Comments Posted By busboy33
Displaying 101 To 110 Of 657 Comments
SOME SHORT NOTES ON KSM AND AMERICAN JUSTICE
Rick:
Perhaps fear of attack is justified (I don't buy it, but its plausable), but your solution (try KSM in the desert, in Gitmo, or somewhere remote) completely missed the danger allegedly posed.
WHY would terrorists mount an attack? To bust KSM out? If that's the plan . . . fat chance. You ever seen a high-security federal trial? Even if hypothetically several hundred heavily armed and armored soldiers managed to mount a co-ordinated attack (it would take at least that to get into the courtroom -- no joke -- that place will be almost impregnible), they can always remove KSM through multiple underground (secured) tunnels and/or back channels. The possibility of "springing" him from custody is pretty much zero.
And why bother busting him out? Is he the only "mastermind" they have that can plan attacks? Is he that valuble to AlQ?
Now, I'll buy they might be motivatred mount a mass casulity attack just to make a statement -- but if they were going to do that, then they could mount the attack regardless of where KSM is tried. If the point of such an attack is to just massacre civilians, they'd do it in a heavy pop area regardless of the trial location, so they might well attack NYC even if the trial is held in Gitmo, or on the moon. NOT trying him in NYC does absolutely nothing to reduce the danger. Trying him in NYC does send a statement (we're in charge, not the terrorists).
We managed to try the blind shiek just fine. We manage to try Mafia kingpins (who have far more armed soldiers in country) just fine. We'll try KSM just fine. Trust your legal system a little bit. It's worked for centuries.
Sure the military commisions were passed bi-partisan. Given that the choice was pass it or be labeled a supporter of terrorists by the administration, I'm not too suprised. No, you're right -- it must have had the backing of the Dems. After all, look at all the debate and negotiation that went into it (far more than health care reform, right?).
But then . . .you know all this, don't you? So this crap about "bi-partisan" adds up to little more than partisan FUD.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.11.2009 @ 17:43
MORE THAN POLITICAL CORRECTNESS OR VICTIMHOOD AT WORK IN FORT HOOD ATTACK
@manning:
"There is no sentence of mine that says Muslims are passive sheep, either, merely that they are in general under some constraints from their leadership, or we would have far more jihadic actions going off all around."
comment #55:
"I suppose this passivity of the flock is encouraged by their leadership in order for them to retain the power to declare jihad and other actions and not to be undercut by a multitude of lone operators."Am I not reading that sentence in #55 correctly? There may be a distinction between those two statements . . . but honestly I fail to see it. I believe that (unlike many commenters here) you maintain clear and coherent ideas from post to post, so I'm very agreeable to the idea that what you meant isn't getting through to me. If I'm just failing to comprehend what you are trying to express, then that's my error -- but I have to go with what I see, and what I see is contradictory.
"It is obvious that a single individual, isolated to a large degree from his kin and leadership, and being subjected to the serious internal stress I spoke of (the Islamic command to accept and perform jihad . . ."
Again, if he is cut off from his "leadership" then who gave him the command to commit jihad? He regularly attended services in Texas -- wasn't that his leadership?
It seems you are working backwards. He was a Muslim jihadi terrorist worrior, and therefore he was cut off from foreign religious leaders that were advicating he perform jihad since he certainly wasn't getting those commands from his local religious authorities. You've presupposed the jihad, than used the lack of jihad authority to create the tension that made him commit jihad.Let me ask this -- can a Muslim go postal WITHOUT it being a jihad? If so, what factors should we look for to distinguish the two?
There is no doubt that Hasan allegedly held extreme viewpoints in regards to being Muslim. There is the very real possiblity that these viewpoints "justified" his actions in his mind. No argument. But these attitudes are abnormal as evidenced by the lack of mass jihad among Muslims. Not the concept of jihad itself, but the fact that he was ENGAGED AND COMMANDED to commit jihad.
Look at the abortion snipers and bombers. The vast majority of them do so believing that they are compelled to do so by their Christian faith (Eric Rudolph, for example). The actions they take are not a problem with Christianity -- its a problem with being an unstable loon. Their faith gives them a mental justification, but it isn't the genesis of the action.
That Hasan may have believed he was religiously compelled to do this may well turn out to be true (we'll find out after the investigators have a nice long talk with him). But would he have not done this if he was a Christian? Your analysis implies that but for the existence of the concept of jihad in the Muslim faith, there would have been no shooting . . . and I don't see that the facts support that yet. Again, would Eric Rudolph have bombed the Olympics but for being a Christian? Maybe not -- but it was his zealotry that perverted his theology, not the theology that perverted the man. The fault doesn't lie with the religion, but with the man. A man sinking down into insanity will inherently drift toward extreme thinking. A man who believes that a genocide against the unborn is occuring will seek out beliefs and spiritual leaders that tell him "you're right". A man who thinks homosexuals are causing a plague of divine retribution against America will see Phelps at Westboro and say "see? It's in the Bible!". But those are crazy people looking retroactively fo a justification for their crazy. That ain't the Bible's fault . . . nor is Ft. Hood the fault of the Koran.
At least not yet it isn't. If we find the jihad order, if we find the jihad confession of Hasan, things may be different. But I believe that if the vast, overwhelmong majorities of Muslims were told to commit jihad, the vast overwhelming majority of them would not do so. It takes a person looking for a reason to go ballistic. The happy and comfortable family man isn't going to come home and say "sorry honey, looks like I've got to go and massacre women and children today. Don't worry about dinner. Kiss Abdul for me, and make sure Sami does her homework. Now where's my C-4 . . .". There's a reason most jihadis are drawn from either the ranks of the extreme zealots, or from the desperate and destitute. There's a reason the most fertile recruiting grounds are decrepid refugee camps. They are looking for an excuse to rage against the machine, and "jihad" is a moral justification. They wern't commanded -- they wanted to do it.
I think that distiction is vital.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.11.2009 @ 18:33
@manning:
"I suppose this passivity of the flock is encouraged by their leadership in order for them to retain the power to declare jihad and other actions and not to be undercut by a multitude of lone operators."
a) and this is a Muslim thing? As opposed to another organized theology like Christianity, which encourages its members to think for themselves?
b) People in power probably DO encourage those under them to passively accept orders . . . but to think that they do this specifically to wield the jihad hammer, and not out of the far more likely simple human desire to retain their power, is uncredible to me."The tension I spoke of was a continuing one for the life of Hasan. For that matter, it is present in every Muslim all the time. I suspect that a looming event, such as being assigned to a combat zone just may have been the final trigger…"
Now I'm thorughly confused. Something you describe as a "lomming event" that may have ben "the final trigger" is indicative of a person who snapped. That has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with being Muslim.
As you've stated, Muslims are passive sheep that blindly march out of the mosque in a murderous rage when the iman says "kill". Your posts are concerned with jihad. But (as you've described) jihad requires an order to commit it. There is no such order in the Hasan case that I'm aware of -- did his iman in Texas give the order? If so, why was he the only one to go postal?
You've taken great pains to detail the hierarchical authority that the imans use to order the blind sheep around, and how they must murder when commanded. If that was a remotely relevant issue in this sad case, then of necessity there would have to be that top-down instruction, that fatwa from the iman. Yet, it isn't here.
Now, you can say that SOME iman SOMEWHERE has issued a fatwa, and that Hasan decided to follow that. However, if you do you've just destroyed your entire "Muslim sheep sub-divided into strictly controlled tribal and regional groups" analysis. Now we're back to dangerous nutjob who went over the edge, who may have felt motivated to act by his nutjob interpretation of his religion and his world. That may be the case . . . but it's not indicative of the Muslim religion.You've taken what appears to be a person going crazy and laid the blame on a tenet of their faith . . . and described how that tenet was NOT in play during this circumstance. So because jihad had nothing to do with Ft. Hood that we know so far . . . you're concerned about the Muslim ideas of jihad?
That doesn't sound like a conclusion drawn from a situation, but a pre-existing fear looking for a fact pattern. A Muslim went postal? Must be the Muslim death squad command.
By the way, a fatwah and/or a jihad declaration must be publicly expressed. It's not something you whisper in someone's ear.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 14.11.2009 @ 01:58
@manning:
Then where is the jihad? A billion jihadists are kind of hard to miss.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.11.2009 @ 17:50
Either 99.9999% of all Muslims (at least) are very, very, VERY bad at being Muslims, or jihad isn't something that drives them. It isn't an intergal component of their motivation and faith. For most of them, its a theoretical abstract like "turn the other cheek". We Christians believe in the words of Jesus, we preach about it in our sermons . . . but fu@k with us and we'll burn you to the ground (btw, a very jihad attitude) . . . then we'll go to another "turn the other cheek" sermon. We believe it, but we don't live it.
@manning:
Surely you recognize that a religion with a billion plus adherents is not a single entity? That all Muslims beleive the exact same dogma?
You can certainly point to Muslims that preach hatred, just as I could point to Christins that preach hatred (the Westboro Baptist Church springs immediately to mind). Neither is representative of the whole.
That last sentence isn't opinion . . . its demonstrable fact. If a billion Muslims were all bloodthirsty worriors, wouldn't there be open mass conflict across the entire globe? Yes, there are Muslim wars (as there are Christian wars) -- but if ALL of the Muslim population were dedicated to violence the entire damned planet would be embroiled in large scale warfare, and that simply isn't happening.
As an aside, you distinguish between the Old and New Testaments. Christians believe in the Old Testament (like the Creationists) . . . just as Muslims accept the religious authority of Jesus of Nazareth. He is a recognized prophet in the Muslim faith, they just deny his divinity. You can't pick and choose the parts of religion you want to and then say they represent the entirety of the theology -- it's just not fair.
Actually Creationists make a good example. Christians believe the Bible is written by the hand of God, and is therefore True. The Bible establishes the age of the planet at less than 10,000 years old. Therefore, all Christians believe the planet is that old.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 13.11.2009 @ 02:40
No. No, they don't.
A RELATIVELY SHORT FOLLOWUP TO MY PJ MEDIA ARTICLE ON BI-PARTISANSHIP
Rick,
It's not my place to run with MikeReynolds conversation with you, but I don't think you answered his question from comment #9 (please dear god let it really be #9 this time).
"And you’re a Republican why?"
"I am sustained by the absolute certainty that I am right - that reason must prevail or we are doomed. I accuse the base of hyperbole and exaggeration but that statement is as true as anything that has ever been written. Our current course will lead to economic catastrophe and the only way out is both parties working together."
I understand that your belief is why you say and do what you do -- and that's fine. You feel that way, I feel that way, my neighbor feels that way. It's pretty normal to actually believe what you advocate (unless you are a politician, of course).
I expect you to believe what you say, and to act on that. But the question wasn't why do you speak and advocate the way you do -- the question is why do you belong to the GOP? What you believe would only be a justification for being a GOP member if they represented those beliefs.
Do you think that the GOP actually represents your beliefs and the truths you recognize, or do they only pay lip service to it? If they are disingenuous, then you're membership is a betrayal of those Truths.
I can understand voting "as" a Republican if of the two relevant parties they are closer to what you believe than the Democrats -- that's being practical, and making the best of the bad tools you are provided to do what you can to further those Truths you feel inside. But to do that doesn't require being a member of the Party. You've spoken out again blind sheep groupthink enough that I feel pretty comfortable guessing you wouldn't join "cuz you're supposed to join a Party". You wouldn't declare allegience to a group unless you felt like it was where you should be . . . because it was home.
Is it home for you? Do you think they embody and represent TODAY those truths you know in your soul? Perhaps when you originally joined the Party they did, but if they stopped doing so would you leave the Party, or would you remain in a Party that doesn't represents your Truths out of sentimental comfort?
I wouldn't think you would do the latter (not that you aren't a big sentimental teddy bear), so I have to assume you believe that they do truly embody those Truths. Is that the case?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 10.11.2009 @ 21:41
THOUGHTS ON THE PASSAGE OF HEALTH CARE REFORM
@TMLutas:
"Or didn’t you know that you really ought to reload your browser right before you post a comment referring to a recent comment number?"
Well . . . no. No I didn't.
Oddly though, that didn't appear to be the cause of the "I can count to potato!" gaffe. I posted the big one (I'll just avoid numbers from now on), then came back about an hour later, saw the "Anonymous" tag and posted the little one. Came back a few hours later and there was nothing new. THEN came back about an hour later and your comment had popped in ahead of mine. There were at least two full PC shutdowns (including temp file wipes) in between the first and last step, so my cache would have been clear regardless I think. Although I'm probably wrong about that too.
Regardless, no I didn't know that, and yes I meant #39, not #38.
On the plus side, it looks like my "learn something new everyday" goal got hit pretty early today, so after finishing some final drafts for work I can start to enjoy MW2 guilt-free (thanks steet-date breaking vendors!).
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.11.2009 @ 15:36
Wasn't logged in -- I'd hate for Travis not to know it was me mocking him in comment #38 above.
Ah, the simple pleasures . . .
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 9.11.2009 @ 00:35
Utterly, totally, and completely off-topic . . .
Why doesn't the NFL recruit sumo wrestlers for offensive lines? I would think that somebody who has trained their entire lives to do nothing but push 400+ pound monstrosities back 8 feet would shred defenseive lines.
I can't be the first person to think this -- what am I missing?
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.11.2009 @ 13:45
@manning:
I'll agree that trying to kneecap the bill would be overall more effective than nips and tucks. Heck simply by dictionary definition alone completely killing the bill would be more "effective" than shaving bits off here and there (assuming "effective" is defined as "stoping it").
And even though it didn't come up, I'll agree that if you're putting your bets on a knockout blow, it damn well better be thrown with everything you have, so "Health care reform is teh debil!!" actually has some strategic value over "let's discuss this like grownups". Make the debate one about Good vs. Evil, life vs. death, liberty vs. death camps -- make that one knockout blow the absolute strongest you can by putting as much emotional force behind it as you can.
(I'm giving the Reds the benefit of the doubt here, that all this was calculated, which I think is debateable to put it charitably)
There is a positive to this strategy. But there is an inherent weakness to the knockout blow strategy -- if you don't knock your opponent out, you're screwed. You've got nothing else.
When my dad and I would watch boxing together, we always rooted for different fights. I always wanted the fighters to throw knockout blows, land one right on the button, and he always yelled at them to focus on body blows. Why should they, I asked? Hit the bastard in the midsection and he keeps coming!
"Chop down the trunk, and the tree will fall" he said.
Strategic hindsight is always 20/20. Given the hystrionics of the campaign, and given the timing of how soon this all started after Obama took office, I understand how the first criticism was "Demonspawn!". Unfortunately, that locked the GOP into a Hail Mary strategy of stopping the issue dead when (as Rick noted) they didn't possess the votes to stop it. They DID posses the votes to shape the bill, as evidenced by the negotiations that have (and will continue to) occur(ed) . . . but they didn't have the ammo to stop it dead. They needed an act of God. They threw a Hail Mary, and it didn't work.
Now, they've lost alot of those critical moderate Reds and Independents who were alienated by the strategy. Focusing on chipping away at the bill not only would help them "limit its damage" but it would have burnished their "fiscal responsibility" bona fides for the 2010 election cycle (and after their sterling budget watch performance 2000-06 they sure as hell need it).
(Again, I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they planned all this out, and didn't simply surf along with the partisan rancor in the air because it was the easiest path to media airtime).
Kill the bill, then do a full re-write along Conservative ideological lines isn't more practical in this scenario . . . because they're not in charge. That's a "best possible outcome" strategy, where even though they don't have majority control of either Legislative Branch (when this started they were at the absolute bare minimum to even filibuster) they were going to not only dictate what legislation went forward, but they were going to write it too. That's a "best case" outcome . . . but objectively looking at the votes on the Hill suggested that was staggeringly unlikely. If this WAS all planned out, then they severely under-estimated their opponents and their own power (and under-estimating Democrats on the Hill is pretty tough to do -- that bar is set reeeeeeeeal low).
If that was the plan, I admire their moxie, but IMHO they should have looked at this fight in the long-term. They didn't, and now they are weaker (loss of votes and respect among the non-fanatical public), with even less ability to have influence on future bills. After how much sycophantic pandering the Blues did on this and got sneered at, how much effort do you think the Blues will put toward bi-partanship during the next three years?
(Pathetically, the Blues will probably be just as weak and mousy next year too)
If the Hill Reds truly believed that this bill signals the destruction of America, the equivalent of genocide, then do what you must. But I don't believe they really think that. They don't like it surely, but they don't really believe that if they don't hold the line then America is doomed. They got greedy, and I think its going to bite them in the ass. Hard.
Comment Posted By busboy33 On 8.11.2009 @ 13:33
