Judgement

From this story:

"I'm angry. I'm hurt," Bellamy said. "You shouldn't judge someone based on who they are."

Say what?

Tortuous

Today for your delectation, I offer the coherent tirade Andrew Sullivan (an ex-conservative who has moved leftward...and leftfield) who writes an open letter to "Dear President Bush" . It's a four page rant in which you could easily ignore pages 2-3, but encapsulates the (still!!?!) current rage against Dubya as exhibited by most of the mainstream media and about 53% of Americans.

The timing of this column is to provide support for the Obama administration's imminent prosecution of CIA officials and interrogators who were doing their job. More on that later.

"In long wars of ideas, moral integrity is essential to winning, and framing the moral contrast between the West and its enemies as starkly as possible is indispensable to victory, as it was in the Second World War and the Cold War."

There is a well established school of thought that suggests that the moral high-ground is THE only place from which a war can be won, justly, thus the comparison to the greatest ideological battles fought in the 20th century against the default evil of Nazism and the still not dead bad-guy of Communism. Here, the moral high ground was aparently not hard to see (although not so obvious to Charles Lindberg, King Edward VIII of England, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg , Obama's friend William Ayers, etc, etc..) The problem I have with the position: "If we don't have the moral high ground, what do we have?" is what use is the moral high ground if you're dead?

Perhaps the reason this position is logically untenable, is that if you look at diaspora of Western society as a whole including old and new immigrant groups, we are constantly told that no one culture or value set is superior to any other (a notion I explicitly deny). So if there is no one set of morals, or absolute values that is the "correct" way to live, then how can you claim any moral high ground if there is no 'ground'?

"I have come to accept that it would be too damaging and polarizing to the American polity to launch legal prosecutions against you, and deeply unfair to solely prosecute those acting on your orders or in your name. President Obama’s decision thus far to avoid such prosecutions is a pragmatic and bipartisan one in a time of war, as is your principled refusal to criticize him publicly in his first months"

Except that Obama IS moving forward on the prosecutions and despite the so called repeated view that "[CIA interrogators] should not be prosecuted if they acted within legal guidelines laid out at the time" it's pretty clear that the Attorney General could not proceed with the prosecution if Obama didn't want him to. And what about the interrogators that did use illegal methods of torture, yet obtained information that prevented a terrorist attack? Will they roll back the security measures and actions taken? If not, then the current administration are morally complicit and have blood on their hands.

"You have also claimed that defending the security of the United States was the paramount requirement of your oath of office. It wasn’t. The oath you took makes a critical distinction: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country. To abandon the Constitution to save the country from jihadist terrorists was not your job."

"It is the Constitution you were sworn to defend, not the country." I may be being naive but what is the point of a constitution if there is no country? The charge that the US Government abandoned the Constitution wholeheartedly at multiple levels is a little hard for me to swallow. And somehow, saving the country from jihadists is exactly what I would expect from the elected leader of a country.

"Western freedom begins with the right to protect one’s own body from government power. That’s what habeas corpus means. What was done to Jose Padilla makes a mockery of that freedom and, in fact, establishes a precedent that, if left in place, could destroy it."

Habeas Corpus is protection for an individual citizen against unlawful imprisonment. The Habeas Corpus Act was adopted by the English Parliament in 1679, and was incorporated into the the US Constitution (U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 2.) The full text reads:

"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

And even though I Am Not A Constitutional Lawyer (IANACL), I am pretty damn sure that this particular clause refers to the group identified in the first six words of the Constitution

"We the People of the United States."

Which would not include most of the current inmates in Guantanamo.

What follows in page 2 and 3 are descriptions of torture, and of course the mandatory inclusion of Abu Ghraib. What happened at Abu Ghraib was despicable, amoral and criminal. And the conflation of Abu and Gitmo is a convenient mash-up of all things American Evil, and photogenically illustrates the depravity of a superpower gone mad, crushing and torturing poor innocent Iraqi farmers in a repurposed Saddamite prison. The ever so slight problem with this is that Abu Ghraib has NOTHING to do with Gitmo, the torture memos, Rumsfield-Cheny-Bushhitler, the Christian Right and the Crusades. It was an aberration, a disgraceful example of what happens when the chain of command breaks down, and redneck hick reservists are left to rule the roost with no oversight.

Abu Ghraib has as much to do with American ideals and policy as Nazism had to do with the Enlightenment, ie nothing. Linking the lawlessness and the abuse that occurred in one prison in Iraq to the policy in practice of the US Government is disingenuous, but effective since the photos from one can be used as a surrogate for the other. There is a very important debate about State sanctioned torture in democracies, however it is important to distinguish between the actions of those that were carrying out orders, and those that were acting without. It does not diminish the seriousness of the abuse, but to merge these two issues to score an emotional point is a rhetorical flourish that neatly allows you to avoid answering the question: what if it works? What if information gained by the physical abuse of one individual allows you to save the lives of many? Would that change the moral calculation?

To bring the whole thing back to current events, this is currently what is happening on the political scene in the US, with the summary provided by Jennifer Rubin:

"The CIA discovers misconduct, which the CIA inspector general investigates. The information seems to suggest misconduct. They go to DOJ. DOJ tells them to stop and that [Justice] will now look at the issue, gather evidence, and investigate it themselves. They must decide if there is a reasonable belief that they could obtain a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. They looked at it. They made a decision and declined [to prosecute]. They go back to the CIA, which can, and in several instances did, review the matters for internal discipline. "

Obama's Attorney General is bringing another department in to investigate the DOJ's handling , and move forward with prosecutions of CIA officials if they possibly can. It is a flagrant waste of time and resources, motivated by partisan intent to punish anyone they can from the hated Bush regime, and in the process make the US and World less secure. Why the the World? Well, as far as I understand, there is cooperation amongst allied intelligence agencies and I know for a fact that Australia relies on it's relationship with the US to supplement their own intelligence needs; how willing do you think international agencies are going to be to help the US if there is the prospect of being prosecuted? Or in other words, why would ASIO give the CIA information gained by dubious means if it meant that sometime down the road, they could be sent to jail for doing their job?

This is not meant as a defense of Guantanamo or torture, but an attempt to show that the Obama administration is pursuing partisan objectives couched in terms of morality that will endanger the World, and there is no end to fellow travelers that are supporting this position.

And besides, exactly how much do you think Obama is doing different from Bush?

"It's now apparent that the biggest sham in American politics is Barack Obama's pledge to close Guantanamo and, more generally, to dismantle the Bush/Cheney approach to detaining accused Terrorists."

Charlie Sheen is a bit crazy

The post September 11 political landscape in the US is populated by a small, but loud minority who “question the official version” of events that fateful day in 2001. They use this “just askin’” excuse to advance the most ridiculous conspiracy theory evar…namely that that George W. Bush and his administration was responsible for or enabled September 11. In the same breath, the nutjobs that have this opinion usually carry on to say what a retard Dubya is.

Well you cannae’ have it both ways; either he ‘s stupid and unable to organize a conspiracy to tie his own shoelaces, or his is a scarily smart supervillain genius that was able to change the melting point of steel and orchestrate a plot to allow the US to invade the Middle East (again) for oil money…and look what a resounding success that was.

The Democrats allowed this “truther” movement to grow as it attacked the incumbent Republican administration because they were often linked to and protested with the hysterical anti-war Left, which served the Democrats needs. Well to paraphrase Obama’s preacher the ‘good’ pastor Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s chickens are coming home to roost.

Van Jones was appointed the Whitehouse “green jobs czar” in [who cares]. His government appointment was to presumably oversee the creation of green jobs which are [no really, who cares?]. The important thing is, he was working IN the Whitehouse, had the ear of the President and a nice unelected portfolio to manage. Except, back in the crazy days of 2002, he was a paid up “truther”. The evidence that he publicly called for and supported not one, but four investigations questioning W. Bush’s involvement in September 11 is irrefutable, and after about a week of blog-led protests, he was shown the door.

“You can no more have a truther in the White House than you can have a Holocaust denier -- a person who creates a hallucinatory alternative reality in the service of a fathomless malice.”
--Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post, 10th September 2009

Whilst I have neither the time nor the energy to debunk the many many insane claims made by the “truthers”, let’s just say that if you have sympathy for their views, odds are if you’re reading this post, you’ve probably lost your way on the internet. Alex Jones is perhaps the most well-known of the “truthers” because along with a friend he created the “internet sensation” film “Loose Change” stating in excruciating detail his argument for the biggest conspiracy since the moon landing (hint: Bush caused 9/11). I’ve seen videos of him threatening the life of conservative bloggers and generally think I have a good enough grasp of his, frankly, lunatic opinions.

All this was a long winded way to show that Charlie Sheen has penned a fictional interview of himself with President Obama, confronting him with the “evidence” of 9/11, on Alex Jones’ website. It’s not worth excerpting, and you’ll probably feel a little disappointed with Mr Sheen (as I was) if you like him as an actor.

Charlie Sheen wants answers!!!

Here it is: http://www.infowars.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president/

(I’m not linking to it because I think Alex Jones is a loon and I don’t want this blog to appear on his website visitor stats)

Making the world safer?

As I previously wrote, there are ramifications regarding the US Attorney General prosecutions of CIA interrogators that will flow far from the borders of the United States. This is not about torture or righting wrongs, this is a vindictive partisan bloodletting, pure and simple.

And here I was believing that The One was going to help us evolve past these petty political urges (you know how he was going to get us "beyond politics"). These actions taken by the Obama administration are going to endanger the US and the West. And whilst The One will do the merry tap-dance to distance himself from the prosecutions, it is highly improbable that the Attorney General would be doing this without the explicit consent and encouragement from the Commander-in-Chief.

Reprising his take on this, Thomas Sowell has an excellent breakdown of what this will mean for the US...and the rest of us:

"Britain's release of Abdel Baset al-Megrahi-- the Libyan terrorist whose bomb blew up a plane over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, killing 270 people-- is galling enough in itself. But it is even more profoundly troubling as a sign of a larger mood that has been growing in the Western democracies in our time."

Speaking of the ongoing hand-wringing and outright creation of "rights" for those I would term "barbaric animals":

"So many "rights" have been conjured up out of thin air that many people seem unaware that rights and obligations derive from explicit laws, not from politically correct pieties. If you don't meet the terms of the Geneva Convention, then the Geneva Convention doesn't protect you." (emphasis mine)

Read it all.

Cyber-rhetoric

On July 4th this year (American Independance Day), a cyber-attack was launched against a bunch of US websites including the Secret Service, Department of Defense, New York Stock Exchange and Nasdaq. A lot of these websites went down for a couple of days, and by Tuesday 7th July, most of them were up and running. However the attack had shifted to a few South Korean websites including the Ministry for Defense and the presidential Blue House. Given the targets, both the South Korean and US authorities implicated North Korea as the big Bad behind the attacks.

A US politician Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Michigan)

"the lead Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, said the U.S. should conduct a “show of force or strength” against North Korea for a supposed role in a round of attacks that hit numerous government and commercial websites this week."

At first glance, I thought the honorable Representative was, to put it mildly, speaking out of his a***, giving in to the well established political instinct to be seen to be reacting to things and speaking authoritatively on matters that they know nothing about. The actual attack came from 'infected' computers in over 74 countries (with Australia coming in as number 6 in the total numbers of infected "zombies"), and the relevant authorities have yet to conclusively prove where the attacks originated. Since on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog the attack could just as easily have been initiated by an elite team of super hackers in some super secret bunker working for an 'evil' regime, or some fat kid somewhere, working from his bedroom at his parents house with too much time on his hands and a beef against the US government; not necessarily a small demographic by any stretch.

A North Korean super-hacker?

The ethics of initiating a cyber-attack, or in this case a cyber-counterattack, are still a bit hazy. Whilst the injuries and casualties may be less obvious than a convential armed attack, the effects of a cyber-attack could theoretically be just as damaging. One could be excused thinking that that the inability to view the latest episode of Sea Patrol on ninemsn.com.au could lead to death or injury, but what if the website being attacked was CFA bushfire information line or the Department of Health in the middle of a pandemic?

Most large governments are developing offensive cyber-capacities and for an elected politician to suggest a cyber-attack as "pay back" is perhaps reaching for the gun a bit to early. And given the internet penetration of domestic households in North Korea, one could argue, totally ineffective. However if we look at Rep. Peter Hoekstra's comment in the context of recent geopolitical events, I suspect that the comments are not aimed at the North Koreans but perhaps made to embarass Obama-wan-kenobi into action. On July 4th this year, the North Koreans decided to test fire 7 missiles. This followed a test launch of their long-range ICBM on April 5th this year. Given the collective world-wide yawn on that particular test, Kim Jong "Insane" Il clearly decided he could test a few more.

North Korea fires 7 missiles off coast

Obama's reaction to the April launch:

"We will immediately consult with our allies in the region, including Japan and the Republic of Korea, and members of the U.N. Security Council to bring this matter before the Council."

-- (ooooh scary scary. That'll put fear into the heart of a dude that runs a country with concentration camps)

Biden (US Vice President) reaction to the July 4th launch:

"Look, this has almost become predictable behavior. Some of it seems like almost attention-seeking behavior,"

So the Obama administration has a recent history of belittling the angry squeaks of the NORKS, which in all fairness is not too surprising given the Nork regime's inability to provide electricity to their whole country, or indeed feed all their people, however there is a clear trend of escalation. And for a country that allegedly has nukes and is only separated by 5km of bushland from their 'sworn enemy', it would behove the US to support their ally South Korea with perhaps a bit more teeth in their rhetoric and actions.

Instead, we get this:

"This administration -- and our military -- is fully prepared for any contingencies," Obama told CBS when asked about the possibility that North Korea could fire a missile toward Hawaii on or about July 4, the US Independence Day.

Asked if that meant Washington was "warning of a military response," Obama answered: "No. It's just we are prepared for any contingencies."

No no military response, just 'contigencies'. I predict that the emptiness of Obi's rhetoric will rebound on him, sometime in the next four years, and the world will be a poorer place for it.

Links:

"U.S., South Korea Targeted in Swarm Of Internet Attacks" - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070800066.html

Good technical breakdown and analysis of the cyber-attack - http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/07/mydoom/

Best picture...

of the lowest altitude fly-by you will see today:

(picture source)

The politicisation of torture

UPDATE: 3/9/09 - fixed Clinton crosshairs link

It’s curious how you often find reading matter that conforms to your own views. To whit, Thomas Sowell’s column at townhall.com (yes, a conservative site to those a bit squeamish) talking about the revisited (and remanufactured) anger over torture memos, torturing, and all the other evils that the W. Bush regime visited on the world. Specifically about how Obama’s administration has now left open the door for prosecution of US personnel over what has been alleged (and probably occurred) at Gitmo. The crux of the column:

“We have already turned loose dozens of captured terrorists, who have resumed their terrorism. Why? Because they have been given "rights" that exist neither in our laws nor under international law.”

Why do those voices (predominately coming from the Left) demand rights to those who do not operate under the Geneva Convention? Why is it so important to ensure that head-sawing barbarians have ‘human rights’ that they so explicitly deny anyone who gets in their way?

“These are not criminals in our society, entitled to the protection of the Constitution of the United States. They are not prisoners of war entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. “

There was a time when people who violated the rules of war were not entitled to turn around and claim the protection of those rules. German soldiers who put on U.S. military uniforms, in order to infiltrate American lines during the Battle of the Bulge, were simply lined up against a wall and shot. “

Why was David Hicks, who was caught fighting with the Taliban, not shot on the spot? He wasn’t in uniform (the Taliban don’t have a “uniform” nor are recognized officially) and as I have previously argued, the Taliban are hardly the types to subscribe to Geneva Conventions or any other recognizably humane code of conduct, so therefore do not deserve to have such protections given to them.

“In his visit to CIA headquarters, President Obama pledged his support to the people working there and said that there would be no prosecutions of CIA agents for prior actions. Then he welshed on that in a matter of hours by leaving the door open for such prosecutions, which the left has been clamoring for, both inside and outside of Congress.”

The argument of whether to torture or not to torture is a larger topic than this particular post, however the politicization of CIA interrogations carried out in the last 7 years will have a very real impact on how the US (and by proxy the West) conducts itself in future conflicts. Guantanemo and tough interrogation techniques are not symptoms of the US and the West losing their moral bearings, more responding to extraordinary circumstances. Besides, is it so important to hold the "moral high ground" if your dead?

To politicise the governmental advice, because you feel that being the leader of the free world is not vindication enough, seems to be rather childish and spiteful. Clinton literally had crosshairs on Osama, but decided for whatever reason, not to pull the trigger. Fast forward 1 year, and there's a smoking crater in Manhattan and 3,000 dead people. There was never any question of pursuing Clinton or his administration for what could be argued as the worlds most obvious case of gross negligence. Allowing criminal charges to be brought up against lawyers who simply advised the prior administration is waste of time, money and resources that could be put to better use.

In this brand new era of Hope and Change™, I thought we were getting beyond the era of old school politics, but it seems like we're just repeating the same ol' same ol'.

NORKS vs DORKS

So the NORKs (press speak for North Koreans) are preparing to launch a long range ICBM, ostensibly to launch a satellite, but probably to test the range of their BigDong TaepoDong 2 (TD-2) missile. At the time of the announcement of the test (in complete contravention of a UN resolution...but we all know how much they’re worth), initially the US, Japan all got their knickers in a twist and threatened to shoot it down, and South Korea threatened to file a UN Security Council violation. As the missile’s projected trajectory takes it right over Japan, it is understandable why the Japanese are more than just a little concerned.

However, despite having the capacity to do so courtesy of two US Navy destroyers in the region , the clear thinking and brave new administration of the Obama whitehouse has pretty much stuck it’s hands over it’s ears and gone “la-la-la-la-la can’t see anything la-la-la”.

From the article:

“Appearing on "FOX News Sunday," Gates said North Korea "probably will" fire the missile, prompting host Chris Wallace to ask: "And there's nothing we can do about it?"

"No," Gates answered, adding, "I would say we're not prepared to do anything about it."

The North has said it would consider any interference an "act of war"

UPDATE: So I wrote this blog last week thinking I had till wednesday, but the crafty Norks got ahead of me, and it was launched Sunday.

"U.S. and South Korean officials claim the entire rocket, including whatever payload it carried, ended up in the ocean after Sunday's launch"

However, now, after the fact, the Obama administration "urges action". Not wanting to restate the obvious, but it seems that the US did indeed have the means for "action" prior to and during the launch.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Peace

A good column describing the hypocrisy of Western "peace" movements when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Some of the juice:

"For the many Americans, the math is pretty simple. Leaders who want to promote the well-being of the people they lead do not launch rockets into neighboring territory from densely populated civilian neighborhoods and people who merely want a state of their own do not go about screaming incessantly about destroying somebody else's."

It would be nice if the media were to pick up on that particular point.

"On this score, Christian peacemakers are doing what pacifists have always done - avert their eyes from those aspects of reality would force them to come to grips with human sin in a meaningful manner. "

Could be a problem with all religions on that one, but I'll keep that diatribe for another day.

Links

• From the article, US Congress' resolution condemning Hamas.

The Gayest Community Service Announcement

Controlling language is paramount to the utopian vision of humanity. Pretty sure George Orwell got it right in his book 1984. My previous posts (here and here) talk a little about the intent to control language, and the sheer ridiculousness of it, however that doesn't stop well intentioned bureaucrats and politicians advancing these insane regulations.

If only we could stop people saying certain words then those things will stop.

So for example, if only could stop people screaming "Islamophobia!" then maybe it will all just fade away (although that starts the debate on how something that doesn't exist can just fade away....but I digress).

Introducing the newest community service announcement (from the city of New York, although I'm not 100% on that one) that is slated to be as effective and memorable as Nancy Reagans "Just Say No" campaign.

Gays vs African-Americans

This is weird. I though once The One was elected that all racism would just disappear overnight, and that this was the moment "the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal"

However, the problem with messianic intentions and utopian visions is that quite often "real" (or dare I say it 'objective') reality intrudes, and human natures reveals itself to be what it has always been...messy, nasty and well, plain self-interested.

To whit, here's a story about Gay activists calling black protesters the "n-word" about the protests on California's Prop 8, a bill allowing same-sex marriage.

Not that this has anything to with The Chosen One however this is only 2 days after the US elected the first black man as president, and "everyone" (at least that's what the media shows) has been wallowing in sheer orgiastic extasy over the end of bushhitler, racism and the bogeyman.

Oh well, I guess humans will be humans....

Who

(Amazon link)

is this author is talking about...

"His campaign commercials...boasted that this was a "time for greatness". [ ] like Mussolini, promised a national "restoration" and a "new politics" that would transcend old categories of left and right. He insisted that the forceful application of his own will in solving the nation's problems than traditional democratic means."
--Jonah Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism", 2007

Any of the above sound familiar?

Prejudicial Projections

Further to debunking the argument that Western foreign policy IS THE cause of all this terrorism malarkey, there's this story about Aafia Siddiqui, an MIT graduate who is in US custody, after being captured in Afghanistan.

This ivy-league educated neuroscientist had 3 US born children, allegedly disappeared in 2003 in Pakistan, just about the time the FBI wanted to question her about connections to al-Qaeda.

Aafia Siddiqui, graduating from one of her two US university degrees	Aafia Siddiqui, Terrorist Mom
Before the Bin Laden Jihadi Make-over	After the Bin Laden Jihadi Make-over

Memo to the FBI: next time you want to question someone about terrorists ties, maybe don't tell them why you want to question them beforehand. Just a thought.

Allegedly caught outside "outside the governor’s compound in the central Afghan province of Ghazni on July 17" with a bag full of questionable material (bomb-making books, instructions on how to make certain chemicals, and the oft-media-repeated notebook with US landmarks and something about a "mass casualty attack") this highly educated women was then transferred to US custody whereupon she grabbed a rifle and attempted to shoot her interrogators:

“The warrant officer heard Siddiqui exclaim, ‘Allah akbar!’ Another interpreter heard Siddiqui yell in English, ‘Get the f*** out of here!’ as she fired the rifle.”

An M-4 Assault rifle.

"Allah akbar", "Get the f**** out of here" could perhaps sound similar. I'm not sure I'd be focusing too much on the enunciation if the enunciator was firing an M-4 rifle at me. Personally, I hope she said she said "Get the f*** out of here" as it sounds much more Hollywood.

Which brings me to my point: how exactly did the West oppress this clearly academically bright individual? A graduate of one of the most prestigious Western tertiary institutions, comfortable enough to have 3 kids in her adopted homeland, and clearly quick enough to rattle off a movie action hero line under duress, if interpreter #2 is to be believed.

The answer to my rhetoric question is of course: the West did nothing of the sort. It may have been the lack of job vacancies at the Bin Laden Neuroscience Institute, or perhaps one of her classmates called her "veily-head" one too many times and she thought "f** this, I'm going on jihad and make this dude and a whole bunch of random innocents pay" or maybe it was the fact that she was married to a nephew of a Khalid Sheik Mohammed (the 'mastermind' of September 11).

Either way, I doubt a couple comments in the classroom could really "radicalise" (jihadise?) someone to that extent. And I have real difficulty believing that even if you felt that strongly about the Iraq-Afghanistan-Chechnya-Palestine-Lebanon-[insert "islamists as the victims conflict" du jour here] that it would necessarily motivate you to go and work out how to blow up a whole bunch of random civilians.

The thought that the West (ok , mostly US) military action over the last 20-40 years is the cause of all this discontent is dangerously deluded at best. It also ignores the actual history of this conflict. We so desperately DO NOT want this to be a clash of civilizations, because in such a conflict, none of the options are good. But to say it is not so, because you want to believe it so, without taking into account what "the other guy" believes, is being shall we say, a little bit intolerant of other belief systems.

Ascribing your own world view on people that clearly do not share it, is dangerous and leads you to making bad decisions.

Suicide bombers, evil masterminds in Afghani caves, fundamentalists of all stripes do. not. want. an. iPod.

Anything you could possibly want, a family, a house, a maserati, fame, fortune, nice clothes, lots of $$$$, all of it is inconsequential to submission and devotion to "the one and only" (and I'm not talking about Obama). To suggest that Western "oppression" and military action today is the sole reason for these grievances, is really an exercise in projection.

Let's contrast the foreign policy expert Traceeeee Hutchinson who "is the author of 3 books – the Australian Music Anthology, ‘Your Name’s On the Door’ (ABC/1992), Rock Chefs for Mirabel – a fundraising cookbook for the Mirabel Foundation featuring over 30 musicians and their recipes – and Laughing Stock: Comedy Chefs for Mirabel – a sequel to Rock Chefs featuring local comedians." (link here) with Ed Husain, who was a member of the openly islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir in the UK and then decided jihad didn't suit him wrote one book "The Islamist"

Tracee Hutchinson	Ed Husain
("co-host of the weekly music program DIG TV with Australian rock icon James Reyne.")	(ex-Islamist)
"Or perhaps they were just disenchanted Muslim men reacting with misguided empowerment to the prevailing anti-Muslim sentiment whipped up by the Coalition of the Willing at the time. "	"Islamist terrorism started long before foreign policy blunders of Western government. "
link	link

I leave it up to you to decide who's word carries more weight.

The problem with such intellectual luminaries such as Traceeeee repeating these tropes, is that she and her ideological fellow travellers, want to frame ALL Islamic terrorism as a reaction against Bush, Blair, Howard, [insert hated conservative political figure of choice here]. The reason they do this is because they are too scared to think about the options if they are wrong.

Their world view is strictly binary: "It must be because of misguided conservative policies that these people want to kill us, because a: I hate conservative policies, and b: "Imagine all the people, Living life in peace..." I mean isn't that what EVERYONE wants?" I'm sorry Traceeeee (and John Lennon), but no, that is not the case.

To quote Alfred in the "Batman, The Dark Knight" (Warner Bros, 2008):

"Some people just want to watch the world burn"

It will be interesting to see how the West evolves to deal with an adversary who truly does not care what happens to him/her on this particular plane of existence. And it will be truly enlightening to the Traceeeees of this world when they realise the same.

Mere Milne

"I am blessed to live at a time when the denial of the obvious has become the organizing
principle of government and society. This makes my job so easy -- except for
when I must defend myself against the zealots of “nuance."
...
Not everyone is called to martyrdom, but everyone is called to witness.

Even journalists."
--David Warren, 3 Aug, 2008

---

Further to that "little" problem in Georgia, where the president of Georgia (Mikheil Saakashvili) apparently invited the full force of the Russian army by attacking South Ossetia for reasons I'm still not quite sure of.

Clearly, I had neglected to see that the entire Georgian conflict was due to US Imperialism. The brain surgeon that made this call is a well known writer for the Guardianista, Seumas Milne. Many, many people have been fisking this fool for a long time, so there's no point in going into too much depth, however I had to pull out this howler:

"But underlying the conflict of the past week has also been the Bush administration's wider, explicit determination to enforce US global hegemony and prevent any regional challenge, particularly from a resurgent Russia."

So, if I understand his reasoning, having fought the Cold War for about 44 odd years (1945-1989) where the world had genuinely been on the brink of nuclear war many more times than any of us normal people will ever know, having spent billions and expended a lot of blood (Korean War, Vietnam War, ...), the US finally defeated the evil Commies, only so that the evil Bush dynasty could establish a little Texas on the bottom left hand corner of Russia, to what...start the whole thing over again?!? And because Iraq was such a cakewalk, I'm sure the US is just itching to take on Russia again, hell, why not take on China at the same time?

The whole thing smacks of paranoia worse than mine. In his column he brings out a few more Lefty bogeymen (the evil Joos, CIA, and John McCain...hmm, not sure he's really got to bogeyman status...yet).

OK...one more:

"Unipolar domination of the world has squeezed the space for genuine self-determination and the return of some counterweight has to be welcome."

Dear Mr Milne, last week Russia threatened Poland with a nuclear strike (as reported by your paper). Thank the Space Monkey that this age of "Unipolar domination of the world" is at an end, eh? What a glorious harbringer of the future, where nation states can threaten each other with nuclear strikes willy nilly. At least those boorish Yanks aren't running the show anymore. Long live the age of the counterweight!

Further links to the brilliant intellect that is currently incarnated as the mortal Seumas Milne.

• http://timworstall.com/2008/08/14/seumas-2/
• http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/03/milneworld-3.html
• http://davidthompson.typepad.com/davidthompson/2008/08/blame-and-boile.html