And let's not forget the 'smell' in New York city.

Biological/Chemical dispersion test? or

Extortion attempt?

probes indeed.

Yes, there have been an increasing number of them lately. The West has signalled confusion and weakness and the barbarians are emboldened thereby, I think.

#2

Efforts to derive such proximal "cause-and-effect" conclusions from what could be nothing but coincidences are worthless strategically and intellectually. So why engage in them?

And "barbarians"? It might be better if you keep your war propoganda language to yourself. Once again, it does nothing to help understand potential threats or plan responses. The term has been widely, and incorrectly, used down through the ages as an effort to dehumanize the "enemy" and justify treating them as sub-humans who should not be accorded the same human rights that we all deserve. This language can never serve a productive purpose in a civilized nation, and in fact helps to undermine the effort to prosecute conflicts in a manner befitting America (as if we need to sink even lower than we have alreaady under Bush).

'Barbarians' is a quite useful term semantically. It connotes groups who, not having achieved and sustained a settled civilization, benefit from attacks on those who have. Archaeologists have documented quite convincingly many of the occasions in which cities, states and civilizations have been brought to ruins by indiscriminate attacks of those sorts, often followed a short phase in which the attackers eke out a marginal existence on top of the ruins until there are few spoils to exploit any longer.

Terror attacks on the infrastructure of major cities and of civilizations fit a long pattern familiar to those who study history. It is precisely civilized nations who should take heed of that fact.

Your assertion that the term "does nothing to help understand potential threats or plan responses." is quite ill-informed and unreflective. Understanding that many of the terror plots parallel barbarian attacks on established civilizations prevents one from choosing responses which are better suited to rival nation states or to groups capable of establishing such states. Responses to those who have a stake in a nation's survival can and should differ from responses to those whose central aim is death and destruction alone.

I agree with Andy X, that the term barbarian should never be used to describe any group. For example, the Nazis should not be described as acting barbarically in WW2.

There is a much more nuanced understanding of their actions that can only be seen by sweeping aside terms like "barbaric" and then holding conferences of intellectuals in Teheran to uncover the truth about Nazi actions.

Could someone please explain to me this notion that equates our perceived spot along weakness/strength scale with a terrorist's willingness to be a terrorist and do what a terrorist does, particularly in light of the fact tham many, if not most, of these attacks involve the suicide of the terrorist.

Is there some belief out there that a terrorist or potential terrorist sensing weakness is somehow MORE inclined to blow himself up?

And while we are on the subject, what exactly do you think the aim, goal, mission, strategy of the 9/11 attacks were? They sensed the US was weak and so they struck....in order to achieve what?

Mark, to begin with, it's a mistake to equate "terror attack" with "suicide bombing". Many terrorists have no intention whatsoever of blowing themselves up while killing others.

The aim of many contemporary terror groups is to bring down Western civilization through a combination of damage to infrastructure (economic, physical, informational) and erosion of public morale. The latter is key -- where a nation or civilization is seen to be willing to defend itself, it is seen as less vulnerable to erosion of morale through violence. Indeed, such a civilization is likely to respond to attacks in exactly the opposite way -- by vigorously defending itself and pulling together in a shared cause.

But don't take my word for Al Qaeda's aims in the 9/11 attack. Read bin Laden's proclamations on the topic for yourself.

These are jihadists. If they simply wanted to kill themselves, they could do it in their own home. Still there are a number of targets, some more convenient and easier to attack than others. A failed attack is the worst of all possible worlds. Jihadists are seeking moral redemption that the blood sacrifice offers. If they fail and end up in a cage for the rest of their lives, they might wind up in Hell with the Jews.

So yes, the perception that the U.S. presents a target of opportunity for jihadists will encourage them to attack here.

PD, while what you say is true--and I don't think anyone would argue with it--it doesn't really address the questions I raised about how a percieved weakness by the terrorist increases the likelihood of attack. By weakness, quite obviously, we are not referring here to lack of adequate defense of a particular target, but of a lack of willingness to respond, to fight back, as it were.

Molon,
I didn't "equate "terror attack" with "suicide bombing" " In fact, I made the distinction in my post.

"The aim of many contemporary terror groups is to bring down Western civilization through a combination of damage to infrastructure (economic, physical, informational) and erosion of public morale."

Many? I don't think so. Most groups that use terror as a method have a particular political agenda they are trying to achieve, an indepedent Chechnya, e.g. or, say, Kashmir, Basque, Palestine, Sri Lanka. Most of the Jihadist groups, on the other hand, are trying to establish a fundamentalist Islamic state in the region where they live.

Bringing down western civilization? I should take bin Ladn's word for this? A lunatic? a psychopath. The point is, I think, that while the success of such a plan might hinge on our ability to defend against it--though I doubt it, as the plan itself is utopian---whether or not bin Ladn thinks we are weak will not affect what he does. They will not be emboldened if we were to withdraw from Iraq. We have not withdrawn from Iraq and they seem pretty damn emboldened as it is.

I understand that our augmented interrogation centers will soon be confirming the plans to poison the Leader's cold snack. (Bonus points for recognizing Koestler reference.)

And while we are on the subject, what exactly do you think the aim, goal, mission, strategy of the 9/11 attacks were?

If you don't take bin Laden's word on his aims, goals, mission and strategy for the 9/11 attack which he fostered, encouraged and for which he takes credit, whose analysis WOULD you take?

I would agree that the Basques and the networks in Sri Lanka are not aiming to defeat western civilization. Kashmir is a more complicated case. Keep in mind that Pakistan -- the "Land of the Pure (Islam)" -- was formed not only to give a Muslim government to Muslims, but also to be a base for promulgating Islam world wide. For many that means promulgating Islamicism. Terror is a tactic towards that goal and, while some Kashmiri attacks may have as their proximate aim the inclusion of Kashmir into Pakistan, that ties those attacks to a wider aim.

I don't go around breathlessly panicked about Islamacist terror attacks. On the other hand, it would be naive and foolish in the extreme to fail to take these people at their word, given that they have demonstrated a willingness and ability to follow up with action.

And yes, implicit in my argument is the assertion that Islamacism is incompatible with western civilization. The Islamacists think so, at any rate, and I think they're right on that point.

It's snark like that of Andrew Lazarus that tends to convince me that the West will indeed fall, sooner rather than later.

Perhaps it's for the best -- at this point, many in the West have neither the cultivation of the Byzantines nor the accomplishments of the Romans to leave behind. Pity about the others living here, but that's the way things go. Civilizations that lack the will to defend themselves tend to go down quickly.

"Bringing down western civilization? I should take bin Ladn's word for this? A lunatic? a psychopath."

Bin Laden is neither a lunatic nor a psychopath. He represents what the vast majority of Muslims, particularly those in the West feel. Muslim preacher after Muslim "moderate" after Muslim "conciliator" has been exposed (most recently on the UK's Channel 4) as preaching jihad, hate, violence, and the violent subjugation of the West into Sharia Law with a world-wide Islamic empire. By killing enough Westerners until they surrender as slaves to Muslims. Withdrawing from Iraq would be a massive signal to Muslims world-wide who are fighting to conquer: Thailand, the Philippines, Ethiopia, America, and Europe (vast areas of European cities are under defacto Sharia law and are no-go for non-Muslims).

Muslims cannot compete or even exist in the modern world (how can you be a success if you pray five times a day, beat your wives, practice polygamy .. which makes marriage an unobtainable dream for most young men, disparage science and technology, have a savage and primitive and barbaric set of rules including hanging rape victims, kill artists and writers and thinkers who say things you don't like, and keep half your population in bondage)?

But Muslims due to their tribal orientation and barbaric religion are VERY good at self-organized raids designed to kill as many people as possible and then demand bribes of one sort or another to avoid a repeat. That's the strategy of Al Qaeda, the French car-b-ques, Jihadis in the UK, and here at home (aided by the West's Red Jockey / Green horse PC Liberals).

Muslims see Multi-culti PC liberal weakness as a sign they can press for conquest which is what Islam is: a religion of conquest. Every teenage Muslim boy dreams of killing his kuffar neighbors, taking their property, and enslaving their young women as his sex slaves which is after all exactly what Mohammed did.

Did you not see "Islam will DOMINATE" or "God Bless Hitler" or "Behead those who insult Islam" or the young Muslim men in NYC stamping on the American Flag?

Look at China. Has it's own Muslim insurgency (Uighurs) yet no Muslim would dream of a 9/11 attack since Beijing would soon nuke Mecca and Medina without turning a hair.

I do not see this as centrally organized. What characterizes Al Qaeda from 1994-2001 as reported by the 9/11 Commission and others is a loosely affiliated amalgam of Muslim organizers like KSM and Ramzi Yusef who are related (Uncle and nephew respectively) and operate ad-hoc networks like Silicon Valley entrepreneurs with seed money from guys like Bin Laden or Zawahari.

Look at the London bombings: foot soldiers of Western Muslims who hate the West and it's ideals (mostly from wealthy families) and wish to kill as many as possible. Made dangerous by a few organizers who train them and set them off.

THAT is what we are seeing IMHO, and likely it will soon come to pass that they will be lucky while we are not.

But let's get serious. There is no great conspiracy. Simply the fact that Muslims cannot live in the same world as America. "All men are created equal" cannot exist with the Koran saying that they are most definitely NOT (kuffars are just there to be "taken" as slaves or killed at Muslims pleasure, so say Muslim Preachers in the West on tape in the movie Obsession.)

Lazarus makes the comments he does because he cannot comprehend that Muslims are not colorful Episcopalians or he subscribes to the fantasy of the Tudeh believing it could harness Khomeni then install themselves as the new Stalin. There are many in the West who hate the social and physical mobility that characterize it and desire nothing else than a Chavez-Castro dictatorship with themselves naturally holding the whip.

What you are likely to see is a new Committees of Vigilance. Korean Shop owners during the 1992 riots defending their own with shotguns and rifles writ large. Hungry young men are dangerous, but so are middle aged men facing ruin or poverty in exile or death and enslavement. A man facing the loss of everything can be capable of anything. See: Falling Down.

#4

'Barbarians' is a quite useful term semantically. It connotes groups who, not having achieved and sustained a settled civilization, benefit from attacks on those who have. "

And so how would you classify the killing of civilians by US service personnel in Haditha?

To many in Iraq and the terrorist groups emboldened by our efforts there, we are the Barbarians, are we not?

(My point is one of perspective, so keep your panties on before you go off pretending this last comment indicates support for this idea in any way.)

#5

You might as well have named yourself "Strawman" for that post.

Interesting choice of examples. Wasn't it der Fuhrer who promoted the extermination of Jews precisely because he was able to convince his people that they were subhuman? Barbarians has the same connotation, and I am concerned it is being used for similar purposes in this context.

And no, I do not think Hitler was a Barbarian. He was a violent sociopath. To me, that is not the same thing.

Perhaps Ms. (?) Burk wants to expand upon her definition, or even justify how she feels capable of coming to such sweeping conclusions in the total absence of evidence?

I take it you missed the very dry sarcasm inherent in comment #5, by one Joseph Goebbels.

And so how would you classify the killing of civilians by US service personnel in Haditha?

As unauthorized actions taken in the midst of an ongoing series of military operations, for which the perpetrators are being tried.

That sort of facile attempt at moral equivalence is - to put it mildly - unpersuasive.

"And so how would you classify the killing of civilians by US service personnel in Haditha?"

I would classify it as a matter still under the consideration of the courts. United States Marines, who have volunteered to risk their lives for the security of their fellow citizens, deserve the fullest expression of the legal presumption of innocence. We accord that much to those who have devoted their lives to preying on society; we might accord it to those whose lives have been devoted to its defense.

It is proper to wait to discuss this matter until the courts martial are finished with their work.

As for the other question you ask, which is a better one -- of course the West is viewed as barbarian by many Muslims, for having failed to adopt the Islamic way. For that matter, both are seen as barbarians by the Chinese. My Chinese name, given to me when I lived in Hangzhou, is Da HuXu, which is to say, "Big Beard." Yet the HuXu were a tribe of barbarians who lived in the west of China, and were famous for wearing beards. Thus, the name is really, "Big Western Barbarian."

I didn't take any insult, and still don't. From their perspective, it was a very apt description.

It's snark like that of Andrew Lazarus that tends to convince me that the West will indeed fall, sooner rather than later.

You don't think that after the next assault on the U.S., we'll be gunning for enablers such as Andrew Lazarus at the same time as we go after the barbarians?

Am I reading this wrong or is NahnCee saying that she'll hunt down with malicious intent Andrew Lazarus and other "enablers" if there is a second terrorist attack on US soil during this Republican President's term?

I note that none of the regulars here have yet to question the intent of this post.

If NahnCee is speaking literally, she's outside the bounds of acceptable discourse at Winds Of Chanbe as I understand them.

If she is speaking metaphorically, she is voicing the feelings of an increasing number of people who feel that the Left has done all it can to sabotage our success in the war on terror.

I personally wouldn't go quite that far, but I do think there has been an unacknowledged degree of roadblocking and subtle sabotage that has its roots back in the 90s and even earlier, in the 70s during and after Vietnam. I'm not denying the usefulness of politcal opposition and principle. But I note that there is a deep presupposition on the part of some, predominantly (but not wholly) on the Left, that western civilization is the main problem with the world and that defending it is unseemly at best and immoral at worst.

If she is speaking metaphorically then it is still outside the bounds of acceptable discourse here or anywhere else, as I understand them.

And let me correct you on one misperception, Molon. If this is her view, it is one of DECREASING popularity, thankfully. If you don't see this you're willfully blind or are a domestic terrorist enabler who should be hunted down like a rabid dog and put behind bars for the safety of your fellow peace-loving Americans.

Metaphorically speaking, of course.

We'll see how the popularity trend emerges, Andy.

I'm not too worried about that hunted down bit at this point. However, I am more than concerned about the degradation of civic discourse in this country, on both sides of the political spectrum, since 2000. And for that reason I share your concern about inflammatory rhetoric that divides us.

Uh, the "popularity trend" was just measured in a rather convincing way last November.

But keep your chin up, mate, there's still hope that the message of hatred of your fellow American will take widespread hold and Republicans can regain their choke-hold on our government.

I'm not so sure that the last election represents any convincing trend. We'll see.

By the way, since I'm older than many online, I've lived through alleged choke-holds on our government by the Democrats (for several decades) as well as by the Republicans (for several years). The Republic will survive this as well.

However, it may not survive openly expressed hatred. And sad to say, such hatred has been spewed far more often and with far greater venom from the Left than from the Right lately, with the exception of the Ann Coulter types who have never had my respect or my ear.

Oh, please, not that false meme again. The Right is far far worse than the Left when it comes to spreading hatred and venom openly in public. Not just Ann Coulter but Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Bil O'Reilly, Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, David Horowitz, and many bloggers like Powerline and Anti-idiotarian Rotweiler to name just two among a huge list of hate sites, but can now unfortunately include Winds of Change because of non-redacted or uncriticized (by the site owners) comments from Nahncee.

I could go on but there's really no point in beating a dead horse.

Just one observation on this last issue. Gore - for whom I voted in 2000 - set a nasty, corrosive and frankly poor example for the country with his bitter rejection of the election loss that year. I was around, and voting, during the Vietnam war, but not even then did the tone of the post-election period have the same damaging effect as did Gore's inability to accept that he had not been elected to the highest office.

The way in which many Democrats joined him, and exceeded him, in bitter and sustained rhetoric since has certainly affected my votes and those of many people I know. More seriously, it has affected the public discourse at a time when we face difficult decisions otherwise. Had Gore assumed a statesman-like role, the last few years would have been quite different, I think. And we all lose from that.

Based on his actions after the election, I am now quite glad Gore lost. That doesn't mean I like everything I see from the Republicans -- not at all. But there is a fundamental smallness in Gore that is not suited to executive leadership. The Ann Coulters and Ted Ralls of the world have a far more limited impact and while I dislike them both, I rather successfully ignore them most of the time.

Bullcrap. The election was stolen from Gore by the Supreme Court. He had every right to regret this for a while (even bitter, although that's a term loaded with negative connotations that are unjustified). In the end, I recall him being very graceful and calling for America to unite around Bush.

Furthermore, I think you're being either a little too honest or too flippant. After experiencing 6 years under the Frat-boy-who-would-be-king moron president, who has done next to nothing of any positive lasting value for Americans (just the opposite, obviously), you still say you're glad Gore lost BECAUSE of his "actions after the election"???

Smallness my ass...Bush is the smallest, most impetuous grown-up baby to occupy the White House in modern history. You must have fallen asleep after 2000. Wake the frig up.

Guys, "basta" as they say. This is devolving into a boring spat rather than any kind of useful discussion.

A.L.

Bush is the smallest, most impetuous grown-up baby to occupy the White House in modern history. You must have fallen asleep after 2000. Wake the frig up.

Andy X: I used to share Molon Labe's opinion, but you've convinced me. You and other Democrats really are all about trying to raise the tenor of political discourse.

Did you miss that period from 92-2000 a small man inhabited the presidency. His inability to focus on foreign policy led directly to where we are now (with a bunch of help from Bush 1 and crowd. The election was not stolen by the SC, they prevented it from being stolen by the Florida SC, but you know who cares. its been 6 years

Molon, I'm very curious: what exactly is it that Gore did or said following the election or since that has led you to form this opinion about him? I'm not talking, of course, about positions he has taken with which you disagree, but statements or activities that lowered the level of discourse below what it would have been without those statements or activities.

should I ductape myself into my home?? the sky is falling the sky is falling!!!!!

Re: #26 Andy

While everyone -- especially on the left -- loves to focus on the SC 5-4 decision to stop the recount in 2000, I would argue that a more significant decision they ruled on at the same time -- by a vote of 7-2, was that the lack of standardized recount rules across the state violated the Equal Protection Clause and was therefore unconstitutional.

The Court was more split on the remedy for this violation of the EPC. Two additional members, Breyer and Souter (a Bush Sr. appointee), agreed with Ginsburg and Stevens (a Ford appointee) that a remedy could be found via constitutional recount.

And for all the lefties out there who like to cite the Supreme Court at the time as 5-4 tipped to the right, let's not forget who appointed the 2000 members:

Rehnquist - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
O' Connor - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Stevens - Ford
Souter - Bush Sr.
Thomas - Bush Sr.
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

In other words, 2 of the "4" in the 5-4 decision were appointed by Republican Presidents. Would the left had said the Court tips to the left if one of the other five had voted otherwise? I doubt it. They would have gleefully shouted about how a "right-lenaing" Court stiffed a Republican POTUS candidate.

Lastly, if your boy Gore couldn't win -- by a mile -- when we had a solid economy and peacetime, then he didn't deserve to win. He basically lost a tie and it should have never been that close. Get over it.

Andy, let me take you back to your post #20 to point out that this country was founded by an unpopular minority who embarked upon significant changes that you seem to enjoy but not understand. While the number of people expressing the opinion that you and yours are damaging the country and the fabric that sustains it may appear to have decreased, the certainty of those who believe this is noticeably increasing.
The real question becomes, do you and yours really believe that you'll be any more successful this go around? Now granted, nobody is more violent than a peace protestor or one demanding more dole, but do you honestly believe the lefts continued narrow sighted pettiness will overcome the drive of those who actually effect change once they embark upon it?
And before you set the keys flying, please also consider the fact that those in opposition to the left are deliberately not named in the above post. One of the precursors to any significant social change is the notable presence of a demographic acting as a foil. That which is currently identified as “the left” in this country, within the west for that matter, is ideally positioned to act as such and the number of candidates lining up to take advantage of this fact is on the rise.

#32

I will not "get over it" after what Bush has done. Never. Nor should any thinking civilized person.

The media destroyed Gore for no better reason than they wanted to. He did not "deserve" that, nor does the rest of America "deserve" for the media to have such a strong influence on elections or be so incompetent. Bush won the closest election in history because they helped him hide his true face from the American Public, and the supremes decided on the outcome by throwing up some shaky legal argument and declaring him the winner. Furthermore, 9/11 did not change who Bush was. He was the same person after as he was before. Except now he had an excuse to act like the spoiled, ignorant little tyrant he always was.

Furthermore, your argument regarding the potential "right-wing" bias of the court serves no purpose in this debate. That's not a relevant point, and your raising this straw man only serves to illustrate your desire to find any excuse to refute my post, regardless of its relation to the point. Their decision to award the presidency to Bush, in effect, was biased, misplaced, and wrong, regardless of all of their affiliations. Some Dems voted for Bush, and some Republicans voted for Gore. So what? My only argument, clearly, is that those who voted for Bush were WRONG. Including the Judges. I can't tell you why they did it, but they did, and now all of America has to live with this mistake.

The founding fathers certainly thought we deserved better than this from the system they designed.

Brian;

Your post demonstrates nearly perfectly the psychological condition that afflicts many on the right, Projection.

LMAO! The Left is "hurting the country"! How, by opposing the Right Wing efforts to destroy it! Really this is too rich for words.

Y'know, you should all count yourselves lucky that most on the Left take a more charitable and humanitarian view of you Right Wingers than you do of us (or any other humans you disagree with, for that matter), because from where we sit, the damage you've already succeeded in doing to America and the world, including drastically increasing the chances of domestic terrorism and greatly reducing our ability to respond domestically, economically and militarily, you're the ones who should have targets painted on your backs and be heading for the hills.

That you're still around to write ignorant, angry piffle like this is a clear reflection of the superior appreciation for the wonder that is America by those on the Left...but I woudn't push it too much further if I were all y'all. You may end up getting what you're asking for.