Islamofascism is like Pinky and the Brain - Jay Maynard

> Recent entries
> Calendar view
> Friends page
> User info
> Jay's web page

Tuesday, 18 October 2005


Previous Entry Share Next Entry
0748 - Islamofascism is like Pinky and the Brain

A National Guardsman from Minnesota lays out the case for war in Iraq, and points out the true aim of Islamofascism in the process. Narf.

current mood: [mood icon] amused

(18 comments | Leave a comment)

Comments:


[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
so, um. why did it take so long to say that? And why Iraq? if it is islamofascism we are fighting, there are more appropriate targets than a (granted, despicable) secular dictatorship.

it should also be noted that many of us fear that "trying to take over the world" is the point of the bush administration, too.

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
so, um. why did it take so long to say that?

Buh? People have been saying that for a very long time now. If you haven't heard it, it's because you haven't been paying wide-enough attention.


if it is islamofascism we are fighting, there are more appropriate targets than a (granted, despicable) secular dictatorship.

No, there aren't. The *best* place to start is the place where an opposing force to Islamofascism is *most* likely to get a foothold and succeed. Iraq was relatively secular, relatively mercantile, and had a comparatively well-educated population. You start where you're most likely to succeed, not least.
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
And not, say, where has already gotten a foothold and succeeded?

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Like where?
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Libya, Sudan, Iran, Saudi Arabia.

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Sudan.

The one country on the planet which openly tolerates slavery, and you use it an example of a country in the Middle East where democracy has already gotten a foothold and succeeded?

Near as I can figure, we're using the same words, but speaking different languages.
[User Picture]
From:vakkotaur
Date: - 0000
(Link)

What you wrote:
...place where an opposing force to Islamofascism is *most* likely to get a foothold...

What he seems to have read:
...place where an opposing force to Islamofascism is *most* likely to get a foothold...

[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Agh yep. Missed a few words. But seriously - why are we attacking a country to strengthen it? we're much better at attacking to weaken. That is, after all, the point. The Brains are now using Iraq to create Pinkys, to continue the analogy. Why have we given them a propaganda point and not gone after places that, you know, actively sponsor islamofascism?

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:shelbystripes
Date: - 0000
(Link)
If we'd focused on going after "the Brain", and capturing Osama, instead of putting so many resources into this distracting war in Iraq that's only fuelling the creation of more "Pinkys", then maybe the hard part of the war would be over by now.

That article says the same thing I've been saying for a while, except it fails to point out that you go for the head and we failed to do that.
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
except it fails to point out that you go for the head

Buh?

Quick, name the last war where anyone did that. I'm going all the way the hell back to Trafalgar. Although I guess the IRA mortar attack on the PM's residence would probably count.

The whole point of self-perpetuating organizations is that heads are interchangable. Kill a head? So what. Whether he's dead or not, and the evidence is pretty clear that he's dead, Osama's a non-issue. Other people have stepped forward to take his place.

Al Qaeda is merely a single agent of the overall organizational structure and ideological base which we are at war with. Saying we should have focused our efforts on killing the head of Al Qaeda would be a bit like, in 1941, saying we should have concentrated all our efforts on killing Heinrich Himmler, instead of working to defeat Germany.

[User Picture]
From:korgmeister
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Isn't that cute. People still think Osama Bin Laden is relvant as anything other than a figurehead.
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Getting Osama would give us closure on 9/11, but it would not end the war. Islamofascism and its terrorist methodology will not end when we wipe Al-Qaeda from the face of the planet. We must also go after state sponsors of terrorism - and yes, that does include Iraq.
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
why are we attacking a country to strengthen it?

Um...

because the issue isn't how "strong" or "weak" a nation is.

we're much better at attacking to weaken.

Are you even capable of thinking non-linearly? Replacing Hussein's dictatorship with a modern and friendly democratic state would serve very well to weaken the House of Saud, as well as the theocracy that controls Iran.

Read Whittle's essay I linked to above. Please.

Why have we given them a propaganda point and not gone after places that, you know, actively sponsor islamofascism?

You keep asking the same question.

You attack your adversary where he is weakest. If you can't defeat him where he is weakest, you're sure not going to defeat his strongholds, are you? Iraq was the most secular and Westernized of the fascist Middle Eastern states, and on that basis alone, even discounting other strategic considerations that supported it as a target, it's the place we were most likely to succeed in our goals.

My God. We're playing chess, and you're still trying to figure out the rules to Connect Four.
[User Picture]
From:unspeakablevorn
Date: - 0000
(Link)
because the issue isn't how "strong" or "weak" a nation is.

Sure it does. By removing the military and civilian security forces that were doing just fine holding Iraq's terrorism level down and replacing them with our own, we have weakened Iraq's position in the war on terror, and that weakness is now being used against us.

You attack your adversary where he is weakest.

We have attacked our enemy where he is not, and given him a place to become strong.

If you can't defeat him where he is weakest, you're sure not going to defeat his strongholds, are you?

Certainly not. But, then, we have not even tried. We have instead attacked a place that has no truck at all with islamofascism, and essentially handed it over to them as a training ground.

Iraq was the most secular and Westernized of the fascist Middle Eastern states

"Fascist Middle Eastern" is not "Islamofascist".

...and on that basis alone, even discounting other strategic considerations that supported it as a target, it's the place we were most likely to succeed in our goals.

Except that we have not succeeded in our goals, and will continue to not succeed as long as we allow our opponents to play this off as Islam v. America. Terrorism runs on propaganda, and we are giving them all the propaganda they need by attacking a country without crystal clear support from the entire world. Had we attacked Sudan instead we would have had the present genocide, the slavery, and several other considerations that would have given the US a more complete mandate to do so. Instead, it's Bush the Devil acting alone, and it's not helping.

Vorn
[User Picture]
From:jmaynard
Date: - 0000
(Link)
There was most certainly a connection between Iraq and islamofascist terrorism. It's all neatly laid out in this series of articles linked from the article I linked to in the main entry:

The Connection, part I / part II / part III / part IV / part V / part VI / part VII
[User Picture]
From:korgmeister
Date: - 0000
(Link)
Tee Hee! He thinks the security forces in Iraq were working against terrorists.

Wherever on earth do people get such outlandish ideas?
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
I have no idea.

Hussein's security forces were interested in one thing: Keeping Hussein in power.

That means they'd kill terrorists when doing so would help keep Hussein in power. That means they'd support terrorists when doing so would help keep Hussein in power.

The notion that they were working against terrorists for any other reason is absolutely risible.
[User Picture]
From:phanatic
Date: - 0000
(Link)
We have instead attacked a place that has no truck at all with islamofascism

Uh...what?

In addition to Hussein being quite public in his financial support for Palestinian suicide bombers, it's a point of historical fact that he was sheltering known Islamic terrorists like Abu Abbas, the man who planned the Achille Lauro hijacking, and who was captured by US forces in Iraq after the invasion, and Abu fucking Nidal.

If you were unaware of that, you clearly don't understand what's doing on.


> go to top
LiveJournal.com