Monday, March 06, 2006
Students showing us the way....
Some of the students at UNC are firmly attached to reality, and are protesting the standard "nothing to see here" line.
"This is innocent people being attacked by an SUV, driven by a man who was doing it for retaliation for treatment of Muslims around the world," said Jillian Bandes, with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "To me, that spells terrorism."
Story here.
-----
Overall, this war is getting weirder and weirder. At the start, Bush was making the right moves in terms of overt and covert military response, but failing to mobilize the public. He seemed to assume that those nice TV networks would just support America and support Republicans like they always have. (In which parallel universe?) Or maybe he just didn't assume anything. In either case he missed the opportunity to lead the country, because it was more important for him to forgive his enemies, I guess?????? I'm trying VERY hard to avoid the less charitable and more paranoid explanations.
Since 9/11, the disconnect from reality has grown ever stronger. We have experienced 4 distinct Mohammedan terrorist incidents in that time. (1) Anthrax, killing 5 and injuring several others. Clearly part of the Atta group's activities, despite the FBI's instinctive need to blame the nearest 'Klansman type'. (2) The Beltway snipers, killing 13. Despite the considerable toll in death and disruption, this remains largely unmentioned because the killers turned out to be both black and Mohammedan, again disappointing the instinctive assumptions of the authorities. (3) The Hinrichs suicide-bombing at OU. Even if the authorities were applying proper wartime assumptions here, we'd probably never know what Hinrichs was trying to do. Normal deduction would conclude that he was trying to bomb the busses in the oval, but he might have suddenly decided to pull the chain early. (i.e., decided to "quit living" only for himself, instead of assisting hundreds of others to "quit living" along with him.) There's no doubt that he was acting on behalf of Allah, though. (4) This latest incident, the car-into-crowd at UNC. Again no doubt of the motives, but considerable puzzlement at the half-baked action. Possibly he was acting on impulse without planning for the actual environment; maybe he imagined the car zooming at full speed into the crowd, and was surprised to find so many obstacles. I'm sure his mentors will learn from the failed attempt.
----
Update via Fox News: "When asked if he was trying to kill someone, Taheri-azar said Yes." So I can drop the maybe's from that last paragraph.
-----
Another update, while listening to Steven Emerson: I forgot the Egyptian who shot the El Al ticket agent in Los Angeles. That makes 5, and I've probably missed a few others.
-----
Through all these weird war years, the media have committed their usual 'Dialog Journalism', a form perfected by NPR as an outgrowth of Leninist dialectic methods. Not all of today's 'journalists' may understand the original purpose, but it still works. Presenting every issue as a Dialog insures that the facts are lost in the noise. In every Dialog on the war, the media have given us two sides: (a) Hard left, pushing for total surrender. (b) A gentlemanly and reluctant representative of the Kindler Gentler Bush approach, claiming that the approach works because we "haven't been attacked since 9/11." Because the Leftist is committed to his cause, he can always shout louder and interrupt more often. Result: the viewer remembers only the Leftist side.
But the serious pro-war side doesn't even get a seat at the table. It's always "Surrender" on one side and "Fight Carefully and Sensitively" on the other.
In WW2, the Office of War Information insured that the only message we heard from movies and radio was "Fight harder!" This side has been totally absent from all public discussion in WW4. Until now.
Bravo, Jillian Bandes! Encore! ¶ 7:34 AM
"This is innocent people being attacked by an SUV, driven by a man who was doing it for retaliation for treatment of Muslims around the world," said Jillian Bandes, with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "To me, that spells terrorism."
Story here.
-----
Overall, this war is getting weirder and weirder. At the start, Bush was making the right moves in terms of overt and covert military response, but failing to mobilize the public. He seemed to assume that those nice TV networks would just support America and support Republicans like they always have. (In which parallel universe?) Or maybe he just didn't assume anything. In either case he missed the opportunity to lead the country, because it was more important for him to forgive his enemies, I guess?????? I'm trying VERY hard to avoid the less charitable and more paranoid explanations.
Since 9/11, the disconnect from reality has grown ever stronger. We have experienced 4 distinct Mohammedan terrorist incidents in that time. (1) Anthrax, killing 5 and injuring several others. Clearly part of the Atta group's activities, despite the FBI's instinctive need to blame the nearest 'Klansman type'. (2) The Beltway snipers, killing 13. Despite the considerable toll in death and disruption, this remains largely unmentioned because the killers turned out to be both black and Mohammedan, again disappointing the instinctive assumptions of the authorities. (3) The Hinrichs suicide-bombing at OU. Even if the authorities were applying proper wartime assumptions here, we'd probably never know what Hinrichs was trying to do. Normal deduction would conclude that he was trying to bomb the busses in the oval, but he might have suddenly decided to pull the chain early. (i.e., decided to "quit living" only for himself, instead of assisting hundreds of others to "quit living" along with him.) There's no doubt that he was acting on behalf of Allah, though. (4) This latest incident, the car-into-crowd at UNC. Again no doubt of the motives, but considerable puzzlement at the half-baked action. Possibly he was acting on impulse without planning for the actual environment; maybe he imagined the car zooming at full speed into the crowd, and was surprised to find so many obstacles. I'm sure his mentors will learn from the failed attempt.
----
Update via Fox News: "When asked if he was trying to kill someone, Taheri-azar said Yes." So I can drop the maybe's from that last paragraph.
-----
Another update, while listening to Steven Emerson: I forgot the Egyptian who shot the El Al ticket agent in Los Angeles. That makes 5, and I've probably missed a few others.
-----
Through all these weird war years, the media have committed their usual 'Dialog Journalism', a form perfected by NPR as an outgrowth of Leninist dialectic methods. Not all of today's 'journalists' may understand the original purpose, but it still works. Presenting every issue as a Dialog insures that the facts are lost in the noise. In every Dialog on the war, the media have given us two sides: (a) Hard left, pushing for total surrender. (b) A gentlemanly and reluctant representative of the Kindler Gentler Bush approach, claiming that the approach works because we "haven't been attacked since 9/11." Because the Leftist is committed to his cause, he can always shout louder and interrupt more often. Result: the viewer remembers only the Leftist side.
But the serious pro-war side doesn't even get a seat at the table. It's always "Surrender" on one side and "Fight Carefully and Sensitively" on the other.
In WW2, the Office of War Information insured that the only message we heard from movies and radio was "Fight harder!" This side has been totally absent from all public discussion in WW4. Until now.
Bravo, Jillian Bandes! Encore! ¶ 7:34 AM
