Thursday, July 21, 2005

Dying To Win

Athough the revaluation of the Chinese Yuan is big news today, I am saving that discussion for later. In the meantime, I ran across a review of a new book by Robert Pape, Dying To Win, that deals with the motivation of suicide bombers. http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=6712

The author apparently analyzed all suicide attacks between 1980 and 2004 and reached the following conclusions:

Religious beliefs are less important than supposed. For instance, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, a Marxist secular group, are the world's leader in suicide terrorism. The largest Islamic fundamentalist countries have not been responsible for any suicide terrorist attack. None have come from Iran or the Sudan. Until the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Iraq never had a suicide terrorist attack in all of its history. Between 1995 and 2004, the al-Qaeda years, two-thirds of all attacks came from countries where the U.S. had troops stationed. Iraq's suicide missions today are carried out by Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis. Recall, 15 of the 19 participants in the 9/11 attacks were Saudis.

The clincher is this: the strongest motivation, according to Pape, is not religion but rather a desire 'to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory the terrorists view as their homeland.'


Wow - you mean they don't hate us because we have "freedom"? You mean they don't throw away the instinct of self-preservation just because "we" get to vote in elections? Could it really be that people of the world don't like foreign troops occupying their country and bombing them? Shocking.

People in the Semitic world have been making this point for years, but finally someone in America has gotten the point. I would hope that this data would set the record straight about Bush's dishonesty about the war in Iraq and the so-called "war on terror", but I suppose that anyone who worships Bush enough to take what he says on faith would not respond well to logic and data to the contrary (I swear, you would think Bush is the second coming of Christ with how obediently the Christian community follows his sayings - he's not a prophet people).

The media and the administration will continue to lie to the public with the "jealousy" explanation for terrorism in order to justify a perpetual war that serves no other purpose than to enrich Northrop-Grumman, Halliburton and other big contributors to the Republican party. This book, along with the Karl Rove scandal, the lies about WMD's and the complete disaster in Iraq illustrate the naivete of the American public who believe a man with NO military experience and a solid C average in school (who, along with most Americans, probably learned nothing in history) as he leads the country into military disaster and moral bankruptcy. Bush accused Kerry of flip-flopping in the elections, but Bush's only real talent as a President has been making up new bullshit as his previous lies are unveiled.



Luke 16:10
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much."

11 comments:

  1. Let it be more widely known that Kerry's grades at Yale were also recently released .... turns out he was a slightly worse student than W (W averaged a 76 ... Kerry a 73).... funny how no one made a big deal out of this story.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Probably because, despite the low grades, Kerry is articulate and is able to speak English. :-) At least he actually fought in a war instead of Bush, the panzie ass, who barks orders from thousands of miles away. People who are pro-war should be required to fight them.

    How did Kerry get into B.C. Law with those grades anyways? Isn't he alum? What does it mean to have a 73 average? What was his GPA?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yale does (or at least at that time, did not) use GPA's ... they used the standard numerical grading system, so 90's are A's, 80's are B's, 70's are C's, etc.

    In my opinion, being articulate is not the be-all, end-all, make-it or break-it indicator of a person's intelligence .... I myself am not a very articulate person, but I would take offense (rightfully, I believe) if I were judged to be a knucklehead primarily on the basis of my inability to sell ice to eskimos.

    You do make a point about W's combat avoidance during Vietnam ... but, have we forgotten about Clinton's draft-dodging? I'm not saying W is good or bad either way ... all I'm saying is we should be judging a person by the substance of their actions. If the government reinstituted the today, and called you up to serve in Iraq, are you telling me that if your dad could instead get you a slot in the National Guard, stationed in N'awlins, Louisiana, you'd head over to Iraq? If so,then I would say you have the right to criticize W with respect to that issue .... and let's not forget, there were a whole lot more GI's getting killed on a daily basis in Vietnam than they have been in Iraq to date.

    Howard Dean earned a lot of points with my when I saw his interview on Meet the Press several months back. He said, that although he does not share the same political or fiscal views as W, he respects W's willingness to put forth a position, and stick by it and to it. He criticized members of his own party for failing to do the same.
    As for Kerry getting into BCLS, I'm not sure BCLS necessarily had the reputation that it has now ... it was still a relatively new and unestablished law school ... so it probably wasn't that hard to get in.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hmmm.... I think the typos and missing words in my previous post prove my point about my not being very articulate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You are right, being articulate isn't the end all, be all. It simply provides an explanation as to why people pick on Bush's lousy grades and not Kerry's -- because Bush speaks like a moron.

    Whether Clinton was a draft dodger or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether or not I would serve is irrelevant. The point is that someone who has never seen the horrors of war is the last person who should exalt its virtues. It's called putting your money where your mouth is - or, more appropriately, putting your children (not someone else's) where your front line is. It's easy to love war when you get to sit at home drinking a beer.

    I have heard all that b.s. about Bush having convictions and sticking to them. So did Hitler. And so did Stalin, Mao and Mussolini. None of them waivered one bit from their views, regardless of what existed in reality. That is not honorable. That is psychosis.

    ReplyDelete