where he was then.
39 posted on 09/18/2003 6:37:15 PM PDT by SONbrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: jjm2111; SONbrad; Cobra64
Regarding my post #20: "...People need to look at the STRATEGIC goals of our being in Iraq..."

Another strategic move Bush is making that people are misinterpreting is getting the UN into Iraq as peacekeepers to FREE UP OUR WARFIGHTERS for THE NEXT PHASE of CLEANING HOUSE.

People think he's caving and reversing himself but he's got a plan and he needs our troops freed up from "police duty" to make that left turn into Syria, or right turn into Iran.

Bush ain't stopping with Iraq.

IMHO

40 posted on 09/18/2003 6:48:05 PM PDT by FReepaholic (www.september-11-videos.com Never Forget.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Hackworth only made Light Colonel. Did not going to War College prevent him from making Full Bird?

----------------------

I thought he was buzzards up.

41 posted on 09/18/2003 7:32:39 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: gaspar
Hackworth should know by now that in the Islamist world, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

----------------------

So should Bush. In the Islamic world the first orders of business are to expell the infidels and expand Mohammedism by jihad, which includes all forms of warfare and has for more than fourteen hundred years. Mohammedism is killing a thousand people a day in somewher around twenty or more countries around the world.

If we want to survive, the strategic direction MUST, asolutely MUST, be systematic discrediting and refutation of Mohammedism and exposing it as an aggressively psychotic system of conquest. Without doing that, we are accomplishing absolutely nothing. We must begin with the basic truth. Calling it the religion of peace is sabotaging any attempts to solve the basic problem. Acting as if the problem were Saddam Hussein also sabotages serious long term progress and survival.

42 posted on 09/18/2003 7:44:18 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tscislaw
>>... big bucks for a war against terrorism that has struck the wrong target...<<

I think not. While we have not found any evidence that Hussein was directly involved in 911.Or was in possesion of WMDs.There is more than enough evidence available that he supported,harbored,financed,and trained terrorists.WMD or not his regime was a legitimate target.Saudi Arabia is as well but we have a working relationship with them and it may not be neccessary YET to bomb them to a cinder.I think Syria is next but W does not want to go after them yet and there is still much work to be done in Iraq and Afganistan.
43 posted on 09/18/2003 8:20:53 PM PDT by edchambers (NUKE AND PAVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
Hackworth only made Light Colonel. Did not going to War College prevent him from making Full Bird?

-------------------

Hackworth is listed everywhere as full bird. If you have contrary evidence, produce it.

44 posted on 09/18/2003 8:28:08 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: RLK
I've been listening to this guy yap for more than 20 years and he was always listed as Lt. Col. Maybe he got a promotion when he started attacking Bush. Or I'm probably wrong. I may be thinking of some other talking head.
45 posted on 09/18/2003 9:04:40 PM PDT by Terry Mross
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
I've been listening to this guy yap for more than 20 years and he was always listed as Lt. Col. Maybe he got a promotion when he started attacking Bush. Or I'm probably wrong. I may be thinking of some other talking head.

---------------------------------

Ollie North and Hackworth have having a disagreement on some issues. North is always listed as a Lt. Colonel while Hackworth is listed as a colonel. Hackworth was at one time the youngest colonel in the army.

46 posted on 09/18/2003 10:58:09 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: RLK
How do you stick your hand into a hornet's nest? Very cautiously. The fact that Bush has called Islam a religion of peace should not be troublesome. Outside of the Kuran, words are just words in the Muslim world. Certainly, the Muslim nations are aware -- even if the American public at large is not -- that the USA takes the "Clash of Civilizations" very seriously, despite the platitudes emanating from the White House.

Most Americans have recently come to the realization that Islam is not some sort of innocuous religious movement. I think that most understand how important a "neutralalized" Iraq and Afghanistan could be in the Middle East schema. From Baghdad it is possible to strike west to eliminate the Assad in Syria and the Ayatollahs in Iran. From Kabul it is possible to maintain an eye on the "stans" and attack the Islamists in northern Pakistan. Finally, it appears as though the disintigration of Indonesia has begun. Perhaps in the next ten years Java will see the loss of West Irian, the Moluccas, Suluwesi and even Sumatra.

History will judge that Osama Bin Ladin did Islam damned few favors. It awakened the United States, and it may have saved Europe from itself.

47 posted on 09/19/2003 4:21:03 AM PDT by gaspar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gaspar
The following from an article I wrote appearing elsewhere:

There are certain ideologies and certain cults or religions that have happened upon systems of mind control and attendant physical control such that there is no way out for people who become involved in them, and no reversal of that control for nations that come under their dominance. There also may not be any peaceful method of resisting territorial expansion of that control should the inclination of those systems be to expand them. In a sense, those systems resemble theoretical virus-induced immune-resistant cancers that spread by infusing virus or control upon healthy cells at the cancer margins, and which metastasize cells and colonies with the same capabilities out into the greater body. Islam is one of those systems. Islamics tend to remain Islamics. Muslim countries remain Muslim. There is, within these systems remarkable immune-resistance to rationality. They are as progressive and incurable a disease as AIDS.

The Reverend Jim Jones of Jonestown, and the prophet Mohammed of Islam, were separated by years, not by quality of thought or quality of followers. That one of these two lunatics is viewed as having founded one of the world's supposedly great religions is ridiculous accident of aggressive action in forcefully engulfing and controlling greater numbers of people more quickly.

The difference between Jim Jones and Mohammed is, according to Muslim history the Prophet Mohammed personally led 28 military campaigns, and during the same period his top followers, The Companions, embarked on another 51 military campaigns. The campaigns were successful and continued to be through several centuries. And that attitude and action, dear hearts, is what converts a psychotic cult into what adherents claim to be one of the world's great religions.

We are in a world war now occurring in 20 nations against a cancerous psychosis. That cancer must be found and cut out where it exists or spreads.

---------------------------------

That's what George Bush should have said on 9/12. Without saying that and acting upon it, nothing is being accomplished and we will lose that war over the long term. But Bush doesn't have the incisive mind or the guts to make that statement and follow through with it. Neither do many people here. Instead, this stupid aggressively psychotic pseudoreligion is labeled the religion of peace. That's why we are going to lose.

There is no "hornet's nest" as you put it. There is only weakness here and elsewhere.

48 posted on 09/19/2003 11:14:57 AM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Hey dumbass, we knew he had the WMD's because he used them on his own people. Wake up. And if I am on the jury, I'll find you guilty on 2 counts of stupidity.
49 posted on 09/19/2003 5:17:07 PM PDT by Lance Romance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Lance Romance
Hey dumbass, we knew he had the WMD's because he used them on his own people. Wake up. And if I am on the jury, I'll find you guilty on 2 counts of stupidity.

-----------------------

I classify nuclear bombs and certain biological weapons as WMD. Anything else approximates little more than can be done in a short time with napalm or machine guns. So tell me when Hussein employed nuclear bombs.

Yours truly, Dumbass

50 posted on 09/19/2003 6:27:54 PM PDT by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson