< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://sirhumphreys.com" > Sir Humphrey's: Look out Nostradamus

SIR HUMPHREY'S BLOG

SITE MOVED:Sir Humphrey's has moved

Please join us at our new site: www.sirhumphreys.com.

The RSS feed for sirhumphreys.com is now here.

Friday, July 08, 2005

Look out Nostradamus

Me, yesterday:
Has Russell Brown already started writing his column about how it's all the Brit's own fault for supporting Bush?
Russell Brown, this morning:
I also thought about all the people who have died in the violence of the past four years, most of them away from the news cameras, in the bloody, unending mess of Iraq. It cannot now be seriously denied that this war has made things much worse.
He's wrong, as usual. The West is winning the war on terrorism, and here's why.

The success of terrorism is determined by three factors.

1. The level of ideological support for terrorism and its cause.
2. The level of state support from tyrants and their corrupt governments.
3. The lack of security protecting the target.

Leftists often talk about suicide bombing being a weapon of desperation, used because there is no alternative. They are right, but it isn't a desperation that they have no other way of fighting oppression, but a desperation that there is no easier and less painful way to kill as my innocents as possible; a terrorist with truly concerned with oppression would target soldiers, not innocents.

Your common garden variety serious terrorist, for all his talk about virgins in paradise, isn't keen to blow himself up. If he is going to spend his life for the cause, he will do it in the execution of the biggest, bloodiest, most frightful act he can. His twisted mind wants to go out with a bang, literally.

Both yesterday's attacks, and the September 11 attacks involved suicide bombers. The difference?

In 2001, the terrorists' best was 17 suicide bombers, 4 aircraft, huge buildings full of people, and thousands dead.

In 2005, the terrorists' best was a suicide bomber in bus or two, and barely 50 dead.

Terrorism no longer has the popular support to pick 17 candidates willing to die but with the ability to carry out a complex operation. They no longer have the organised backing and finances for sending those candidates to terrorist training camps and flight school. Security measures at airports and the like are still lax (as we saw yesterday, too lax), but much improved, and no longer will airline passengers watch passively if hijackers dare to strike.

All they can manage now is a nutter with a bag of fertilizer in the back of a bus. Their best is much less than it once was. We are winning.

That doesn't mean the West mustn't improve. The UK (and the US) need to take a hard look at the results of free-for-all immigration. The fun part of the multiculturalist party is over, and now the more unsavoury guests are vomiting on the carpet.

Collectivist, socialist politicians and their sympathisers are dragging civilization down the toilet, none more so than Tony Blair. But at least his support for the war on terror means more chance of having civilization remain in existence at all.
· Linked Article

Posted by RightWingDeathBeast | 7/08/2005 07:50:00 PM

38 Comments:

Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Unfortunately theres still quite a few thousand left from Osama's camp in Afghanistan.

7/08/2005 07:57:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

Russel Brown is either blinded by his own stupidity or just doesn't care so long as he preaches a nice sermon. Can anyone seriously believe that going to war is made worthless by the enemy scoring a hit? Does anyone, in going to war, believe that they will not suffer casualties? I mean, really is he that stupid or just playing to his adoring audience? I suspect the latter, but I don't know which is worse.

7/08/2005 08:27:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Don't you just love it that people like Russell think that things are worse when they really don't have a telepathic link into an alternate universe on the same timeline. What if Iraq had not been invaded in some sort of alter-reality and Saddam was threatening the world with the bomb? Do people like Russell think that the status quo would have endured forever? Obviously they do.

7/08/2005 08:28:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Thats why they're called 'statists' Lucyna. People who believe their inaction prevents the world around them from changing.

7/08/2005 08:32:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Yep, [insert name from list of countless despots here] was a one-off. It will never happen again, especially in [insert country here].

I have never personally threatened any burglar. I took down the "tresspassers will be prosecuted" sign, removed the large dog from the front yard and uninstalled my burglar alarm. I ensured my gun was destroyed, my baseball bat in the attic and then ran a full page advert detailing my new "policy for peace". I donated a huge chunk of my income, but made it clear I still have a wee pile left for a rainy day. On the top of the dresser.

I can now never be burgled. What have you guys done to protect yourself? Would you like to borrw a rusty window latch and some old newspapers to cram in the letterbox?

7/08/2005 09:31:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

Russell desperately wishes the world would have continued as before 9/11. He can't accept that the world didn't enter the "end of history" with the fall of communism. During the 90s the world was held semi-static, pseuds like bug Russ could blither on about this and that, castigating America or whoever for not being perfect or screwing up but all the while safe in the knowledge that life wasn't really too bad since if push came to shove Saddam or Kim would get their arses kicked. They were of course totally blind to the likes of Osama et al, just as were many others, who had been plotting away for decades. But with 911 it became impossible to ignore. Unfortunately Russ and many others chose the road of sophisticated socialist dialectics, Osama was bad but he had been driven to it and anyway isn't the West just as bad? How can we judge? Others, like Christopher Hitchens who had been as rabidly anti-US as Russ, saw the threat and what it represented. So having pitched his tent Russell is left where he is, unable to condemn terrorists without in the same breath blaming George W. He is left in the mire of moral relativism, so bangs on about the IRA when discussing al Qaeda as if the two are even of a remotely similar scale or purpose. W's speech was cliche filled but Ken Livingstone made him cry(!) The world has changed, but W is adapting to the change and counterpunching and the likes of Russell cannot stand the fact. Therefore any loss to the enemy during war is a sign of its failure, if Iraq hadn't been invaded then London wouldn't be bombed, if we give them what they want they will leave us alone. Never mind that what they want is our destruction. It's what happens when you are so consumed by contempt for a man that you cannot acknowledge he might be doing something right. It must really cut Russell up that W is more forward thinking and original than himself.

7/08/2005 09:35:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

That's really good, AL. Statists - I like it!

7/08/2005 09:45:00 PM  
Anonymous Tom said...

Saddam had been around since the beginning of the 80s, the only countrie he threatened was Kuwait and Israel. After gulf war 1 the only people he could hurt were his own.

Think about it, America and Britain (both nuclear powers) invade another country that cannot possibly attack them, overthrow the government and put in a new one. This action causes thousands of people to go there and attack them. Some people even go to London and bomb the London underground.

The Iraq war has turned more people to terrorism than ever before. A terrorist to us is a freedom fighter to another person. It's all relative. It's not black and white, and you have to emphasize with your enemy to understand WHY he is attacking you.

7/08/2005 09:56:00 PM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

Not another lemming!

7/08/2005 10:01:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

It's a troll, no one actually believes that. How on earth do you empathise with a Saddamite?

7/08/2005 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Sorry Tom, but this is the only "emphasizing" I can bring myself to do:

YOU ARE MAD.

7/08/2005 10:04:00 PM  
Blogger Chefen said...

Hitler had been around since the beginning of the 30s, the only countrie he threatened was Poland and Czechoslovakia. After german war 1 the only people he could hurt were his own.

Think about it, France and Britain (both major powers) invade another country that cannot possibly attack them, overthrow the government and put in a new one. This action causes thousands of people to go there and attack them. Some people even go to London and bomb the London underground.


Oh, if only history had taken THAT path. Einsatzgruppen, Totenkopf guards, they were just someone elses freedom fighters. If the Jews and gypsies just empathised with their exterminators and didn't see things in black and white then... we'll they'd all be dead.

7/08/2005 10:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Frajola69 said...

Vocês meteram-se com quem não deviam. Cuspiram fogo, comerão fogo! Por isso merecem receber o que levaram!!!

7/09/2005 12:17:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

And we'd all be talking latin probably.

7/09/2005 12:24:00 AM  
Anonymous secretsamurai said...

Goodness there's a lot of bile in this blog.

Zentiger

'I have never personally threatened any burglar.etc'

I don't think anyone is disagreeing that nation states have the right to self defence.

But, to use your analogy, the Iraq war wasn't just about home protection. It was like the US and the UK walked over to the house of someone they suspected (but couldn't prove) was going to 'rob' them, beat the living shit out of the 'future' transgressor and replaced them with a friendlier neighbour.

Great!

Until, of course, someone fingers you (the UK) as a general threat to the neighbourhood (because you have been pounding on the Iraqis at number 12) and they send around a bunch of thugs (terrorists) to knock over your petunias and harrass your daughter (or blow up your subway).

As for chefen's analogy with appeasement, I think its time we learned some history.

After WWI, Hitler had the military might to wage a war that lasted half a decade. Saddam couldn't last five minutes, so he was hardly a threat to his neighbours. Comparing him to Hitler (and for that matter Bush and Blair to Churchill) debases the ignomy (and heroism) of the WWII leaders. What's more invading Iraq has just made a bad situation worse.

7/09/2005 12:49:00 AM  
Anonymous secretsamurai said...

Actually, it's a little difficult to follow the logic of this blog. Terrorists attack a city that has extensive experience with such attacks and extensive preparation since 9/11. They take out a major symbol of metropolitan London - an obvious target - and escape undetected in the process.

And we're supposed to believe that the terrorist threat is decreasing?

Give me a break!

7/09/2005 12:56:00 AM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

No ones going to give you 'a break', samurai, especially when you post crap that reads like a 12 yr olds view of the world learned through reading Time Magazine every week.

I can't be bothered replying to most of your 'points', except for the history remark: Hitler built up his military over a comparatively short period of time by ignoring the various restrictions placed upon Germany after WW1, restrictions that weren't enforced by France and Britain. Those same countries then downplayed the military threat Hitler's Germany posed to its neighbours, then ignored his retaking of the Rhineland and his occupation of Austria. Until it was too late - for Poland, for Belgium, for Denmark, for France. And nearly too late for Britain.

Take your ignorant patronising drivel elsewhere.

7/09/2005 01:21:00 AM  
Blogger bdaughn said...

I am deeply saddened by the events of 7/7, and it is a great tragedy that a human being has the heart to do such things, but this is the thinking not of a human being, but of something deeper and darker than that. I am American, and a Bush supporter. Please do not blame Bush, he is not the one who has created this by the Iraq War, yes it does create conflict, but terrorism was here long before the Iraq War. Terrorism is going to happen with or without the Iraq war. We were not in Iraq when 9/11 happened. That was planned long before Bush took office, as a matter of fact it was planned when Clinton was in office, and he knew about it and did nothing. This is why we have to support the war on terrorism, even if we have different political beliefs. That is why we have to work together as nations to create a bond that terrorists cannot break. Thank you for letting me post my comments, and again my heart goes out the everyone in London, my prayers are with you!

7/09/2005 01:42:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Secretsamuari:
I was not making that analogy. I was talking about something else. Thoughts within thoughts.

For that matter people can take an action and people will spout an endless variety of reasons for the action. Get upset about whatever you like, for whatever reason you like. Why be different.

Also, your history lesson was supposed to help us learn from the past, but it ignores the factors of the present. If your criteria of military might is based on how long an army can wage a war, you've forgotten the reason one might be a bit worried if your opponent managed to acquire a couple of nuclear bombs, and are prepared to have them "burgled" by some fanatical organisation.

7/09/2005 09:47:00 AM  
Blogger Samurai Tales said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/09/2005 10:26:00 AM  
Blogger Samurai Tales said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/09/2005 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger Whaleoil said...

Saddam in reverse is "Madd as" along with all those nutcases who think the world needs a hug....terrorists are thugs and bullies, and the only way to deal with thugs and bullies is sit them back on their collective asses the same way they bully us, ie with Guns bombs etc only bigger and more accurate.

7/09/2005 10:44:00 AM  
Blogger Samurai Tales said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

7/09/2005 10:45:00 AM  
Blogger Samurai Tales said...

Ignorant patronising drivel?

Tell me how Hitler would have built up his forces if:

1. half his country's airspace was patrolled by the victors of WWI;

2. There were significant allied deployments in Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland to contain him;

3. Sanctions were crippling his economy, ensuring that Germany's coal and iron (its main exports) could only be traded for food and kickbacks for corrupt officials;

4. There had been a robust and invasive series of weapons inspections by the League of Nations until he kicked them out in 1934. Since then the Allies had kept a close eye on his imports.

5. He was hated, if feared, by a good 80 percent of his own people.

I'll repeat my point. Comparing Saddam (or anything else that doesn't warrant comparason) to Hitler is ignorant drivel. It's a third form debating tactic.

Zentiger: Saddam wasn't even close to building a nuke, and the IAEA knew it (and told the world).

7/09/2005 10:52:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Samurai Tales:

Tom came along and said:
"America and Britain (both nuclear powers) invade another country that cannot possibly attack them, overthrow the government and put in a new one.

This action causes thousands of people to go there and attack them. Some people even go to London and bomb the London underground.


Tom then goes on to use the moral relativism argument saying "to emphasize (sic) with your enemy to understand WHY he is attacking you.

Mentioning Hitler at that point was merely to discuss the containment versus appeasement was a valid point.

No-one here was trying to develop this into a full blown thesis. It was a quick response to shut-down an unwanted thread on Tom going on about how this is the victims fault, its Bushes fault, it's Blairs fault etc. There are enough other blogs where that theory can be vented.

If only we understood them we'd live in peace blah blah blah, and they would not have flown into WTC blah blah blah.

So yes, at this point I could add "If only we'd understood Hitler we could live in peace" If only we'd understood Stalin we'd live in peace etc.

As for the "old chestnut" go get a few more scholarships. Saddam had purchased two nuclear reactors from France. The trade sanctions were about to be lifted. Russia and France had been lining up trade deals in preparation for this, there is speculation that Saddam had already purchased weapons technology from France and Russia. French missiles were apparently found that indicated trade. Very suspicious business transactions had been traced through Niger (ex French and extensive Uranium mining) found. The oil for food scandal and Kuwaiti reparation funds and most other UN managed Iraqi funds had been compromised for years. Recent evidence indicates Saddam WAS interacting with terrorist organisations. It looks like, subtle differences in ideology aside, Saddam was keeping his options open.

To write that off as "the old chestnut" is typical left wing spoutings that refuse to believe that there are people and organisations that could be any worse than Bush and Blair and a few American multinationals.

But we've been through all this before, in a lot more detail. Read our archives, and go do a post on your blog about how your three scholarships allows you to be pendantic. I can't be bothered discussing this yet again.

7/09/2005 10:58:00 AM  
Blogger Samurai Tales said...

So I guess the fact that NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION WERE FOUND and Al Baradai claimed they were years away from building a nuclear programme meant absolutely nothing?

As for the Niger connection, I think you are scraping at the bottom of the barrel there.

Anyway, my most recent response was more a reply to AL. I do take your point about relativism.

7/09/2005 11:14:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

The powers of hindsight are a wonderful thing.

So the guy who saw the olive skinned person looking nervously into a bag, did the right thing in getting off (but he doesn't know why). It would have been too embarassing to do anything else, and be wrong.

7/09/2005 11:23:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

...The double decker bus incident I was referring to.

7/09/2005 11:24:00 AM  
Blogger Samurai Tales said...

At the suggestion of an earlier post I went through the archives of this blog. With the exception of Zentiger, who seems to know what he is talking about, the rest of you are the lunatic fringe.

Call it ad hominem if you will, but I won't be coming here again.

7/09/2005 11:43:00 AM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Alright, whose been purging the archives???

7/09/2005 11:53:00 AM  
Blogger Lucyna said...

I go away for a walk, and look what happens.

7/09/2005 12:26:00 PM  
Blogger Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Samurai, that's the first sensible thing I have heard from you. Bon voyage.

7/09/2005 12:29:00 PM  
Blogger Keith said...

"So the guy who saw the olive skinned person looking nervously into a bag, did the right thing in getting off"

LOOK!! Racial profiling, he was!
Insensitive bastard.

7/09/2005 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

I was wondering about that incident when I heard it. Wondering what the "right" thing to do was in that situation.

If you were really certain (and who would be?) you were looking at a suicide bomber, how do you restrain the person so that a trigger is not depressed etc...

At the end of the day, perhaps he felt foolish for getting off, a minute later grateful and a day later wondering if he could have grabbed the guy and called for help??

Life's tough.

7/09/2005 06:43:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

Its not yet been proven that the nervous guy was the bomber. That entire situation raises an problem discussed by a forensic investigation book I was recently reading: the pros and cons of deductive vs inductive vs deductive reasoning. Will post more on it when I get a chance.

7/09/2005 07:57:00 PM  
Blogger Antarctic Lemur said...

As for 'samurai' who thinks Saddam Hussein and Ba'athist Iraq is like an innocent man accused of rape, good riddance. I wonder if he/she sees the irony in choosing a nickname related to a bunch of professional feudalistic soldiers who had to repress private property, use violence to control the locals, and ban guns to retain power.

7/09/2005 08:00:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

It was best he moved on. One of us might say something that made sense, and as Samurai, he'd likely fall on his sword. It would have been very messy.

7/09/2005 10:03:00 PM  
Blogger ZenTiger said...

Oh, re the nervous guy. Good point. Assume nothing. Could have been worried about an exam, the goldfish in a plastic bag in his bag, or the fact that his iPod was badly damaged and might not be covered under warranty.

7/09/2005 10:07:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home