Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
There are real monsters out there
Published on March 14, 2004 By Draginol In Politics

The political season brings out the worst in both sides. Too many people treat real world politics as a game. Not as a computer game, but a game of intellectual exercise. What they forget is that there are monsters out there. And once in a great while, a monster gets loose.

In the 20th century, Hitler and his ilk were allowed to run amok across Europe and besides the 30 million or so who died in actual in the war, another 12 million were executed simply because they weren't the correct race or creed. In Rwanda, nearly a million people were slaughtered for not being of the right tribe. That was only a few years ago.

You would think given these examples and others that people would recognize the obvious - there are monsters out there, and once in awhile, a monster gets a hold of the means to do great harm. Al Qaeda is one such monster. But you wouldn't know that based on some of the things you hear. The bombing in Spain seems to have woken up some people in Europe finally. Which is ironic because what happened in Spain was trivial compared to 9/11.

Luckily, adults are in charge. The kids can go hang out on-line or protest somewhere but the adults are the ones making the real decisions. And for them, they understand what Al Qaeda and its ilk really is. So let me share with you what the goal of Bin Laden is: The complete and total transformation of all the world to Islam. Those who are willing to be subjugated to their laws (Islam's not just a religion, it's a form of government) will be spared. Those who resist will be killed. It's that simple. The United States was attacked because it represents the largest obstacle to that goal.

Some people will say "Well, the US had that base in Saudi Arabia and if we hadn't had that, maybe he wouldn't have attacked." And why were we in Saudi Arabia? Because we were asked to by the government of Saudi Arabia. Why? Because Iraq had recently invaded Kuwait and wanted US presence in the area "just in case". We weren't there as part of some sort of imperialistic crusade. We were there to help protect others. Just like we did in Korea (and South Korea was a rural society in 1949, so don't delude yourself into thinking that was about some natural resource). And it's irrelevant anyway. Sooner or later we would have been targeted. Lucky they had to strike sooner, before they had nuclear weapons, rather than later so that we can begin actively resisting them now.

Al Qaeda makes it clear that it will do anything, and I mean anything to bring about its goals. It will kill innocents wholesale.  We should take them very seriously. Seriously enough to consider how 9/11 might have been with chemical or biological or nuclear weapons. And then perhaps the kids who treat this all as some far off intellectual game might come to understand maybe why Saddam had to be removed from power rather than fixating on whether he had actual stockpiles on hand at the end.

I wasn't willing to gamble the life of my wife and children to placate some college student or some European intellectual in Belgium. I know, and continue to know, that Al Qaeda will use whatever it has to murder people in large numbers to reach its publicly stated goals. And if Iraq didn't have WMD on hand, I don't care, because I do know what his intent was and what it was in the long term. I have always known that which is why I supported the war regardless of whether stockpiles were found. I understood and continue to understand that Iraq was part of the war on terror.

But not everyone understands because to them, it's still just a game. But it's not a game to Al Qaeda. To them, it's serious. Deadly serious.

Consider Bin Laden's own statement to the American people:

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions....

call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest...

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator...

You are the nation that permits Usury, which has been forbidden by all the religions. Yet you build your economy and investments on Usury. As a result of this, in all its different forms and guises, the Jews have taken control of your economy, through which they have then taken control of your media, and now control all aspects of your life making you their servants and achieving their aims at your expense; precisely what Benjamin Franklin warned you against...

The full text can be found here.

The first thing Al Qaeda wants is the full conversion to Islam. He makes that clear. This isn't US propaganda. This isn't George Bush trying to scare you. This is what Al Qaeda specifically wants. This is what all the killing has been about. 

You can tell it's a game to some people because the same people who argue against US resistance to Al Qaeda are the people who would suffer the most under the rule of Islam.  The same people who can jump from one discussion supporting gay marriage or telling everyone that was unhappy about Janet Jackson's breast exposure should "get a life" are the ones who will then go on and say that he has a lot of good points.  Huh? They'll post how capital punishment is a "human rights violation" while pretending to understand that to be gay under Islam is to be executed? That usury (that's borrowing with interest) would be banned? You have a mortgage? A car payment? A credit card bill? Forget it.  In Iran, for instance, Janet Jackson would have been executed by the government, if she were lucky. Stoned to death if she were not. But some people will put Al Qaeda and the US on morally equal grounds? Clearly, these are unserious people arguing about serious things.

And don't forget that paranoid Jew hating thrown in there, just to make sure that there's no mistake about the would-be Fuhrer's intentions are.

But some people see all this is just another playing card in their game of philosophical objection to the United States or its leaders. So soft and so naive that they write from their places of luxury as if there really are no monsters out there. To them, George Bush is "the monster" even though they have no understanding of what real monsters would do to them.  They think it's all part of some quest for oil or <insert natural resource X here>. Or imperialism or whatever. It's not. It's about our way of life. Our existence outrages them.

These people want to eliminate our way of life. They find our way of life appalling.  They find it immoral and dishonorable. And they plan to make us change it either by voluntarily converting ourselves to their way or by killing every man, woman, or child that resists or may resist them. We're not just fighting some ideology or some far away concept. We're fighting for our lives.

You can't negotiate with a side whose primary demand is that you cease to exist. You can't ignore people who are working towards gaining the means to kill increasing numbers of people. You can't wait until it's a mushroom cloud over your city to act. Al Qaeda and its ilk were not created by the CIA or some American group as some smug yet ignorant people seem to think. I say smug because it demonstrates an arrogance -- that other peoples are incapable of putting together such a movement and such an organization on their own. They believe in what they're doing. They believe they're doing God's work and the only way they'll be stopped is if someone stops them.

Thankfully, the adults are in charge. Regardless of who wins in November, don't kid yourself that the US will change its course. Both candidates, luckily, know that there are monsters out there that have to be dealt with.


Comments (Page 2)
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last
on Mar 15, 2004
This is a terribly condescending article with a extremely conservative perspective. It's leaning to the right to the point it's almost as biased as some of those "left-wing" college kids you speak of. So with the argument you've taken up is it safe for me to assume that you believe Bush has done a flawless job with domestic issues and foreign policy is it not? If not you must excuse me but that is the impression that you have left. Although the war on terrorism must be fought and it would be foolish to postpone action, that doesn't mean that we should allow the government to make critical mistakes in the process. I am trying to look at the whole picture and even though I dislike what Bush has done with domestic issues he does have very strong morals and makes decisions with a firm stand. With that said my opinion is that he has still made more errors in-house than I would like to see in our next President. The sad part is the alternative (Kerry) has no real definitive stances on key issues. Kerry hasn't really elaborated on how he would reduce the budget and how he plans on improving trade. The question within myself is whether even a mediocre replacement would be better. The continued threat of Al-Qaeda is one that can be ongoing for a long period of time and a better foreign policy will be needed as well as keeping important issues like the economy stable here in the states and Bush is not cutting it at the moment. Believe what you want but these are important concerns and to dismiss them and place complete emphasis on this war can have ravaging effects. The world is vastly different than 60 years ago and World War II. This is a new world and this war cannot be put into the same context as past wars as this is not one single nation that we are defending against but a number of different people who have the same beliefs. For you to say that any act of terrorism is trivial goes to show that you are somewhat biased yourself. Any loss of people is terrible crime and this war will get uglier. I agree with Bush's goal to get rid of terrorism but I do not agree with the path he has taken. Feel free to disagree
on Mar 15, 2004

Bush never said Iraq was involved 9/11, BulbousHead.


psychx: You said you don't agre with the path Bush has taken but you don't suggest an alternative. That is kind o the crux of my article - it's easy to complain about Bush when you don't have to provide an alternative.

on Mar 15, 2004
psychx, how would you propose we go about getting rid of terrorism? What does Kerry really offer as far as foreign support is concerned? We aren't in Iraq by ourselves like a lot of people seem to believe. We don't need to pander to countries that aren't willing to sacrifice for freedom.

BTW, with a blog called "Right Wing Techie" you shouldn't be surprised with an "extremely conservative perspective"
on Mar 15, 2004
Bush never said Iraq was involved 9/11, BulbousHead.


Directly, no, he didn't. But polls of the American people repeatedly showed that the public believed that Iraq was involved with September 11. Let me know how you plan to blame that on the liberal media.
on Mar 15, 2004
Of course you didn't answer my question first, but I will answer you. Kerry is the alternative obviously but I think he would be a better alternative than reelecting Bush. Kerry is open to improving foreign relations. He plans to cut taxes for the rich and really anything he could do would be better than what Bush has done with domestic issues. Also, no where in this article did you ask for an alternative, but mainly you gave support to what Bush has done...
on Mar 15, 2004
Do the bloggers of Joe User understand how Islam began?
Islam, "The Straight Path", is the revelation of God's final decree to mankind, Mohammed the prophet "channeled" the word of God
and dictated the Koran.
Muslims truly believe that the Koran is the literal words of God.

Mohammed states that Moses was the first prophet, revealing to the Jews God's laws. The Jews then twisted and perverted those laws to their own utility.
Then Mohammed says that Jesus was also a prophet, he again gave mankind the laws of God, which were ignored or perverted.
Then Mohammed went to the mountain, where God revealed to him, the third prophet, God's final chance for humankind to get it right.

Remember, everything written in the Koran is considered the actual words of God, so there is no room for doubt, or translation.
Mohammed was directed to form a klan, to go forth and preach, convert, and spread the word.
His teachings and conversions were not just religious, but dictated a social form as well, no separation of state, but a state within the religion. Islam means " straight path", and any deviation from that path is sinful.

All of this transpired in the 7th century, during the decline of the Middle East, and before the Rise of Europe.

Tribal warfare was rampant and the introduction of Islam became a controling force. As the religion spread, so did intolerance of other religions, and offshoots of Islam itself ( see sunni, shi'ia, wahabbi ) the politics of assasination was constant in the formative decades of Islam, and the Calif's ruled supreme.

I have studied Islam for several years, and it is not appropriate to provide a disertation in this space, sufficient coverage should go into another blog.
Suffice it to say, The Koran states that the infidel ( non-muslim ) is to be converted or disgarded to the wastelands. This has been inturpreted to mean anything from ignored to illiminated.

Muslims believe they are right, and those who do not follow the straight path are wrong, how radically they enforce those standards are matters of politics.

Politics as it is, Radical Islamist pervade the institutions of Government, religion, and education. Sponsor Governments underwrite the Madrasas that foment the hatred of the non-muslim world, thus perpetuating the supply of Ossama's terrorist.
Many would find that this sponsorship of hatred is a ruse, or smokescreen, developed to keep attention away from the ruling parties in the middle east as they continue to reap fortunes from the tribal lands, all the while blaming "the west" for social ills and decline.

I appoligize, I'm rambling, but this religion should scare all of you with it's mission........
on Mar 15, 2004
Directly, no, he didn't. But polls of the American people repeatedly showed that the public believed that Iraq was involved with September 11. Let me know how you plan to blame that on the liberal media.


Unless Bush participated in those polls, I don't see how he's saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11, directly or indirectly.
on Mar 15, 2004
Larry Kuperman: I thank you for your pointed observation of Islam. Americans need to be more studied in thier views of this religion. It is, by its nature, an aggressive and expansive religion. A study of the founder and the times in which he lived, shows the reason for his success in establishing his religion.

Sadly, today we also have to deal with the fact that a group of fanatics of the Jewish faith are the other side of the violence equation, decimating the Middle East. Those who are receiving our tax dollars and killing Moslems as their God-given right have to be dealt with also. I do not think either Candidate of the Republicrat Party will address but one side of the issue. (Neutrality has not hurt Sweden these last couple years.) We will be having our best and brightest dying and being maimed for another four years at least, under these two parties.
on Mar 15, 2004
Unless Bush participated in those polls, I don't see how he's saying that Iraq was involved in 9/11, directly or indirectly.


Then where did people get the idea?
on Mar 15, 2004
The Bush Administration HAS linked Iraq and al Qaeda--see the quotes below taken from a March 11, 2003 CNN.com article entitled "Selling an Iraq al Qaeda connection."

"These al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they've been operating freely in the capital for more than eight months," said U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell in his presentation last month to the U.N. Security Council.

During testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in mid-February, CIA Director George Tenet added, "Iraq has, in the past, provided training in document forgery and bomb-making to al Qaeda. It has also provided training in poisons and gases to two al Qaeda associates."


By making this link, the Administration is hoping that the American people make the logical conclusion--an Iraq al Qaeda connection would reasonably mean that Iraq had a hand in September 11th--did they flat out say it, no...but did they make statements that lead to this conclusion--yes.
on Mar 15, 2004
psychx, how would you propose we go about getting rid of terrorism? What does Kerry really offer as far as foreign support is concerned? We aren't in Iraq by ourselves like a lot of people seem to believe. We don't need to pander to countries that aren't willing to sacrifice for freedom.


Terrorism is a huge threat that we must involve as many nations as we can to fight it. It is arrogant to think that we should take on it alone with a few allies. Domestic issues are horrendous right now and mostly Bush is at fault here with his policies on tax cuts, education, and employment. The economy is rebounding naturally but what about the other important things which he has neglected should we forget them? It's a very heavy burden to take on terrorism without the support from other nations and I think it is crucial to involve them atleast somewhat.
I see the right-wing thing but I am always shocked by the arrogance of the people that consider themselves that are right wing
on Mar 15, 2004
So with the argument you've taken up is it safe for me to assume that you believe Bush has done a flawless job with domestic issues and foreign policy is it not?<--------------no one has yet answer that simple question
on Mar 15, 2004
Whould it not be cheaper to send in the CIA and simply have the leaders(and the brains) of Al Qaeda shoot ?

Was war with iraq to urgent to explain it to the UN?
Was it better to go at it alone(exept the ass-kissers) and piss everybody off with the arrogant way?

The fact that war makes good re-election politics is a more probable reason for the urgancy then "Iraq has WMDs"..
on Mar 15, 2004
Ah classic strawman arguments abound. Nothing quoted above implies that Bush ever linked Saddam to 9/11. Bush has outright stated that Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11.  Saddam had some contact with Al Qaeda but that doesn't jump to meaning that they were involved with 9/11.
on Mar 15, 2004
Ah classic strawman arguments abound. Nothing quoted above implies that Bush ever linked Saddam to 9/11.


I ask again: Then where did the public get the idea?
9 Pages1 2 3 4  Last