Another one bites the dust!

I'm going to channel my inner righty for a scond...

COLONEL MUMMAR GHADAFFI IS DEAD!

Read the score:

Obama: 2 dead terrorist warlords who killed Amricans
Reagan/Bush/Bush: 0 Dead terrorist warlords who killed Amricans


So: WHO's being soft on terrorism?
 
Suck it, fuckers: We got BOTH of them! Bin Laden and Ghaddafi. We put down BOTH mad dogs of the middle east! 
 
See what can be accomplished when the world doesn't hate you?!

Justice served, at long last!

I'm over in Germany right now, and just got off the plane when I heard the news that OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED.  Congratulations to President Obama and to the U.S. Armed Forces for this momentous occasion and tremendous success.  There's still a long way to go (there alwasy is when you declare war on common nouns) but a day like today is what we're fighting for, and I am glad to hear that, for today, we are victorious, even as the fight goes on.

My only regret, being in Germany, is that I will miss the Right Wing Media attemtps to somehow credit this to the Republicans, or to Bush.  Maybe this is just proof that the Bush Tax worked or something absurd like that. Hey: I'll give them one thing... There was ONE Bush policy that allowed OBAMA to capture/kill Bin Laden...

The IRAQ WAR.

Yep.

Becuase if it weren't for the Iraq War, BUSH would have caught this assmuncher about SIX YEARS AGO! 

Now, in all seriousness, too many have died, on ALL sides for me to be makoing light of this.  And no one should ever celebrate the death of another human being, even a bloodthrity, psychopathic piece of shit like Osama Bin Laden.  I can only hope that the numbers that will inevitably follow in his path, only to find their own meaningless deaths waiting for them, are over-estimated.

But getting back to my previous tone... (sorry, can't help it!)

Hey, REPUBLICANS?  SUCK IT, FUCKERS! WE GOT HIM! WE GOT HIM! 

And by year's end Obama will have acieved Reagan's elusive victory as well when Kaddafi falls from power in Libya.  Two great successes where the Right failed.  I can't WAIT!

So if you're a hawk? (Deficit, as I've explained before, or otherwise?) VOTE DEMOCRAT.

THIS is what effective mid-east policy looks like.  One country after another overthrowing thier regimes - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and now SYRIA (!) - and Osama Bin Laden dead and buried.

THAT'S what happens when you don't go decalring unecessary wars.

(And I'll stop acting like a mirror image of the Right now.) (Still... USA! USA! USA!)

Friday Fun: Let's play THE PROFILING GAME!

Do you know I heard a lot of in the wake of the Christmas Day, Fruit-of-Kaboom, Crotch-Bomber case?  "Just profile all the Arabs! That'll take care of it!"  So I thought'd we'd play a little game with that.  Let's see how good a "profiler" you are!

The rules of the game are simple:

A plane is scheduled to leave with 40 passengers checking in.  They are pictured in their randomized seat assignments, below.  The CIA knows that there are nine people who either have committed acts of terrorism or are or have been active members of terrorists organizations, such as Al-Quaeda or the Taliban (henceforce called merely "terrorists") that are trying to board.

To win the game, you have to successfully flag ALL NINE terrorists for *ahem* enhanced screening - at which point they'l be captured.  If you let EVEN ONE terrorist on the plane, YOU LOSE.

• 
  
  You'll get SIX POINTS for each terrorist you "profile," for a max score of 54 points.
• 
  
  You won't gain or lose any points if you profile an Arab Muslim, who is not a terrorist.  (So Con's? FEEL FREE TO USE YOUR PROFILE.)
• 
  
  By "Arab" we'll take anyone from Northern Africa, the Mid-East proper, Iran and any country that ends in "-stan."
• 
  
  You LOSE ONE POINT if you profile a non-Arab Muslim or a non-Muslim Arab.
• 
  
  You LOSE THREE POINTS if you profile a non-Arab, non-Muslim.
• 
  
  The way it works out, if you profile EVERYONE, you'll win, but with ZERO POINTS.
• 
  
  Try to get all nine keeping the best score you can.

 So Take a sheet of paper, and write down the seat number of everyone you want profiled.  (Make sure you can clearly see ALL FOUR passengers in each row. Click to enlarge, if you can't.)  Then scroll down to find the key, see if you WIN, and TALLY YOUR SCORE.

GOOD LUCK! Let me know how you did, and if you lost, who you missed!

No peeking until you're done!!!!







Did you finish?











OK, here are your points, by seat:
:
Seat 1A - Lose 1 Point for profiling Yussf Islam, formerly known as the Singer/Sognwriter Cat Stevens.  He's muslim, but he's British and of Greek and Sweedish decent.

Seat 1B - Zero Points for profiling Khalid Abdalla, a Scottish born actor of Egyptian decent.  He's muslim, and although definitely not a terrorist he did play one in the movie United 93.

Seat 1C - Zero Points for profiling Doctor Abdullah Abdullah, the leading candidate to unseat Afgan President Hamid Kharzi in 2009, and long time opponent of Taliban rule.

Seat 1D - Zero Points for profiling the late, former Pakastani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

Seat 2A - Lose 1 Point for profiling Samir Geagea, the leader of the Lebanese Forces, the primary Christian force in Lebanon and a Maronite Christain himself.

Seat 2B - Lose 3 points if you profiled Microsoft Chairman and founder Bill Gates.

Seat 2C - Gain 6 Points if you spotted well-known Terrorist Bill Ayers!  Hopefully you didn't let this guy on the plane!  Did he skip past you? If so: YOU LOSE. Final Score: ZERO.  (Note: For any conservtaives calling bullshit on this one: Either quit your rabid defense of profiling or else stop putting Ayers in the same class as Bin Laden, Okay?)

Seat 2D - Lose 3 points if you profiled Apple CEO and Founder Steve Jobs.

Seat 3A: Lose 3 points if you profiled Detroit Tiger Right Fielder Magglio Ordonez. The Venezuelan born slugger only terrorizes pitchers, and hasn’t even don’t that for a few years.

Seat 3B: Lose 3 Points if you profiled Cleveland Cavalier All-Star Center LeBron James.

Seat 3C: Gain 6 Points! That’s the fruit-of-Kaboom, Crotch-Bomber, Nigerian born Terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. But if you let him on: Game Over, You Lose.

Seat 3D: Lose 1 point (and face a lawsuit) if you profiled American Muslim Leader of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan.

Seat 4A: No points. There IS a female terrorist of the plane, but it’s not Asieh Amini, Iranian Journalist and advocate for Woman’s Right’s in Muslim countries.

Seat 4B: Lose 3 points if you profiled American Right Wing Radio commentator Laura Ingraham.  (Even if it was satisfying to do so!)

Seat 4C: Gain 6 Points if you nabbed Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nichols! OTOH, if you though that was actor Rick Moranis and let him on? GAME OVER: YOU LOSE.

Seat 4D: Lose 3 points if you profiled British-Born Salman Rushdie, author of the Satanic Verses, a book critical of Islam. He is so NOT a Muslim or a Terrorist that the Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa, calling for his death for publishing ‘Verses.

Seat 5A: Lose 3 points for profiling Indian entrepreneur, CEO and co-found of Mango Technologies, Sunil Maheswari.

Seat 5B: Zero Points for profiling Pierre Gemayel, the late Lebanese Politician who, during his time in office, opposed the Syrian influence in country.

Seat 5C: Lose 3 points, and some self-esteem, if you profiled Marie Osmond.

  

Seat 5D: Zero Points if you profiled King Hussein of Jordan, but you should feel pretty bad about doing so: He was one of our key allies in the first Gulf War.

Seat 6A: Gain 6 Points if you nabbed Adam Gadahn, the American who became one of Al-Quaeda’s chief spokesman. If you let him on: GAME OVER.

Seat 6B: No points for Omar Berdouni, the Moroccan-born, British actor. (Also not a terrorist, but played one in United 93.)

Seat 6C: No points for profiling the late Kind Faud of Saudi Arabia, another one of our key allies in the first Gulf War. The king is not happy about it however, if you did.

Seat 6D: Gain 6 Points if you nabbed Olympic Bomber Eric Rudolph. But Game Over / You lose, if you let this one-time member of the FBI’s most wanted list on board.

Seat 7A: Lose 3 points for profiling Indian Tamil film actor Jayam Ravi.

Seat 7B: Lose 3 points for profiling Indian film actor Amrish Puri. He might have stuck terror as Mola Ram in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, but he’s no terrorist.

Seat 7C: No points for profiling Iraqi President Nouri Al-Maliki, but you are undermining our efforts building trust in that region!

Seat 7D: Gain 6 Points if you nabbed the late U.S. Army Veteran and Oklahoma City Bomber Tim McVeigh. Game Over for sure if you let this guy on.

Seat 8A: Lose 3 points for harassing the recently crowned RICHEST MAN IN THE WORLD, Mexican Communications Magnate Carlos Slim Helu.

Seat 8B: Gain 6 Points if you nabbed American Taliban Fighter John Walker Lindh. Game Over if the traitor got by you.

Seat 8C: Lose 3 points for harassing Spanish Tenor Placido Domingo.

Seat 8D: Gain 6 Points. Hopefully no one let Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi on the plane! Game Over is you missed this guy.

Seat 9A: Lose 3 points for profiling Indian-American Actor Ajay Naidu. (Did you see Office Space?)

Seat 9B: Lose 3 points for profiling Mexican-American Comedian Carlos Mencia, shown here supporting the troops with a concert in the Persian Gulf.

Seat 9C: Lose 1 point. No, that's not Khalid Shake Muhammad after his water-boarding, that’s Lebanese-American Actor, Tony Shaloub.

Seat 9D: Lose 3 points. This scary-looking guy is American Actor Joaquin Phoenix. I know, it’s the beard. Sheesh!

Seat 10A: Gain 6 Points if you called out Colleen LaRose, one of Al-Qaeda’s top Stateside recruiters. Game over if “Jihad Jane” gets on the plane!

Seat 10B: Lose 1 point for profiling Member of Congress Keith Ellison (D-MN).

Seat 10C: Zero points if you profile Pakistani Entrepreneur Farhan Liaquat.

Seat 10D: Lose 3 points (and most of your self-respect) if you profile Rolling Stones Guitarist Keith Richards.

SO HOW'D YOU DO?  DID YOU MISS ANYONE? WHAT WAS YOUR FINAL SCORE?

THIS is not THAT, Part Two: Terrorism is not War

More fun today on MMFA, picking up where we left off yesterday with Coakley and Brown and eventually meandering into how little Conservatives really understand about economics.  BUT... That's not what I want to talk about.  In Part Two (of Three, I believe) of "THIS is not THAT," I want to attempt to define TERRORISM, in my own words, from my own POV, and contrast it with WAR.

So first things last: WAR, or an ACT OF WAR, is basically any kind of violence or attack on the population or infrastructure of one country, carried out according to the foreign policy of another.  And that last bit is what seperates WAR form TERRORISM.  Both LOOK the same, but an act of WAR is officially and legally the act of another soverign power.  So if Iran blew up something in the United States, it would clearly be an act of WAR.  And in that case there's no need to bring terrorism into it!   After all, an act of WAR justifies a response in kind.  IOW: We'd nuke the shit out of them.  If a word like WAR is sufficient to allow us to do that, why do we feel the need to bring in another one?

So... to be TERRORISM, first and foremost, it must be the work of an individual or group that IS NOT acting on the orders of a soverign country.  Terrorsim need not cause death, or even injury.  Blowing up an empty building can effectively sew fear.   Terrorism is not random: It's motivated by a political agenda of some kind.  That agenda CAN be religious, but it doesn't have to be.  An act of terrorism needs to carry with it the implied threat that it can heppen again; that "we" can "get to you."  There shouldn't be an effort to HIDE who's responsible for an act of TERROR.  To be effective, a group must claim responsibility so that people will know that the act was commited to bring about their political agenda.  That won't work if no one knows who did it.  And there's one more thing, and this is a minor point, and a personal one, but I have a hard time calling anything "terrorism" that doesn't involve a BOMB of some kind.  To me, GUNS just don't cut it.  So yes, to that end, John Muhammad and Nidal Hasan are not "terrorists."  Their crimes just don't fit the definiton and their religion is irrelevant.

Niether man really had any broad political agenda.  Muhammad fits the defrintion of a Serial Killer or possibly Spree killer rather quite well, and if he wasn't Muslim, no one would even be TALKING about terrorism.  Hasan had no real political agenda either.  He just didn't want to go to be deployed. He may have been consorting with muslim radicals, but without his imminent deployment, he likely would not have done what he did, when he did it. His actions were not being done to STOP the war, just to avid his own involvement.  What's more, his actions are TEXTBOOK spree-killer.  If he was white, not muslim, and shot a bunch of people in a school yard or from the top of a McDonald's, again: we wouldn't even consider it terrorism. 

And why should their RELIGION matter?  Is it terrorism if a muslim robs a bank?  Knocks over a liquor store? Steals a car?  Kills his wife?  Kills the man he found with his wife?  Sells alchohol to a minor?  No.  It would be absurd to think any of that that.  But if a Muslim kills a bunch of people?  AUTOMATICALLY we assume it's terrorism. 

It's nonsense in these two cases and here's why: As soon as either man was caught, there was no additional threat.  The threat had passed.  They were not part of a larger network.  They were not the first of many attacks to come.  We knew the minute either man was taken down, that the nightmare was OVER.  That's a feeling that is far better related to serial killers than terrorists.  If we captured Bin Laden, do you really think we should breath a sigh of relief?  Not really.  More likely we should brace ourselves for the retaliation of his followers.  After 9/11 we feared another attack so much we made radical changes to our society to prevent it.  Not so with Muhammad or Hassan.

Also, why are THEY terrorists and not Seung Hui Cho? After all, HE killed a ot of people.  HE scared people. (Disclosure: I'm a Hokie myself!) He even had a political minfesto, albeit a rambling, poorly written one.  Are we letting him off the terrorism hook because he's not MUSLIM?  Perhaps in some people's minds, but it's far more reasonable to do so becuase, like I said, once he was caught the nightmare was over.  There was no implicit threat of additional attacks.

Tim McVeigh fits the definition pretty well without any Religious influence at all.  Blew something up.  Killed a bunch of people.  Had a political agenda - one eerily similar to that of Glenn Beck and the Tea-Baggers, I might add.  One can argue that he didn't "claim responsibility" for the act, but he eventually DID. (And he was caught after just the first one, so we really can't say how things might have played out if he'd gotten away with it.)  As for the threat of more attacks?  Well, we were concerned enough about them to bump up sercurity, change some traffic patterns in Washington DC and install anti-truck barriers in front of all federal builidngs. So yeah - I'd say that we were pretty worried about them.

The guy that I often use as an example of a non-Muslim terrorist is Ted Kaczinsky. He fits the bill: Bombs, killings, fear of more attacks, Political manifesto.  But did he claim responsibility?  Well... yeah, like McVeigh after he was caught, but it went on for a while with Kaczinsky.  He DID however leave calling cards - bomb parts were initialled with "FC" for "Freedom Club," for example.  But unlike McVeigh, his acts were not sufficiently public enough that the really caught the public's attention.  Most of American didn't know anything was going on until the caught him.  So... it could be argued that he's more of just a serial killer that a terrorist, due to the lack of publicity.  However, there's no also doubt that SOMEONE was getting the message and KNEW that these attacks were all from the same guy, so I'd say that counts.

So that's the test:
1) Violent Act
2) Political Agenda
3) Claim of Responsibility (of some kind)
4) Implicit threat of another attck
5) NOT tied to the foreign policy of a soverign country
6) I still say BOMBS or MISSILES rather than GUNS.

And Religion doesn't enter into it, beyond it's possibly being part of the political agenda they want to bring about.  (OK, if Muhammad or Hassan were really trying to impliment Sharia Law in America, they'd be a step closer to being terrorsist.  But neither was really all that into that. One guy was just a nutbag and the other just a coward and a traitor.)  But in any case being Muslim is neither requred nor sufficient to make one's commission of a  violent crime into an an act of terrorism.

BTW... I should hope it's obvious that the "War of Drugs" or the "War on Poverty" of even  the "War on Terror" are not literally WARS.  It's an un fortunate reality that the only metiphor we really have in our public discourse for solving problems is declaring war on them.  How exactly owuld even prosecture the "War on Cancer" for example? Bomb hospitals?  "War on Terror" is the closest thing to an actual "War," but what COUNTRY are we fighting? None really. We're fighting IN many countries.  But were not fighting against any of them. So it's not a war.  It's just a clumsy metaphor for using the military to fight a problem.

Afghanistan is not Iraq. Afghanistan is not Vietnam.

I am very happy to hear that President Obama is sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan. I am very happy to hear that he will begin to draw those troops down in July of 2011. I am very happy to hear that he has clearly defined goals that are not open ended, and do not exceed what we need to accomplish to insure our security. I am glad to heat that he has an exit strategy. I am glad about every word of his recent speech at West Point. Once again, my President, Barack Hussein Obama, has shown a clarity of thought and understanding that reinforces my own fervent belief that we finally had a truly great individual seeking the office, and that we absolutely elected the right guy.

I say all of this as someone who was 100% percent opposed to the War in Iraq from the start, after being 100% behind the War in Afghanistan from the start. I was neutral on President Bush’s the troop surge in Iraq. While I was against the war in general, as far as strategy and tactics go, I recognized at the time that this might be needed and that staying the course may have done more harm than good. Also, much the same as now, that surge came with a new strategy and new approach. I was cynical about that at the time, but I have to give President Bush and his military advisers credit for this much: The Iraq troop surge, and the new tactics employed along with it, marked the turnaround in that War. It marked the point at which we broke the stalemate and started making progress. Progress that has been sustained to the point where Iraq is now becoming the forgotten War, much the way Afghanistan had been for most of President Bush’s second term.

But Iraq is not Afghanistan. The chances that Iraq will destabilize at this point, with or without our help, is far more remote than it was when we ousted Saddam Hussein. Also, it is also unlikely that instability in Iraq would result in a stronger position for Iran (that was already accomplished by getting rid of Saddam!) or for increased training grounds for terrorists - the Iraqi’s turned on Al-Qaeda, as assisted our troops, on their own volition, and have long been the most secular country in the region. And again: the risk will not increase any more than it just by us getting rid of Saddam, who was a stalwart against radical Islam when he was in power. Some I’m not all that concerned about Iraq. At this point, it’s high time we draw down our troops.

Also, Afghanistan is not Iraq. The people that attacked us on 9/11 had their safe heavens in that country, and remain their, and in the hinterlands on the Afghan/Pakistan border. And instability in Afghanistan will lead to the resurrection of those safe heavens. That it why it is my sincere belief that we must rediscover the unity that we had in the weeks and months following 9/11, when we first went into Afghanistan. Unity that President Bush dismantled by pursuing his family vendetta in Iraq.

What’s more, Afghanistan is not Vietnam. The Iraq-Vietnam analogy is, in fact, far more apt. There is a key difference in Afghanistan: Terrorism and, through Al-Qaeda, the Taliban represent a threat to our homeland that Communism and the Viet Kong never did. There was simply no threat to this country posed by either. Put simply: The Truman Doctrine was wrong-minded and misguided, and the Vietnam was essentially nothing more than a Civil War that we ignited! It’s entirely possible that the communist revolution would have happen eventually anyway, but either way it posed no threat to us! Consider the power of China at the time: A Billion people and a Nuclear Arsenal. Does a tiny strip of jungle on the other side of the world from us REALLY give them any additional capability? No. Not in the way that say… Missile bases in CUBA increased the Soviet’s strategic capabilities in the early 1960's. Cuba would have been a game-changer for Russia, whereas Vietnam was strategically irrelevant to China. President Kennedy obviously got the Cuba part right, Bay of Pigs not withstanding, even though he and President Johnson were dead wrong in Vietnam.

But an unstable Afghanistan absolutely represents a threat to us. And if the Taliban come back, not only will Al-Qaeda have their safe haven again, but with the state of affair in [nuclear armed] Pakistan, the Taliban will have an opportunity to increase their presence and influence their as well. A successful mission in Afghanistan, on the other hand, gives us more credibility with the Pakistani’s and the increased possibility of working more closely with their government to squeeze Al-Qaeda and the Taliban for that front as well.

So President Obama has got it right here, folks. It’s high time the LIBERALS and the DEMOCRATS adopted their own 9/11 rallying cry. And this is the cause that we must rally around. This is a war of necessity, not choice. Unlike Iraq, this is a critically important mission, not a counter-productive one. Our troops, their mission and our President absolutely deserve our support in their efforts in Afghanistan.

When WE say, "Never Forget," we can always add, "LIKE BUSH DID."

Fort Swine and Hood Flu

First things last...

I want to say something about Fort Hood first. Every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated," largely on the basis that every day more and more right wingers conclude that this was "terrorism" because the shooter was "religiously motivated." Now... as if that wasn't bad enough...

I'm on the way home, listening to NPR. They're reading letters from their viewers and there was one from a LIBERAL who was "appalled" that NPR suggested that Religion and/or Politics MAY HAVE influenced or motivated the shooter. (Or may they were "disgusted" as the suggestion, I can't exactly remember.)

Now... earlier today I was arguing that the Liberal position was NOT that religion/politics played NO role, but rather that it is TOO EARLY to conclude anything and that EVERYONE should wait for the Military to conduct their investigation. Now... I HOPE that I was not overestimating the common sense possessed by the average Liberal, and that NPR merely picked THAT ONE letter because it was contrary to the others. Because it really IS too early to conclude ANYTHING! It's as absurd to say that Religion played NO ROLE, more so really, than it is to conclude with any certainty that this was an act of TERRORISM. The fact is that there are MANY questions that NEED to be explored. Nothing should be ruled in or out at this point from either side. So let's ALL take a deep breath and let the Army do it's job, K?

Something else is bothering me too. I was posting the other day on the Detroit Tiger's Fan Club Forum to promote my new All-Time Teams Baseball Blog, having just finished the All-time Tigers (if you're a baseball fan, check it out, let me know what you think) and I came across a message about how "Obama's #$%@ Health Plan passed!" Now, putting aside...

1) That this is a BASEBALL board, and not a place to discuss partisan politics. (It looks like they've since taken the post down, which shows some good sense on the part of the moderators.) (Same goes for my other blog as well: keep the politics HERE.)

and

2) It's not a LAW yet, it's just passed the first of several votes that will be needed. (So the poster fails Civics 101, on top of it.)

There was one part that REALLY pissed me off. He said, "The government couldn't even distribute enough H1N1 Vaccine, now they're going to run the entire Health Care system!"

AGAIN... putting aside that no version of ANY of the health care bills ever amounted to an anything CLOSE to a "government takeover" of the health care system...

It was not the GOVERNMENT that's caused the shortages of the H1N1 vaccine. The government is only involved at all because PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to develop it in time and PRIVATE ENTERPRISE failed to make enough to meet the demand. So the Gov't is involved only to make sure that those with the greatest MEDICAL NEED get it first, rather than those with the greatest financial means. They are REACTING to the shortage, not CAUSING it! If H1N1 was a failure, iot was a filure of PRIVATE ENTERPRISE.

And WHICH party has all the politicians that were obstructing all the funding that would have allowed for better production and distribution? Yeah: That would be the, da-da-dahhh: REPUBLICANS.

You got to love how the Right makes themselves into an obstacle at every turn, and then has the nerve to claim that OBAMA and the DEMOCRATS can't get anything done. What makes me SICK is how many ignorant dupes (American voters) keep falling for it time and time and time again! And who's the most complicit in enabling all this nonsense? Our great liberally biased media.

Yeah... RIGHT.