Because I think they deserve to be repeated.

I've had these for a while, sitting in a file, forgotten. I can't recall exactly when they were taken, but I'm almost certain it was this past summer.

They were strangely absent from MSM coverage. Hmm.

Saddam Tortured

Now I think that all but the most milk-blooded pansies can agree that this was well deserved.

A report on 'Qana-gate'

I discovered via LGF's media scandal quicklinks a consolidated report on one of the Hezb'Allah conflict's media circuses, the 'Qana Massacre', detailing the shoddy work and outright deception involved. It's over at EU Referendum.

The Ambulance fiasco

At first, I was thrilled at the recent exposures of media lies (which we in the military have known about for literally decades), but this is starting to reach a penultimate, pathetic low.

You only have to LOOK at that vehicle to know that it wasn't hit by a missile. Are 'professional' journalists really so stupid, so lazy, and/or so dishonest as to pass that garbage off as truth?

The answer, as is being consistenly demonstrated and reinforced, is yes.

Eteraz , in response to a commenter

Assistant Village Idiot asked me earlier to give an opinion on this blog. So I looked it over.

I didn't spend a whole lot of time there, maybe 30 minutes scanning this post and that. I was impressed at this one (coincidentally the 1st post when I went there) because of the research and effort to find the facts, and this one for its honesty, some things somewhat lacking in much of the blogosphere. So it seems that Eteraz is capable of and willing to present rational thought backed up by hard information. However, his whole blog seems to be infused with a kind of victim complex and sort-of-subtle self righteousness, or sense of moral superiority. Like here. It starts out like a reasonable post, but then kind of rambles into a "I'm such an outsider, pity me" story, and ends up implying the need for the acceptance and embrace of exactly the kinds of fanatics he began the post denouncing as insatiable and aggressive for whom a welcoming embrace is only another step on the path to instituting theocracy. A weird twist on the self-pity thing here.

Worthwhile, esp. if you care about Pakistan and/or modern Islamic issues.

Odd; the word 'scais' in his title blurb doesn't seem to exist in French... I've gotten 0 hits on 4 translators.

To know the taste of freedom, one must taste oppression

Otherwise, how will you ever know the difference?

I think that's the problem with today's liberal retards (as opposed to non-retarded liberals, which seem to be in short supply nowadays... I think they've been re-labeled as moderates). They bitch and whine and decry the 'authoritarian' and 'fascist' Bushitler police state because they honestly don't know any better.

They have no fucking idea what it's like to live under a REAL police state; where your online habits, your mail, your phone calls, even your daily movements are scanned, screened, or controlled; where the police and dreaded 'security services' have almost unlimited power not to reference your international phone calls against a list of known terrorist figures, but to extort you, steal your Rolex, or rape your sister; where participation in an anti-government (or even just a controversial social issue) demonstration can land you in jail where you are beaten, tortured, and denied access to information, friends, family, or counsel; where owning a weapon marks you as a revolutionary to be executed; where foreigners are treated better than domestic citizens by the government because their countries actually care about them and may intervene if they are mistreated; I could go on.

I have a new definition for modern American liberalism. I like it.

On keeping military secrets

And by logical extension, civilian intelligence agency, R&D, and other state secrets.

From Shelby Foote's (who I think is long dead) The Civil War: A Narrative; Volume 1, Fort Sumter to Perryville:

"It was at this point, aggravated further by a shortage of arms and powder, that the general [Johnston] was summoned to ride down to Richmond, two days before the inauguration, for a conference on the military situation... Unequivocally, he stated that his army must fall to a position further south before the roads were dry.

[skip paragraph about President Davis's internal thoughts]

Back at his hotel, it was Johnston's turn to be alarmed. He found the lobby buzzing with rumors that the Manassas intrenchments [sic] were about to be abandoned. The news had moved swiftly before him, though he had come directly from the conference: with the result that his reluctance to discuss military secrets with civilians, no matter how highly placed, was confirmed. No tactical maneuver was more difficult than a withdrawal from the presence of a superior enemy. Everything depended on secrecy; for to be caught in motion, strung out along the roads, was to invite destruction. Yet here in the lobby of a Richmond hotel, where every pillar might hide a spy, was a flurry of gossip predicting the very movement he was about to undertake. Next day, riding back to Manassas on the cars, his reluctance was reconfirmed and his anger heightened when a friend approached and asked if it was true that the Bull Run line was about to be abandoned. There could be no chance that the man had overheard the news by accident, for he was deaf. Nor did it improve the general's humor when he arrived hat afternon to find his headquarters already abuzz with talk of the impending evacuation.

Two things he determined to do in reaction: 1) to get his army out of there as quickly as he could - if possible, before McClellan had time to act on the leaked information- and 2) to confide no more in civilians, which as far as he was concerned included the Chief Executive...

Here is an example from the 19th century of defense secrets being leaked by civilians with such speed (thanks, I'm sure, to telegraphs) that they beat the author of said secret back to his own quarters. Although history shows that the Confederate army in question survived this little crisis, to do so it had to rush from its positions short much equipment and preparation to escape the most notoriously slow US General in history. i.e. careless comments by (ir)responsible officials almost caused the destruction of an entire army.

In the modern era, leaked secrets can be literally broadcast across the entire world in a matter of hours. Depending on the leak, information could be transferred to a beligerrant within minutes.

Yet still, many (if not most) Americans don't think leaks to the press are a big deal and routine offenders go unpunished. One day, this leniency is really going to hurt us. Or rather, it's going to get some poor troops or agents somewhere killed and make the leaker feel guilty. (maybe)

Does this really surprise anyone?

Israeli troops have raided a Hezb'Allah 'stronghold' in Lebanon, an act which has already been labeled as a 'flagrant violation' of the cease-fire.

Israel says that the raid was aimed at Syrian and Iranian arms shipments to Hezb'Allah, which are also forbidden by the cease-fire. If true, the cease-fire had already been broken (after what, a whole 5 days?) by, of course, Hezb'Allah. In the strictest reading of the laws of war, Israel (assuming they can prove that Hezb'Allah was indeed shipping arms) is now free to re-enter Lebanon and resume the fighting. That's the whole point of having cease-fire conditions, right?

Unfortunately, that won't happen because the rules that apply to the civilized powers of the earth are not expected to apply to barbarians like Hezb'Allah. They can re-arm, absorb foreign 'volunteers,' mobilize, and prepare for a new round of fighting, but Israel can't do anything about it without being damned in the eyes of the world.

Doom and gloom, as per usual

In response to a post by Tigerhawk.

First things first, this is the NYT, and that article was written with a slant, though they seemed to hide it better than usual.

For instance, it begins; "the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

That's way too simple, and not technically correct anyway. Please follow me through our collective memories...

At one time, the 'insurgency' was Baathist. It has since been crushed. Everyone knows and acknowledges this.

Then it was Salafist, fueled by MB/Hamas-types from Palestine and the Gulf. They didn't do so hot either, their chieftain got blown up a couple of months ago and their network broken from the top down. That means that the ones who were left were local, small scale groups with limited resources. All they can do are plant IEDs. When was the last time they launched a coordinated attack en masse on a prison or Marine base? Before Zarqawi was toasted, right. Simplest explanation for a rise in the number of IEDs is two-fold:

1) all those jihadists who were in Zarqawi's since disassembled organization have taken their mortar rounds and started making bombs out of them, since they aren't using them in coordinated assaults anymore. Why let them go to waste, after all? (educated guess here, I don't have hard information)

2) Iran is supplying them, to some groups. That's a fact, and has been for some time. One of theirs killed a friend of mine.

A simple rise in IED's might indicate an increase in strength, but not here because it has been accompanied by a simultaneous FALL in other activites, like the prison breaks and guerrilla assaults I mentioned. The Salafists are building road bombs because it is effective and cheap. They're not raiding installations because they can no longer afford to. That indicates a WEAKENING of the Salafist insurgency; they can no longer carry out operations that at one time they did regularly.

Given these points how can one explain the (anonymous, naturally, which I inherently distrust) statement, "“The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels,” said a senior Defense Department official who agreed to discuss the issue only on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution. “The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”"

Assuming that that statement wasn't taken out of time or context, that doesn't make any sense does it? After all, Zarqawi and almost all of his cell chiefs (remember all those raids that immediately followed his death?) have been neutralized. And how would Zarqawi's insurgency, which killed more Shi'i than Americans anyway, ever have such public support in a majority Shi'i country? Seems contradictory, doesn't it?

That's because the statement is referring to the Shi'a militias, not 'the insurgency' that everyone thinks of. The Shi'a militias are, again, funded, armed, and possibly trained by the Iranians. Their political leaders regularly travel to Iran for 'consultations.' (i.e. instructions) And they have begun to seriously misbehave by killing political, religious, and occassionally business rivals and picking fights with the British. Though they were laying off the US; after Sadr's two previous beat-downs and the nasty bloody destruction of a few of their Baghdad 'death squad' by US/Iraqi Special Forces, [which was accompanied by a 'hands off' warning to Iran; you might remember that little gem in the 'oh wow, a US diplomat is going to talk to Iranians' episode a few months ago] they didn't seem eager to play with us anymore, it looks like they've gotten their fight back.

The power and assertiveness of Shi'a militias is an Iraqi political problem and they're trying to find a way to deal with them *without* a rebellion. There have been direct assaults against some of the more obnoxious of these groups, but they were not overt or politically challenging. I don't think a peaceful effort'll work myself; they're not the type to compromise.

But anyway, tying Iranian-backed Shi'a militias in with Baathist and Salaafist fighters (who spent a significant amount of time and effort killing Shi'a) is wrong at best, dishonest at worse.

What this uptick in violence represents is not an angry country trying to rid itself of an occupying power... that's silly. If that's what the goverment wanted, all they have to do is say "leave," rather than "please don't go away yet." What this is is the increased aggression of foreign-backed militias. They've gotten themselves into a zealous, earth-cleansing crusading frenzy, helped by the Hezb'Allah drama and Ahmadouchebag's apocalyptic rhetoric, and by god they're going to purify their land with fire and blood. (they really do talk like that you know)

There may be a civil war in Iraq if no suitable peaceful way is found to reduce these militias; but it won't be sectarian. It'll be US- backed/nationalist/loyalist and Iran-backed/religious/rebel. If we depart without leaving a secure, unchallanged government (in whatever form) then we've handed the country to Iran and invited intervention by the other Arab powers. They've been working against us almost from the beginning, first with money, then with bombs and bullets.

The Baathists are beaten, and Al Qaeda is beaten. Now it's a war by proxy with Iran. Inshal'lah, after them there won't be another enemy and we can go home. Or invade Iran. Whatever.

What would it take...

to mobilize the West?

So, if an existential war against Islamo-fascism is as inevitable as World War II became after the appeasement of the 1930s, what event would be necessary to motivate the United States to militarize its society and economy to fight that war? What event, if any, would militarize Western Europe?

A conventional opposition force. Anything less does not require mobilization to counter. *shrugs*

A-ha!

I told you it was illegal! Two former AIPAC lobbyists are being prosecuted for disclosing classified information to 'reporters and foreign diplomats.' They tried to argue that the Espionage Act was uncontitutionally vague, and a federal judge smacked them down.

We need more of this.

Also, and thanks to Tigerhawk for the initial tip, here is a convenient, simple list of modern leftist hypocracies of modern times.

The antiwar Left wants to wield American power. The jihadists want to destroy it … and us. All of us.

The antiwar Left has a conveniently flexible moral compass. Consequently, the Clinton era Echelon program was fine, but Bush’s NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program is an impeachable offense.

Mishandling classified information by a Clinton CIA director was worthy of a pardon, and destroying classified information (and lying to investigators about it) by a former Clinton national-security adviser was worthy of a pass, but leaking the unremarkable fact that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA is the crime of the century.

Bombing Kosovo without U.N. approval was a moral imperative; invading Iraq after over a dozen U.N. resolutions is a violation of international law.

Renditions conducted between 1994 and 2000 were just good national-security sense; renditions conducted between 2001 and 2006 are war crimes.

Indicting Osama bin Laden in 1998 and then doing nothing to capture him while he bombed two American embassies and an American naval destroyer, killing hundreds, was aggressive yet intelligently modulated counterterrorism; allowing Osama bin Laden to evade capture in Tora Bora while killing and capturing hundreds of his operatives and decimating his hierarchy is irresponsibly incompetent.

Wet fingers firmly in the wind, the Left looks you in the eye and tells you that what is depends on what the definition of “is” is, then votes for it before voting against it. The object of the game is power, and they are willing to gamble, even with our lives, to get it or keep it.

There are some other things that could be in there, like canceling a CIA operation designed to capture OBL at the last minute because someone might get killed, but overall a decent rundown. And some Democrats honestly wonder why no one but they themselves will trust them with defense and security issues.

What have we gained from Iraq?

Over on Tigerhawk's comments, after I put much effort into research and analysis, I unleashed my formidable rhetorical arsenal (actually I just punched up a quick 10 minute point by point reply) against some two of my favorite local leftists who had some misguided ideas about the world. Screwie Hoolie surrendered with a stock remark about spit, but Lanky Bastard, in a fairly civil way, admitted to overstating some stuff (which he did, and even bothered to double check) but also included this:

Obviously I think this war is foolish and has damaged US interests, and obviously you don't. And even if I've started off snarky, this part is dead serious: if you want to convince me otherwise, what you should do is explain to me the cost/benefit. What have we gained or won (or are likely to gain or win) that is worth what we've paid and continue to pay? That's the key to changing my mind. Give me the bottom line, answer-to-the-stockholders response. Why is this worth it? And while we're being frank, let me ask: what set of circumstances would cause you to believe that this war isn't in America's best interest? I'm curious. ff to mail me if you'd rather not post in comments.

The fact that a left-winger has actually expressed interest in hearing what will essentially be a rational analysis for invading Iraq (even if I suspect that he asked because he doesn't think I'll be able to do it well... perhaps hence the caveat at the end for email so I can avoid any personal embarrasment) just made me so giddy that I figured that I had to give it a shot. I'm actually going to put a little effort into this, so it won't be posted now. When I finish I'll make a new post here and send him the word to peruse (or ignore) at leisure.

You're all Nazis!

A nice, relatively even-handed rant by the Sandmonkey. Too bad the people to whom it applies will never listen.

Religion of Peace? Not really...

Some enterprising Canadian has explored that question that most of us ask facetiously; "is Islam really the Religion of Peace? Do these terrorist assholes pervert its teachings or are they really only following them to the letter?"

The conclusions, following serious and impressive study, might surprise you. Even I learned a couple of things. It is long, though.

Mandatory Lebanon Opinion

I actually got a comment talking about how someone quoted me on a respectable blog (The Belmont Club) so I have some motivation to write something today. I reckon I'll say something about the Israeli/Hezb Allah thing since I think that it's mandated by law that I have to. It's in the Geneva Conventions. (saw the Ballad of Ricky Bobby the other night... entertaining and not as silly as I thought it would be)

I really don't think the current situation (as far as Israelis and Americans are concerned) is all that different from the one in 1982. Terrorist organization launches attack, after attack, after attack across the border and finally, in a moment of utmost stupidity, kidnaps Israeli troops what, two weeks after Israel invaded Gaza because Hamas kidnapped some Israeli troops? So the IDF moves to stomp Hezb Allah into the dirt. Completely predictable, and completely justifiable. The whinings and bitchings of pacifists, Islamists, and leftists aside, Hezb Allah has had this coming. It's unfortunate that other Lebanese will suffer too, but that's what happens when you let a terrorist faction establish a mini-state within your borders and then launch raids into hostile powers; they're eventually going to retaliate.

An aside on all the people condemning Israel for causing civilian deaths... Never mind. It isn't worth my time. Instead, go here to see how Hezb Allah runs things in Lebanon, here for proof that they fight from civilian areas, and here to see how they are purposefully using other ethinic and religious groups as human shields against their will, with some more details here, including their willingness to kill fellow Lebanese who don't allow them to use their homes and churches. Here are accounts of Hezb Allah fighters using UN posts as shields also. It might also benefit some of you people to go here and actually READ documents that many people like to talk about, but almost no one has so much as looked at.