 |
What They've Thought
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
What They Thought July 31, 2005 Alan
Caruba Click here for columnist bios |
||||||
I have a friend who recently made a list of all the nations that have openly suggested they would like to “nuke” the United States. They included North Korea, a general in Red China, and as soon as they announce they have perfected a bomb of their own, we can add Iran to the list. Lots of other nations have nukes, including Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and the Russian Republic. If the US does suffer a nuclear attack, however, it is more likely to be at the hands of agents of al Qaeda. It is not a nation, but it is at war with just about every nation that tilts toward modernity of any kind. An equal opportunity network of Islamist terrorists, it doesn’t mind killing either infidels or other Muslims. One has to pause to think of nations where it has not used terror as its calling card. I got to thinking about this on July 20 when the US embassy in Riyadh, the capital of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, issued a warning citing evidence of “operational planning” in the one nation most responsible for the existence of al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden was born in Saudi Arabia and is a member of one of its most prestigious families. At some point this spoiled little rich boy experienced some kind of epiphany that led him to reject the royal family while committing his life to the Wahabi interpretation of Islam it had promulgated from the days when Abdel Aziz ibin Saud set out to conquer or buy off the other tribes of the vast desert peninsula. In 1933, he proclaimed the country unified as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. However, other than fees collected from pilgrims traveling to Mecca, this king was broke. Two thirds of his “Kingdom” was uninhabitable desert when the first oilmen arrived. Had it not been for their modern science and the world’s increasing need for new sources of oil, the royal family would still be living in tents or mud dwellings. It was not ibin Saud who built modern Saudi Arabia, it was Aramco, the American oil company that discovered and developed the source of the royal family’s obscene wealth to this day. Flash forward to July 20 and today. Saudi Arabia, the Sunni citadel responsible for the worldwide spread of the most backward form of Islam extant, is now the victim of its own success. Already, it has tasted the wrath of al Qaeda for permitting “foreign”, i.e. American, troops on its “sacred sands.” Since it does billions of dollars of business with America, its oil wells and refineries are the natural target of those who want to drag Saudi Arabia back to the good old days when camels and goats were currency. Since al Qaeda is largely funded by every criminal activity you can name, it can afford to be indifferent to the oil riches of the Saudi royal family. If, however, it can destroy their grip on its “sacred sands,” access to the oil would make al Qaeda the most powerful force for the domination of Islam to have ever existed. There isn’t a single Muslim on Earth that does not know this. And people wonder why the United States of America invaded Iraq. The world’s greatest empire is engaged in a whole new kind of war. It is the famed “asymmetrical” war in which the enemy is everywhere and nowhere. As Donald Rumsfeld, the US Secretary of Defense put it, “Our challenge in this new century is a difficult one: to defend our nation against the unknown, the uncertain, the unseen, and the unexpected.” In other words, all war all the time! Don’t believe me? As the new millennium dawned, there were almost two thousand sustained armed conflicts in effect throughout the whole of the world. It is the reason
the United States has its troops posted all over the world, as often
as not at the invitation of those nations where we conduct the business
of fulltime war against an unseen enemy and, occasionally as was the
case of Iraq, against a nation state that is a threat to world order.
Recall, please, Saddam’s invasions of both Iran and Kuwait. That is the job of the United States. Our greatest export is security. It is necessary for a world that is stable enough to engage in trade. It is necessary to our economic growth. Any nation or any group such as al Qaeda that threatens that stability is going to find itself subject to “regime change” or the relentless hunt to find and kill its leaders and followers. Do you think the 2008 election will change this? Or those to follow? Unless we destroy al Qaeda, i.e. the renewed Islamic Jihad, there will be no United States of America in which to hold an election. We have only one choice and it is all war all the time for very long time to come. |
||||||
Last week I wrote about all of the unity Bill Clinton created in the Communist Bloc countries. Before I get to some of the other unity he managed to create, I would like to point out that he split this country in many ways. By the time he was "out of there," race relations were at an all time low and people's faith in their government was pretty shaken. Here, he was a divider. For our enemies, he was a uniter. Quite a few pundits have written about his failure to accept Osama from Sudan when he was offered to us. Because of that, I’ll not get into it other than to say, “There’s something really wrong with that boy.” There was yet another bungled attempt to get Osama out of Afghanistan. Prince Faisal of Saudi Arabia had managed to broker a deal. The Taliban was ready to hand him over. All they wanted was to be officially recognized. In response to the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, Bill Clinton fired off a few cruise missiles and hit the training camps that Osama used for training terrorists. He also hit a facility that everyone probably remembers as being an "aspirin factory." The camps also contained five Mosques, so the image of destroyed Mosques and burned Qurans became popular fare for the Mid-East media. When Prince Faisal went back he had to try renegotiating the deal. There was suddenly a bit of a problem, though. Omar had decided that he had to sign on with Osama because he was suddenly a hero. He wasn’t about to hand him over because it would have incurred the wrath of everyone in the area. Bill Clinton’s failed attacks had created a new dynamic which put Mullah Omar and Osama in a position where they had to join forces. Osama had just been elevated in the eyes of the Moslem world. Prior to the attack, Osama’s bodyguards and the Taliban soldiers had exchanged gunfire several times. The Pashtuns of the Taliban thought Osama the Arab was arrogant. I can’t imagine why they would think that. But it may interest the reader to know that Bush also passed on an opportunity to have Osama handed over to us. The only thing that the Taliban wanted again was recognition as a legitimate government. The offer was rejected out of hand. The reason for this is that the abuses they had been piling up against their own people and the west through their continued association with Osama made it impossible to accept the offer. By responding to 9/11 the way we have, Bush has united the radical arm of Islam against us. I’m all for it. This is something that was inevitable. There have been many periods of conquest between the East and the West. Let’s take a look at the radical arm of Islam that Bush has galvanized. Soccer stadiums were considered a great place for smotherings, beheadings, stonings and for removal of offensive portions of peoples bodies. Listening to any kind of music under the Taliban or flying a kite was illegal. Some women were shot for not having worn their burkha. There were incidents where the guilty had enough money and could pay to have someone else’s hands cut off instead of their own. This is the Sharia law that Osama wants for the world. I have found it amazing as I have listened to some of my fellow citizens when they talk about rights and the Mid-East. They rail against the war we are fighting in Iraq where we found mass graves and torture facilities in warehouses filled with rotting corpses. It will be interesting to listen to these same people after Osama manages to set off a nuclear weapon in one of our cities. This is an operation that has been in planning since ‘96 or ‘98. Make no mistake: he has the weapons. It is a matter of when. It is also a matter of whether they have managed maintain them properly. If they haven’t been able to maintain them properly, they will only contaminate large areas. If Osama has been capable of hiring the right people using the drug money from us, there will be a huge bang. At that point, the gloves will come off. There will be a lot of regimes in the region that will get what they gave out. Emotions will also be running a little high here. I suspect those who have been arguing Osama’s case for him here are going to find themselves on the wrong end of a tire iron or, in the office, the wrong end of a swinging paper punch. Those who go out and have a Victory For Islam party are really going to suffer. The lines have been drawn for a very long time, but they will become much more visible after this. In case you’re wondering, don’t think that there are any card-carrying members of al-Qaeda out there. They are united by ideology, just like the leftists that support them. They appear under many names. Cut one head off and another pops up. Because of that, and the fact that the non-radical members of Islam haven’t policed their own, the end results aren’t going to be very pretty. R.A. Hawkins Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
Am I the only one who wonders what bathrooms will look like in the future? I’ve watched a lot of forward-looking science fiction movies. Maybe even a few too many in my time. But of all the ones I’ve seen, I’ve only seen one memorable reference to futuristic bathrooms. That was in 1993’s Demolition Man when Sylvester Stallone wakes up from suspended animation and learns that, in the future, people use “three seashells” instead of toilet paper. That’s it. That’s the extent to which Hollywood has envisioned the evolution of bathroom behavior. Three lousy seashells. To me, this makes no sense. There are billions of people on this planet. Many of them will never drive a flying car, but every single one of them will go to the bathroom at least once a day, every day, till the day that they die. Are we supposed to believe this somehow changes in the future? Do people stop using bathrooms altogether or something? Don’t get me wrong: I’m not ruling that out. Someday, people will probably hook themselves up to waste-disposal systems while they’re sleeping (unless, of course, the porcelain lobby puts a stop to it). But that’s not what these Sci-Fi movies are getting at by failing to show us the bathrooms of the future. If it was, they’d at least show us the waste-disposal machine. The truth is, you don’t see many bathrooms in any movie genre—science fiction or otherwise. And you probably don’t need me to tell you why that is. I mean, let’s face it: Bathroom scenes wouldn’t really advance most plotlines (Dumb and Dumber notwithstanding). So I’m not going to sit here and tell you movies should bring up bathrooms more often. They probably shouldn’t. Bringing up bathrooms is inappropriate in most theatrical genres. I just happen to think science fiction isn’t one of them. People don’t give bathrooms nearly enough credit for their contributions to society. Whenever people start to talk about the greatest inventions of all time, the conversation inevitably turns to the light bulb, the telephone, the printing press—even the Internet. And these are important, world-changing inventions, make no mistake. But surely the same can be said for indoor plumbing. Without it, would there be cities on the scale of those we see today? Would there be 110-story skyscrapers if we still had to go outside to use the john? I don’t think so. And that’s just scratching the surface. Indoor plumbing has also had a positive affect on human health. The fact of the matter is, bathrooms have been on the cutting edge of technology for years. And although few people talk about it, they remain hotbeds of future innovation. Take public restrooms, for instance. True, some of these places are filthy pigsties. But lots of times, walking into a public restroom is like wandering through the World’s Fair. It’s pretty incredible. You never know what you’re going to see, but there’s a fifty-fifty chance something there will impress you. You’ll see toilets and sinks that work on sensors, for instance. You’ll see that somebody, somewhere, has dreamed up a new way of drying your hands or dispensing soap. One time, at O’Hare, I saw a device that automatically covered the toilet seat with a new plastic sheath every time someone flushed. What a crazy, incredible contraption. Who thought of this? Does he realize how substantial a contribution he’s made? I recently walked into a bathroom that turned its own lights on as I opened the door. This actually made me stop and marvel for a moment. The basic idea here is nothing new; refrigerators have been doing the same thing for years. But there was something different about this. It took on almost a human quality. The way the room scrambled to turn the lights on, you’d think I walked past its desk and caught it playing solitaire—like I’d caught it sleeping on the job. After a while, I got to thinking: How does the bathroom know when nobody’s in it? Does it count who’s coming and going, somehow? That’s the logical explanation. But what if someone who’s leaving holds the door open for someone coming in? Wouldn’t that throw the count off? And if so, then what? Obviously, there are answers to each of these questions. But those answers are secondary to the overall point. Think about what we’re looking at here. This bathroom is more than a bathroom. It’s an intelligent life form. An artificially intelligent life form, mind you, but an intelligent life form nonetheless. Maybe it’s not as impressive as Deep Blue playing Garry Kasparov. Perhaps that’s a matter of perspective. But this has way more utility than a man vs. machine chess game. It means something. It’s a glimpse of the future. Someday, hopefully in our lifetimes, whole houses will operate in this way. You’ll never have to turn the lights on again. Your house will be like an extension of your person. It will know when your world needs a little brightening up. Maybe this creeps you out a little. I don’t know. But, personally, I look forward to it. So many movies paint portraits of the future as a dark, unfortunate place, where technology turns on humans and threatens to destroy them. To me, though, Terminator was never about a robot revolution. It was about job security—like self-checkouts taking over for grocery store clerks. And if that’s the worst the future has to offer, I think we can work around it. Human advancement is a good thing. Or would you prefer still using an outhouse? Jonathan David Morris Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
"L'shana ha-ba-ah b'yerushalayim" or "Next year in Jerusalem" is the wish of all Jews of the Diaspora, scattered from their homeland yet acknowledging their spiritual and historical home is Israel, specifically, Jerusalem. "Numerous exiles and persecution, as well as political and economic conditions and opportunities, affected the numbers and dynamics of Jewish Diaspora." The largest number of Diaspora Jews (5,671,000 in 2003) live in the United States; astoundingly a smaller number than the amount of Jews killed in the Holocaust. Israel's Jewish population is usually not considered Diaspora. Those of the Jewish faith are most commonly categorized as Reform, Conservative, or Orthodox Jew. But as of right now, I'm adding my own category — Hollywood Jew. Hollywood's brand of Jew defies legitimate membership in any of the above designations because it seems they don't acknowledge the importance of the connection between the Jewish Diaspora and Israel. If I am wrong, then how can the majority of Jews who make up the majority of the entertainment industry lend their financial and vocal support to people or causes working to undermine the war on terrorism? This occurs even though one of the goals of Islamic extremist groups is to destroy the state of Israel because they regard Israel as occupied Muslim land. In addition, both al Qaeda (Osama Bin Laden) and Hamas (a Palestinian based organization prevalent in the Gaza Strip) are openly anti-Semitic. Do Hollywood Jews not realize that they are included in the intifada against infidels? Jews all over the world derive comfort from knowing that they have a homeland where they need not suffer persecution from those harboring anti Semitic views. The Jewish people understand that the existence of a homeland in Israel is a great gift. This is so important that it is mandatory for every Israeli Jew to serve as a soldier defending Israel's existence as a nation. Thankfully, President Bush understands Israel's right to exist (unlike Clinton, who tried to pressure Israel to give into Arafat's demands) and acknowledges that those who support terrorists are not interested in true compromise with their enemies. Think about the inherent contradiction in any arguments against fighting the war against terrorism in Iraq. It is well known that Saddam Hussein was paying parents of suicide bombers in Palestine $25,000 for each successful attack against their targets. Saddam Hussein was no friend of Israel. How can any Jew justify support for a man who launched Scud missiles into Israel during the first Gulf War? And now for the latest Hollywood abomination: It appears that Steven Spielberg is filming a movie about the Israeli response to Black September, which is largely sympathetic to the PLO affiliate which carried out the killing of the Israeli Olympians taken hostage. Spielberg has allegedly hired a man to be his screenwriter who is on record as being anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist and who believes that modern Israel should never have been born. The moral of the film is that vengeance doesn't work, that zero tolerance for terrorism is not the way to respond to those who won't stop until their sworn enemies are dead. The goal of the film is to humanize the terrorists even though the terrorists deliberately didn't speak with their captives so that they could dissociate from them when they had to be executed. Spielberg, as of this writing, has not made any contact with retired Mossad agents serving in key intelligence posts and who are likely the best sources for accurate information about how events actually played out. Yet this Hollywood Jew hopes that we can learn from his film how to carry out the war on terror. In the war on terror, there can be no sympathy for the enemy because the enemy has no sympathy for us. The bottom line: Islamic extremists want us dead. There is no humanism in that. Nancy Salvato Web Site Contact Back to Top |
||||||
It has been established that the UN is not only irrelevant but terminal; however, that won’t prevent an attempt to resurrect it from the dead. Kofi A. Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, has proven to be a disaster. He has demonstrated that under his tenure, the organization serves no useful function. The absence of any recognizable leadership is evident for all the world to see. So what is the alternative? If you listen to knowledgeable sources, a replacement for Annan has been floating around for sometime. According to Janes Foreign Review, UN head for disarmament affairs Jayantha Dhanapala is a potential candidate, and Foreign Minister Tyronne Fernando has declared himself for the top post. Not exactly household personalities, especially during a time when the useful purpose of the entire body has been placed in question. But don’t fret, the globalists always have a plan in the wings to rescue the day . . . Since the UN is on life support and the rift between the United States and the august world council is so acute, why not install the one man who can resuscitate the most tenuous of relationships? A masculine practitioner of the art of empathy, a potent force for enticement to unite and a virile example of the dominate ideal. During these times and trials of inconsistency, the UN could use a man of known character and proven sympathies. The General Assembly would ardore the selection. The masses in the United States would sigh relief that their hero has re-emerged. And the detractors of the UN would be defused, since the United States would, once again, have their own man in the cat bird seat! The ‘Messiah of Marxism’ is the perfect solution for the globalists. Just think about all the advantages that having a CIA asset running the world league of conspiring nations . . . His tutelage under the Brits in the Rhodes school of Hyperpower, re-seals the Blair connection. His Soviet secret affairs during those vacations behind that ferrous curtain, can only consummate that Detente among comrades. His ties to the Chinese dragon are unassailable, running in a river of red hemoglobin that flows through every aspiring Khan. He even calls himself a “citizen of the world”, how can it get any better for the Planetary Directorate? Still, not convinced? From his own mouth: "There are still people who vote in the United Nations based on the sort of old fashioned national self-interest." This guy is PERFECT for the job at hand. Yes; our own fearless leader, the one and only (thank god) William Jefferson Clinton (correct spelling should always use a K), is the answer. Global unity would no longer be just a dream. Under Klinton you would get a coordinated double team, from two branches, of the same organized crime syndicate. Iraq is the latest diversion. The breakdown of Security Council to sanction a military campaign was contrived. It was always meant to fail. For the real objective is to invent world wide hatred towards the United States. George W Bush is following his orders. The seemingly and fabricated differences with Tony Blair are temporary. Regarding Iraq, Blair said: "The important that the UN is involved and any post-conflict administration is endorsed by it." The Prime Minister, follows with, "there was "no difference" in opinion on the role of the UN after the war - and that they (Bush and Blair) both agreed to the principles established at the pre-war Azores summit." You are watching political theater. The effort to rehabilitate the UN will begin in earnest when the heavy lifting by the conquering coalition and carnage ceases. The UN will be raised from the dead, and a miracle of global brotherhood will emerge! If you are sincere and intellectually honest, you must address the clear evidence that both Bush and Klinton are political clones for the same - New World Order. Tony Blair’s
“Third Wave” is pure delusion for the asses who are eager
to sip the kool aid. However, the role that Blair plays that bridges
between the illusory differences in the administrations of Klinton and
both Bushes is the consistent glue that drives the consolidation for
world government. The Iraq expedition is the first overt and blatant
war against the sovereign nation state. The objective is patently obvious.
Any government that objects to the plans for global governance, must
be labeled a rogue state and slated for elimination. The reason that a world war is, again, being waged is unmistakable. Bill Clinton was taught under Carroll Quigley. He perfected the Tragedy and betrayed the Hope. The United Nations is an integral part of that perpetual war and eluding peace. The strings are pulled to coordinate all the puppets, as the business of show, seldom tells the real story. If this drama wasn’t so sick, we all might enjoy the entertainment. The mask of deception has been removed, now all you have to do is open your eyes and see the players for what they are - celebrities of the lust for absolute power. Can’t you hear him standing at the bow of that famous sunken ship - “At last, I AM King Of the World” . . . A most titanic propect for a colossal planet collapsing - staring us, directly in our face.
|
||||||
©2004-2005 by their respective authors. Reprinted by permission. |
||||||
|
news | constitution | bill of rights | our view | your view | their view awards to win | awards we've won | resources | goodie shoppe our mission | about us | contact us | privacy policy | site map | home This page last updated on Sunday, August 7, 2005 2:52 PM Optimized for Microsoft Internet Explorer |
||||||
|
site content ©2002-2005 site design by |
||||||
