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 5)
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last
on Mar 15, 2004
Shades, as I said, you can live easily without getting shouted down for your beliefs. Almost all the mainstream websites, TV stations, magazines and newspapers are on your page. By that I mean you will easily hear "there were no WMDs" and "Bush lied" and "arrogant USA" in all of those media outlets over and over.

For instance, I would be happy to sit down in front of the TV and watch any channel but Fox (and maybe even Fox) abd pay you ten dollars for every time we heard "Bush said we could not wait for Iraq to become an imminent threat", if you give me a quarter for every time we see someone say "Bush told us we were going to war because Iraq was an imminent threat"

The endless phrases "rush to war" and "Iraq occupation" and "no WMDs" are like an endless drone from the media that I cannot escape from. You can. You think this -internet forum- is bad? This is nothing.

Try imagining a world where you pass a newsstand and see headlines like "2,000 Terrorists Dead!" or "Iraq Free, Libya repentant, Iran next!" or "Bush Remains Vigilant" and imagine how you'd feel.

Vincible - "found to be fake" and "probably a fabrication" mean different things.
on Mar 15, 2004
Try imagining a world where you pass a newsstand and see headlines like "2,000 Terrorists Dead!" or "Iraq Free, Libya repentant, Iran next!" or "Bush Remains Vigilant" and imagine how you'd feel.


Please. When the war was in full swing, the media was in love with it. What sells papers and attracts viewers more than things getting blown up?

I don't know how you can complain about the phrase "no WMDs" because so far, there are no WMDs. This is a statement of fact, not rhetoric. Many people, including myself, opposed the war because they thought it was a bad idea, but now, many people who supported the war are upset that the President's original reasoning for it seems to be a load of shit. Sure, some of us have disliked Bush all along, but some of the fence-sitters are realizing that they were duped.
on Mar 15, 2004
Kerry is the alternative obviously


A person is not an alternative. A plan of action is an alternative. How would you negotiate with someone who doesn't care what you say? How would you barter with someone who will strap a bomb on their body and blow themselves up so they can go to heaven and have plenty of virgins at their beck and call? I don't think you can offer them anything better, which is the crux of negotiation. Bartering or negotiating does not work on someone willing to die for what they believe in.

VES
on Mar 15, 2004
Bulbous, thanks for making me fully appreciate how lucky I was to be responding to someone like Shades.

*sigh* Everyone in the world -thought- he had active WMDs. There is/way no doubt he had WMDs because he had already USED them. His own government released records (remember the 12-16,000 page report they dumped on us) that showed that some of their chemical weapons were unaccounted for. I could go on and on. You don't care anyway. For you, the "fact" is that as of this moment (today) no substantial WMD have been found in Iraq. It doesn't matter to you that there used to be, or that maybe they were moved or destroyed. For you, the fact (I am not disputing your fact) that there are none right now is enough to make judgements.

Sadly, even if they had found WMDs, you would still be against the war. It would be because of cost, or because of collateral damage, or .. well, you know better than me. You just found something you can parrot over and over and feel righteous about. No WMD! No WMD!

If I bring up how many Iraqi citizens died because of US sanctions, would you care? If I linked the preliminary Kay report wherein he clearly shows Hussein's focus on acquiring WMD and reports that it was MORE DANGEROUS THAN WE THOUGHT EVEN BEFORE THE WAR, would that -fact- make it to your roster of thoughts?

No. No it wouldn't. And that's why you're an ideologue and I'm a free-thinker.
on Mar 15, 2004
Vincible - "found to be fake" and "probably a fabrication" mean different things.


Yes, they don't use the exact words "found to be fake." I don't know what other possible conclusion one could draw after reading that article, though.

What justification do you have for believing the claim that Atta trained in Baghdad, after the detailed refutations in there? Not only are almost all of Atta's movements at the relevant time accounted for, but the document claiming that Atta was there looks fishy in numerous ways. Even the person who published the document linking Atta to Baghdad admits he has ""no way of verifying it." He adds, "it's our job as journalists to air these things and see what happens."

In short, the evidence that the claim is true is one (anonymous!) person's say-so. And there's lots and lots of evidence that the claim is false. How can you defend this?
on Mar 15, 2004
ves,
you just don't get it... do you?
America supports the Shaw of Iran and his murderous thugs for oil...
America supports S. Hussein and his murderous thugs for oil...
America support tyrants all over the middle east (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc)... for oil!

so these people who suffer under these tyrants and are denied functioning democracies are forced into desperate measures know who their enemies are.... they are the ignorant American public!

and Americans could have had electric vehicles and alternative forms of energy decades ago... but the most powerful organization in the world, oil, doesn't want things to change... they're pumping money out of the ground!
on Mar 15, 2004
It doesn't matter to you that there used to be, or that maybe they were moved or destroyed. For you, the fact (I am not disputing your fact) that there are none right now is enough to make judgements.


The war was based on the notion that Iraq was an imminent threat to the US. If the weapons are not there anymore, or were moved, or were destroyed, then there was, in fact, no imminent threat to the US.


If I linked the preliminary Kay report wherein he clearly shows Hussein's focus on acquiring WMD and reports that it was MORE DANGEROUS THAN WE THOUGHT EVEN BEFORE THE WAR, would that -fact- make it to your roster of thoughts?


In other words, your big selling point is a report by a UN inspector. So why did we rush to invade Iraq when the President cried that the UN inspections were accomplishing nothing?
on Mar 15, 2004
The war was not based that Iraq was an imminent threat. That is something fabricated as a strawman argument.  The war was sold on the basis that Iraq had proven time and time again that it wasn't upholding its part of the bargain from 1991 on and after September 11th we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them so he had to go.
on Mar 15, 2004

Whether you liked him or not, Saddam was a legitimate government.


How do you define "legitimate" government?


 

on Mar 15, 2004
The war was not based that Iraq was an imminent threat. That is something fabricated as a strawman argument.


after September 11th we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them


Why did we not have that luxury unless Iraq was an imminent threat?
on Mar 15, 2004
How do you define "legitimate" government?


A legitimate government is one that actually has power and control over the country. I didn't mean it to have anything to do with how that power was secured because that is irrelevant once it is secured.
on Mar 15, 2004
This argument could go on forever, here's the undeniable truth;

Saddam is gone, he no longer threatens anyone. His weapons are missing, not gone, so where are they?

Our central concern should be a peaceful democratic Iraq, a goal not shared by the Shi'ite majority.
Does anyone remember Ayetola Kohmannei ( however it's spelled ), he was the shi'ite cleric that overthrew the Shah of Iran.
You know he got his ideas in Iraq ?

The shi'ite want an Islamic clerical dictatorship ( or their leaders do ) just like the Taliban, just like Iran, just like the Wahhabi of
Saudi Arabia.

If they control the Middle East, then they control the worlds oil supply, nice way to affect converts to Islam hmm?

We are in the Middle East to secure our future, our way of life. If you don't realize that you need to start teaching your children Arabic
and figure out which direction Mecca is in.............................

God bless GW Bush, the only leader with the ( fill in the blank adjective ) to protect our future !!!!!!
on Mar 15, 2004
As Brad said, we had that luxury because Hussein wasn't upholding his side of the deal.
on Mar 15, 2004
Saddam is gone, he no longer threatens anyone.


He didn't threaten us before we deposed him, either.


If they control the Middle East, then they control the worlds oil supply, nice way to affect converts to Islam hmm?


Somehow, I don't see the world converting to Islam because they're desperate for oil.


If you don't realize that you need to start teaching your children Arabic and figure out which direction Mecca is in


Nor do I foresee the conquest of the Western world by any Islamic nation or terrorist faction.


God bless GW Bush, the only leader with the ( fill in the blank adjective ) to protect our future !!!!!!


Actually, you would need a noun. And I think that if God exists, he rarely gives his blessings to Presidents with "bring 'em on" attitudes toward war.


***

As Brad said, we had that luxury because Hussein wasn't upholding his side of the deal.


No, Brad said "we no longer had the luxury to dick around with them."
on Mar 15, 2004
Brad Wardell wrote: " 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."

Brad, that's actually not such an outlandish opinion. Steve Coll,Pulitzer Prize-winning author and managing editor of the Washington Post, has written how US intelligence operations in Afghanistan fueled the rise of the Taliban and inadvertently made it much easier for Osama bin Laden to operate. Several administrations, including Reagan's, made of mess of things. Read all about it in Coll's book, "Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10, 2001"
9 PagesFirst 3 4 5 6 7  Last