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 3)
9 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last
on Mar 15, 2004

psychx writes: 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...


You believe Kerry would do better because...you're just sure he would? The only way Kerry would do better would be to not act in the US's best interests. Frankly, I don't really have any time to waste on people who were against action in Iraq. They'll move on to their next futile protest based on naivete and ignorance. Similarly, I don't really care whether Germany and France like our foreign policy or not.  My interest is in making sure that we're safe. And most Americans support and continue to support our action in Iraq. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I'm okay that France didn't like it. Not all of us believe that surrendering is a strategic option.


I say to you again: You have not pointed out an alternative strategy. You pointed out a person who has simply said "I willl do things that make other countries happier with us." Without any specifics. What if his actions involve advocating for the ICC, signing the Kyoto treaty, and other such nonsense?


I guess I've never understood the bizarre obsession some people have with worrying whether certain European countries like us or not. You know, a lot of our ancestors left Europe to get away from its nonsense. Yet some people still worry what they think. It seems to me that events have demonstrated that continental Europe's political class are not exactly the ones to take guidance from when it comes to diplomacy, economics, or..well pretty much anything. Or more specifically, France and Germany.

on Mar 15, 2004

BulbousHead: It's not up to me to prove where the public got the idea that Saddam was involved with 9/11. Just like it's not my job to explain why some peopel think that it was about "OIIILLL!" or whatever imaginary justification they came up with.  Heck, you have people on this very site trying to argue that Reagan or at the very least the US was somehow involved in the "Creation" of Osama Bin Laden. People believe lots of things without much rational reason.

on Mar 15, 2004
BulbousHead: It's not up to me to prove where the public got the idea that Saddam was involved with 9/11.


I wasn't asking for iron-clad proof; I was asking for your hypothesis as to what explanation might exist.

It's tough when you can't say "the liberal media," isn't it!
on Mar 15, 2004
Ok, try this then--its from CBC News

President George W. Bush sent Congress a formal justification for invading Iraq Wednesday, citing the attacks on the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001.

The document was delivered hours before the military strike against Saddam Hussein began.


The three-paragraph note justifying war said diplomacy has failed to guarantee America's security.

The Constitution gives Bush authority to "take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on Sept. 11, 2001," the note said.

White House spokesperson Sean McCormack said the reference is to Iraq. Bush has said Iraq has links with al-Qaeda, the organization blamed for the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington.


on Mar 15, 2004
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.


yep, i wonder about that as well. it´s pretty clear that Al Quaeda fights the liberal aspect of western culture, while it has much in common (morals wise) with conservative US American Christians. confusing.

btw.: people don´t "think" that war was about oil. they know it (actually everybody on this planet outside of the US and Downing St. 10)
on Mar 15, 2004
and it's in public law--PL 107-243: The Joint Resolution To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq

PL 107-243 states

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations; ...

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;


I think that you will find it hard to continue to deny that the Administration linked Iraq to al Qaeda and 9/11...

on Mar 15, 2004
Yeah, I was and still am a conflicted hawk on Iraq--not that I thought war was a great option, but that all the other options were worse. But I always felt the administration was exaggerating the evidence, even before the war. Personally, I think that Bush really did feel that war was necessary, so he tried to present the strongest case for war possible. And at times that meant that he relied on shaky evidence.
on Mar 15, 2004
You believe Kerry would do better because...you're just sure he would? The only way Kerry would do better would be to not act in the US's best interests. Frankly, I don't really have any time to waste on people who were against action in Iraq. They'll move on to their next futile protest based on naivete and ignorance. Similarly, I don't really care whether Germany and France like our foreign policy or not. My interest is in making sure that we're safe. And most Americans support and continue to support our action in Iraq. I'm glad Saddam is gone. I'm okay that France didn't like it. Not all of us believe that surrendering is a strategic option


Frankly, I think a monkey would do better than Bush that's being honest. I would rather take a shaky democrat then a republican who is slowly deteriorating the country. I am going with what Kerry has stated and what stances he takes on policies. I don't know about what you see that Bush has done so far but his domestic issues are terrible. I never said I was against action in Iraq you just assumed, in fact I stated I agreed with his goal just not with the path. I am not a die hard democrat I just see what is going on and how Bush is letting big business get away with a lot of dirty things. He hasn't done anything with outsourcing, education nothing good domestically. You speak of ignorance yet you can't answer my question. As far as foreign policies, are we going to ignore the rest of the world without care and expect to win such a enduring war? I don't think you could point out an alternative strategy but any other strategy would be better than Bush's domestic strategy. I am not against action with Iraq I am against the means that he is using to get what he (Bush) wants. I think you leave no room for criticism which is a fault for anyone because everything can always be improved. You shouldn't just dismiss everything you don't agree with. I agree that you have a right to be safe and protect your children but what about your children's future?
on Mar 15, 2004
I guess I've never understood the bizarre obsession some people have with worrying whether certain European countries like us or not. You know, a lot of our ancestors left Europe to get away from its nonsense. Yet some people still worry what they think. It seems to me that events have demonstrated that continental Europe's political class are not exactly the ones to take guidance from when it comes to diplomacy, economics, or..well pretty much anything. Or more specifically, France and Germany.


This is how every conservative that is brainwashed into believing everything they hear says. "Oh forget europe go U.S." thats what it sounds like
on Mar 15, 2004
I find it interesting that there are nations out there that TRULY believe if they keep their hands clean, the threat will go away. You are either for them, or against them. Ther'es no neutral ground here. The enemy may have a pecking order, but seriously, if they have an opportunity to take out 'the enemy' with minimal casualties, you think they'll wait? I don't think so. Spain. 1200 soldiers in Iraq (if I'm not mistaken). And they were targeted? To me, the scariest part is that Spain is shelling up. The message they are sending, "Ok, you win, we'll bring our soldiers home and not bother you any more." To me, that just provokes Al-Queda more. Look, we got a reaction. Hit them again! I think it's going to taked a few more hits around the world before peole governments realize they aren't immune to the issue.
on Mar 15, 2004
shadesofgrey: Thanks for this factual, historical, irrefutable information. Brad has been a revisionist on this matter since Bush started taking a dive in the polls due to there being no WMD, and revelations as to Haliburton & friends profiteering on the war, with President Bush insisiting he would veto any American tax money sent to Iraq if it had to be repaid to Americans. We are now over 100 Billion and the estimates are they want to deprive us of some 300 billion before they are done with this scam.

Here we have a refutation using facts. You'll see the revisionists leave this blog now, as they have once again failed to manipulate us away from the facts.
on Mar 15, 2004
Frankly, I think it will take at least one mushroom cloud to focus this generation on the price of freedom. I still cry about 9/11, sometimes randomly, since I'm a native New Yorker, but I don't think enough lives were lost or people maimed (so they can talk about their horrible injuries) to advertise the obvious.

We might get that cloud (the "winds of black death" that Al-Qaida keeps saying is imminent), and although it's stomach-churningly horrible to contemplate, hopefully next time will be the last time.

One other thing, for those who slam Bush for his domestic policy, try to calculate how much money America lost in the wake of 9/11. Now look at the markets and how they went right back up. Now look at the Spain bombing and see the markets dip down again - and that wasn't even this country. If there is another attack, US investors and corporations are going to post-9/11 it again and not hire, not expand, not invest. It will be utterly disasterous for our economy. Try to imagine how that will be handled by Kerry if he wins - and makes the economy super fantastic - only to see Boston hit with a dirty bomb and have the economy go right to hell.

I can already imagine it. He'll blame Bush. He'll blame the "arrogant unilateral" policy of his predecessor. He'll promise to bring the culprits to justice and then, exactly like Clinton, do nothing.
on Mar 15, 2004
I thought it was interesting that there was no response...so much for my
classic strawman arguments




on Mar 15, 2004
Wahkonta, there is a difference between stating facts and discerning which of them are relevant. I have to admit, if I have to pick between going to war to get oil and demonstrate our resolve, even if Halliburton is profiteering, and the pre-Bush policy of do-nothing (USS Cole, Embassy bombings, 1st WTC bombing - we did nothing), I'm going to pick the war every time.
on Mar 15, 2004
Wahkonta, there is a difference between stating facts and discerning which of them are relevant.


The fact was very relevant--Brad was arguing that the current Administration never linked Iraq to al Qaeda--the only way to refute that is with facts (which was provided in PL 107-243).

Why is it that when I make a claim that other joeusers disagree with I'm either "ignoring the facts," "a crazy leftist," or making "strawman arguments." But when other make a claim that is refuted by government documents "we need to take a look whether or not the facts are relevant." Come on.
9 Pages1 2 3 4 5  Last