Dear France

Posted in Politics
Sat, Nov 14 - 10:30 pm EST | 2 years ago by
Comments: 191
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Lines of Departure - Paris Attacks

    Dear France:

    Before we get to your current problems and recent events, a couple of questions: How does someone repay one’s mother for the gift of life and the burden of bearing? How does someone repay the midwife who unwrapped the umbilical from one’s infant neck, thereby saving one’s life?

    Those are the questions I think upon whenever I hear one of my fellow Americans verbally crapping on France, those, and that we owe you a debt we can’t ever really repay in full. Oh, sure, you went to war at least partly because it was to England’s disadvantage. Not too dissimilarly, we liberated you in 1944 because you were the path to Germany, which we wanted crushed. So what? Purity of aims, as much as a foolish consistency, is a hobgoblin of small minds. The history remains that we did liberate you. The history remains that you did help us to throw off foreign chains long ere that. The history, too, is that there was no particular shortage of Frenchmen and women who wanted to save us, in 1778, for our sakes and liberty’s, and not just for France.1 Neither was there any particular shortage of Americans, in 1918 or 1944, who fought with the goal of liberty for France, as of mankind in general, somewhere well-placed in their hearts.

    Speaking of fighting, wherever did this nonsense of French military incompetence and cowardice come from, anyway? I’ve even heard it from an expatriate Frenchwoman. It would have been news to Washington, I think, as to the Prussians at Jena or the Austrians at Marengo or the Russians at Borodino. One suspects the average German at Verdun would have been most surprised by the claim. Yes, you lost an important battle in 1940, but you lost,2 more than for any other reason, precisely because of your patriotism and courage from 1914 to 1918, and because, bled out by that, you let a certain kind of person take control of your country and discourse between the wars.

    Oh, yes, you have your weaknesses. Chief among these, I think, is a tendency to mistake elegance for intelligence, and, in accordance with that, to grant to your intellectual class – across the world a crew of elegant sounding dummies, by and large,3 and the same class, be it noted, that enervated you between the wars – far too much of a presumption of intelligence, and much more power than they can wisely or honestly use. More on them in a bit.

    In any case, take this as coming from a friend, one who means you well and wishes you the best. So some earnestly meant advice:

    You have two sets of enemies inside your country. One set are the unassimilated, indeed, increasingly unassimilated and by now well-nigh inassimilable, Moslems. Some of them, or their co-religionists, have just killed over a hundred – at last count one hundred and sixty or so; it will probably go up – of your citizens and legitimate foreign sojourners in Paris.

    Yes, yes, we all know that only American and Swiss Amish shout “Allahu Akbar” before firing into crowds, and that the American National Rifle Association is deeply enough troubled by problems in Syria to recruit and dispatch Methodist and Baptist suicide bombers. And, of course, it only happened because America killed the British lunatic known as Jihad John. Never mind that we just offed the bastard yesterday while attacks like those in Paris take from weeks to months to plan and prepare for; clearly we are to blame. And we can also be sure that it was in response to old child molesting allegations directed against Catholic priests. And, yes, as all right minded folks know, it was George W. Bush’s fault. And that passport4 showing one of the attackers was a “refugee” who passed through Greece seeking “asylum” was an obvious plant by the doubleplusungood forces of racism and reaction…

    Aren’t you sick yet of doublethink, newspeak and lies? Surely you must be.

    How many of the attackers were French citizens? That, we don’t know, though at least one was. One would have been very surprised, indeed, however, to discover that none of them, and none of the people who aided them, were accorded the privilege of French citizenship. Their grandmothers and grandfathers were mostly trying to be French. Their grandchildren want to turn you into Dhimmis.5 Yes, sure, maybe they were not treated as well in the past as they might have been. So what, that ship has sailed. It is too late to undo any alleged injustices of the past. They detest you as they detest the Scandanavians, the Germans, the British, the Italians, and the Spanish. They detest you for what you are and for what you are not. They detest you because they see you are weak, because every time they demand it you bend over and grease yourselves to accommodate them. You cannot change this by anything beautiful or sensitive or wonderful or caring that is in your power. In the words of a certain group of entertainers of the 1960s and 1970s, “Money can’t buy [you] love.”

    The other enemies are your rulers, safe in their internationalist positions, denationalized themselves, well connected, corrupt, and not caring about you in the slightest. Note that people like Dominique Strauss-Khan and his colleagues do not just rape hotel maids; they’ve had you and yours and those of every state in the EU bent over and screwed for decades now.6 You know the group to which I refer; it is the same group that has been greasing the path to your future dhimmitude. Speaking of which, that recurring pain in your rectal orifice? That’s them.

    If you want a list of names of your enemies, you could start with the class rosters of Institut d’études politiques de Paris.

    Sad, is it not? You had a revolution to get rid of one set of aristocrats, and had another set within about fifteen years, if memory serves. At least the second set were mostly deserving. Would that you could have that second set of aristocrats again, for they loved you and would have, and did, die for you without counting. They were, even when foreign born, French in their hearts.

    Your current aristocracy? Your alumni of Sciences Po?7 They may care for their fantasies, France, but they do not care for you and yours. They may care about their own genitalia, as with Strauss-Khan, but not about the morally insignificant pieces of bipedal meat they use to satisfy same. Your people, France, are at least as subhuman sheep and cattle to your current rulers as ever they were to the aristocracy of the Ancien Régime.

    There is a solution to that problem. Go view this educational video for a while:

    Back? Ah, good. But you wonder how many of your rulers you can afford to guillotine? That’s not the question. The question is how many of the corrupt, treasonous, selfish, self-centered, solipsistic and often enough sociopathic swine of your ruling class you can afford to leave alive. While this may be a number above zero, it is not entirely clear that this is a number much above zero. Ah, but no matter; as a foreigner, it’s not my place to say how much exercise Madame needs, only to point out that she clearly needs some.

    Once you get rid of your new aristocracy, shaking off the shackles of the European Union and the Transnational treaty regimes should be a piece of cake. To give you a little moral assist in this, however…8

    I mean this sincerely; until you and the other European states have destroyed the European Union you will have no European future.

    Sadly, though, the problem doesn’t end there. Get rid of your ruling class and destroy the EU and the big problem they’ve created for you remains: What do you do about the Moslems in your midst? As mentioned above, there’s nothing you can do to make them love you, nor even to tolerate you except as slaves, and assimilation has failed. Indeed, given the direction of counter-assimilation, one suspects at this point that they’re effectively inoculated against it. The result of this is shot up theaters, shot up restaurants, and bombs. Oh, and, of course, that one hundred and sixty or so dead previously mentioned.

    Hmmm, speaking of doublethink, newspeak, and lies, your current president has said, “Nous allons mener le combat, il sera impitoyable9 It’s just more left wing drivel, intended to placate you with the sense that something is being done or soon will be. I hope that few or none of you are stupid enough to believe him.

    Let me tell you what a pitiless war would look like. Firstly, your armed forces would be culled of Moslems, with those in it interned. While this was going on, the police would have the DNA of the attackers analyzed. While the analysis was taking place the now culled armed forced, not least to include the Gendarmerie, would be surrounding the banlieus that contain the most Moslems. It would be announced that any Moslem found outside his or her home after dark, or more than 400 meters from it during the day, would be subject to summary execution. As wire was emplaced around one banlieu, thereby freeing up some troops, others would be encircled. Their orders would be to shoot anyone trying to leave though anyone would be allowed to enter. Food and water would be shut off. Then one by one you would go through the banliues, taking samples from everyone. Anyone whose DNA indicated they were related the attackers, male or female, old or newborn babe, would be killed on the spot. Then you would burn the mosques. You might potentially not kill the genetically implicated on the spot, but herd them into the mosques before you burn them. If you could identify one banlieu, or perhaps two or three, from which the bulk of the attackers originated or which provided the most non-combatant support, you would turn it into a modern Lidice or Ourador sur Glane.

    After that you would start processing the survivors for deportation, which deportation would be utterly pitiless, far worse than our “Trail of Tears,” and more like the Bataan Death March. Finally, assuming you were reasonably satisfied that ISIS / DAESH was behind this, you would use several of your not especially small number of nuclear weapons to destroy several of their strongholds and keep doing so until you ran out of nukes or targets.

    That is pitiless war. You’re not going to do it. Your president knows he’s not going to order it. He’s lying to you. You know he’s lying to you. Why do you put up with it? Because it sounds somewhat elegant, so long as you know there’s no reality to it?

    So what could you do that might be a little less “pitiless” than that. Well, there’s the following:

    1. Seal your borders and your seas. I don’t mean turn away boats carrying refugees, for them to try some other course later on; I mean sink them, destroy the lifeboats, machine gun the survivors, and dynamite the floating bodies.10 I mean shoot people trying to storm access control points and border fences. No, don’t worry about massive genocide; once you demonstrate that kind of resolve they’ll stop coming. Note, too, that when you seal your borders, the rest of Europe will have to as well, since they won’t be able to deal with the numbers. Ignore a self-righteous and smug Germany or England if they’re hiding behind your walls.
    2. Make a list of ten thousand, for a nice round number, prominent and radical imams and other Moslems. Round them up. Publish the first two thousand names. Shoot or hang or guillotine the top sixteen hundred, or whatever number is needed to make it ten for every one killed yesterday. Make it clear that it will become one hundred for one with the next attack or set of attacks, even as you round up another ten thousand. Should the UN try to censure you for violation of the Hostages Convention, a) remind them you never ratified it, b) announce your withdrawal of your accession, c) tell them to kiss your Gallic posterior, and d) veto it for good measure.
    3. Still identify the most guilty banlieu or two and make examples of them. Without going full Einsatzgruppe on them, deport everyone in them. Rejoice at any resistance since it will give you an excuse for something much more frightful.

    But you’re not going to do that either.

    One of the big, insuperable by any civilized means, problems you have is that your enemy is motivated primarily by, and cares primarily for, his faith and his blood. Give that enemy his due, he is sincere and he is by no means, as an individual, a coward. You cannot deter him by what you threaten against him; you can only deter him by threatening, credibly threatening, his faith and his family. And you won’t do the least portion of that either.

    Unfortunately, below that level what is left is a bunch of ineffectual feelgoodism, the kind of nonsense Hollande surely has in mind when he lies about being “pitiless.” Oh, I suppose there’ll be an idiotically ineffectual march, perhaps a bunch of Solidarité….oops, Amazon already beat me to that one…perhaps a new ribbon to wear, some candlelight vigils. “Pitiless” will mean giveaways and “outreach” and accommodation to the rules of Islam. It’s not going to work; it never works; accommodation to the rules of Islam only leads to the rule of Islam This leads to two possibilities, going to one of the regimes mentioned above, possibly too late, or surrender to dhimmitude.

    It’s entirely laughable, is it not? I’d laugh, too, except that we’re every bit as idiotic over here…which is a part, but not the whole, of why you can’t look to us for help. This is the kind of problem we’ve already demonstrated that we’re useless at. We cannot help you; you must sink or swim on your own. Yes, even if you were the midwife who, in more senses than one, delivered us. We cannot help you however desperately we wanted to. You must save yourselves.

    Unfortunately, in the world we live in, rather than the one we might like to live in, at this point saving yourselves probably means dispensing with pity. Sad, I agree, but you didn’t make the world. Neither did I. The world we live in, the world which will have no place for pity, was made by the kinds of people who come from Sciences Po, who formed the EU, who succor the UN, who have elegant sounding theories, but neither wisdom nor genuine intelligence.

    ___________

    1 I must commend and thank you, too, for the choice of commanders you sent to us. I don’t know if a more capable general than Rochambeau could have been found. I am certain a more tactful one could not have been found, and this at a time when we amateurs needed some tact, badly.

    2 At this point some American is going to mention Indochina. Bubba, they did better, over a much larger area, for longer, with less than we did.

    3 http://www.tomkratman.com/Ranthhour.html

    4 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995541/Paris-shootings-terrorist-attack-french-victims-latest-news.html

    5 A Dhimmi is a second class, non-citizen resident of a Muslim land. He is generally disarmed and powerless, is subject to certain statutory humiliations, must follow Muslim law in certain particulars, and must pay a special tax to his overlords.

    6 And lest we thing that Strauss-Kahn and his ilk rape only powerless third worlders, note that even French women, like Tristane Banon, are also just pieces of meat to them: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/french-writer-tristane-banon-brings-second-rape-case-against-dominique-strauss-kahn-2306962.html

    7 Surely, I am not the only one ever to notice that the list of notables from Sciences Po is a list of who rules – who owns – France, and has for decades?

    8 You should already know the tune, but in case not, watch it here.

    Have somebody translate the words. No, it doesn’t matter if the ever so cute alphabet trick must be dispensed with:

    Fuck the European Union
    Fuck the Hague and ICC
    Fuck their rules and regulations
    Fuck the whole bureaucracy

    Asshats, bastards, cowards, dimwits
    Excrement-feasting gallows bait
    Hang the swine higher than Hama
    Ignorant jackasses! Knaves!

    Watch them purge the bent banana.
    See your taxes rise and rise.
    See your nations fall to ruin.
    Watch as every freedom dies.

    Lick-ass morons, nincompoops, oh,
    Pity the quagmire these reds made.
    Sycophants and thieves, the whole crew,
    Underworked and overpaid.

    Friday mornings EUnachs sign in
    To ensure their holidays
    Are paid for by lesser beings
    Free men call these beings “slaves.”

    To the lampposts, Europeans,
    Tie the knots and toss the ropes,
    Fit the nooses, haul the free ends
    Stand back, watch the bastards choke.

    9 http://www.lemonde.fr/attaques-a-paris/video/2015/11/14/francois-hollande-nous-allons-mener-le-combat-il-sera-impitoyable_4809575_4809495.html “We are going to wage a war that will be pitiless.”

    10 Extra points to whomever can identify where that came from.

    Read more EveryJoe coverage of the Paris attacks.

    Photo by Thierry Chesnot/Getty Images

    Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from Amazon.com for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through baen.com.

    Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.

    Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.


    Social Justice

    Don't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.

    Photo by zabelin/Getty Images

    Women in the Military

    Should women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!

    Photo by Getty Images

    The Kurds

    Tom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.

    Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

    Sorry Rodney

    Tom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.

    Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images

    Service Guarantees Citizenship

    Read this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.

    Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images

    Immigration

    Tom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Dear Germany

    Read this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.

    Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

    Sanctuary Cities

    Tom Kratman explores the real problem with sanctuary cities.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military "gun-free" zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Price in Blood

    Recently President Obama announced that the government would no longer threaten prosecution of those who pay ransom privately for the return of kidnapped loved ones. Read about the possible effects of Obama's ransom order.

    Torture

    Read Kratman's two-part series on torture:

    Jade Helm 15

    Don't miss this three-part series on Jade Helm 15. Is it necessary and should Americans be worried about it? Read: Part I, Part II and Part III.

    Does China Really Want War?

    Read Part I, II and III in Tom Kratman's series about the possibility of war with China.

    Breakup of the United States

    Be sure to read Tom Kratman's five-part series on the breakup of the United States:

    The Bergdahl Case

    If found guilty, should Bowe Bergdahl be sentenced to death?

    U.S. Navy

    No matter what you've read elsewhere, no -- our Navy is not big enough.

    Military Chow

    Read Tom Kratman's three part series on military food:

    The Soldier's Load

    Tom Kratman's series on the average American soldier's load is a must-read. Don't miss:

    The Left and the Military

    Ever wonder why the Left concentrates so closely on using the military to promote social change? Read part 1 and part 2 from Tom Kratman about the Left and the military.

    Defining Terrorism

    Don't miss Col. Kratman's five-part series on terrorism:

    Humanitarian Assistance

    Why does the military – not just ours, everyone’s, or everyone’s that matters – get tapped for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance over and over and over again? Read this column on the military and humanitarian aid to find out.

    Why War Games Fail

    It's another Lieutenant Reilly story. This time, we are talking about war games and why they fail. Read part 1 and part 2 in this series.

    Military Integrity

    Unfortunately dishonesty, fraud and a lack of integrity are sometimes not just accepted in the military, they are expected. Read this poignant piece about military integrity.

    Arab Armies

    Read this Lines of Departure column from Tom Kratman to find out why Arab armies are so generally worthless.

    The Purpose of War

    A military is about more than self-preservation. Security is a principle of war; safety is not. Risk is in the soldier’s job description. Read: The Purpose of War is to Win.
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • http://pukeko.net.nz/blog chrisgale

        Well, if the government won’t do it, the French peasantry will.

        • BigGaySteve

          The government cucks where defending mosques from consequences while the bodies still bleed.

        • Tom Kratman

          That’s one of the things I’m looking for, when the government orders the army and gendarmerie to guard the “refugees” and they neglect to do so, or just flat refuse to. That may be the penultimate step before Madame, mentioned above, starts getting some much needed exercise.

        • BigGaySteve

          I just read about your decade of blade training for trench warfare. What sort of blade/sword would you recommend for someone 6’3″ for a SHTF situation? Perhaps something from coldsteel?

        • Tom Kratman

          I don’t know enough about cold steel to say. They make replicas, sortakinda, I know that much. What I carried in the first Gulf war was a 450-500 year old, relatively light Katana from Bizen province, though my reasons then weren’t the same as my reasons earlier.

          I wouldn’t carry anything you didn’t know how to use. Beyond that, I don’t know.

      • BlueHornet

        Regarding the tenth footnote, that was the ethical issue in Run Silent, Run Deep. Not sure if that’s the exact reference you had in mind, but it’s apt to your point.

        • BlueHornet

          And I certainly approve of your use of Ode to Joy better than the EU’s.

      • Jack Withrow

        While I would like to think there is a backbone left in France, at this point I highly doubt it. I don’t expect anything of consequence to happen. In short I don’t believe Western Europe can be saved. Eastern Europe may save itself, but if it does it will have to align itself with the devil, Russia. And if Putin plays his cards right, a new Warsaw Pact could be formed in the near future.

        And I will be very much surprised if something similar to the Paris Attacks does not happen here in the USA before New Years Day. And with our current leadership, if that attack happens, our response will be at best anemic.

        • Joseph Capdepon II

          My buddy from Finland assures me that Finland will never side with Russia.

        • James

          Bad blood

        • Jack Withrow

          If Western Europe goes to shit, which it is looking more and more likely to happen, Finland may have no choice.

        • gothamette

          Politics makes strange bedfellows. Finland allied w/Germany to fight Russia, then w/Russia to fight Germany. To save themselves from Islamists they might.

        • gothamette

          “Eastern Europe may save itself, but if it does it will have to align itself with the devil, Russia. And if Putin plays his cards right, a new Warsaw Pact could be formed in the near future.”
          I have the same apprehension. Add to that Russia doesn’t force LGBTism on its allies, and we do. We could end up with a 3-way clash of civilizations. This is worrying.

        • Can Terzioğlu

          And thats the worst part. Putin’s Russia learned from mistakes. USA did not.

        • gothamette

          Well, maybe Putin did. Don’t know about “Putin’s Russia.” Putin is a cunning beast who sees things very clearly. We have no politicians like him.

          And police states can bludgeon their way to their goals while democracies flail and flounder ineffectually. I think the majority of the population in the West wants common sense things: stop the bombing, stop enraging these crazies, and erect a fence around Europe, enact strict immigration controls. The problem is, the “elites” want the exact opposite. Who wins? Take a guess. We are in for hell.

      • Steven Schwartz

        Speaking of fighting, wherever did this nonsense of French military incompetence and cowardice come from, anyway?

        The latter, from the rapid surrender in 1940. The former, from their tendency across three wars with various Germans to fight the last one, and, as a result, either get their heads handed to them or else rack up enormous pointless casualties, or both.

        Your snide aside about “a certain kind of person” is duly noted — indeed, staff officers who looked at World War I, and came to the conclusion that greater defense was going to win the next war came into power.

        One set are the unassimilated, indeed, increasingly unassimilated and by now well-nigh inassimilable, Moslems.

        As opposed to the ones who have assimilated, and/or continue to assimilate, who you are prepared to declare “enemies”, thus giving the already overburdened French security services (overburdened, it is worth noting, because of austerity measures requested by other governments — so that budgets can be kept in check) even more people to worry about.

        Indeed, it is people with attitudes like the one you display here that *encourage* and provide aid and comfort to those who recruit inside France — because they can point to people like you and say “See? You’ll never be accepted here, so why are you even trying?”

        Or, as you say: Yes, sure, maybe they were not treated as well in the past as they might have been. So what, that ship has sailed.

        I note that Americans now are supposed to be grateful for what French people did 200 years ago, but Muslim immigrants are supposed to — what? Forget and forgive what happened to their *parents*?

        And then we get to the heart of it — in which our open-letter writer talks about purging the intellectuals, after talking about the evils from non-assimilated people within and without. About reducing religious and ethnic minorities inside a country to second-class citizens, and exterminating the people and their relatives and neighbors when one is found to have committed a crime against the people. About destroying foreign countries without care for civilian casualties.

        I wonder where we hear that kind of rhetoric elsewhere? Where we’ve heard it historically?

        Hopefully, the French will ignore your invitation to descend into barbarism and the worst excesses of the 20th century, Tom. Indeed, I have faith that they will.

        Because not everyone’s first reaction (and, apparently, second, and third) to a problem is “How many people do we round up and kill?”

        Indeed, having seen it so often from you, I suspect it’s less a case of “This is how we solve the problem” as “This is our excuse to do what we’ve wanted all along!”

        • Tom Kratman

          Did someone say something?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Yeah — you did, in an “open letter”, and apparently didn’t expect anyone to do anything other than nod their heads and agree with you when you started bringing up the eliminationist rhetoric.

          To which, I see, you have no response other than ad hominem argument, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that someone with so little regard for any human life that doesn’t agree with him should have little regard for reasoning.

        • Tom Kratman

          Hmmm…there’s this fly buzzing around. I can hear it, but none of the sound has any meaning.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Hm. Funny; I can’t hear it. Must be inside your head. ;)

          But by all means, Tom; leave me unrebutted. I’ll just be sure to point to here whenever I need to point out to people just what kind of positions you espouse, no matter what kind of false front you try and put on it elsewhere.

        • Tom Kratman

          Bzzzz…bzzz…bzzzzt

        • Steven Schwartz

          Someone call a repairman — Tom’s broken again. :)

        • Tom Kratman

          No, Steven, it’s just that, as mentioned elsewhere herein, you have nothing to say. Your history is false. Your mathematics are deficient, And you’re pretty damned stupid, too, and arrogant as only the very stupid can be. Otherwise, you could never come up with the idiot arguments you do.

          Frankly, you’re beneath me, and while I do get a bit of mileage out of you by having you lay out the arguments of the side of civilization suicide, and also – I admit – a little fun, on the whole you’re rarely worth the effort.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Your history is false. Your mathematics are deficient, And you’re pretty damned stupid, too, and arrogant as only the very stupid can be.

          And I can say the same of you. Of course, only one of us ever presents real *arguments* for their side, while the other sticks his fingers in his ears and pretends there’s nothing coming from the other side.

          Frankly, you’re beneath me

          That’s OK, I think genocidal religious bigots who want to drench the world in blood are beneath me, so I feel the same about you.

          on the whole you’re rarely worth the effort.

          Odd definition of “rarely” you’ve showing here. And in your last two posts. :)

        • Tom Kratman

          Bzzz…bzzz…bzzz…did someone say something?

        • Jono

          Schwartz, why troll Tom’s page? What do you get out of it? Is is learned behavior from your earliest years?Was the only way you could get to suck on Mommy’s teat was to throw a hissy fit? Do you somehow feel your existence is validated is people are irritated enough by your pomposity and posturing to respond? Do you walk away after a session adding your whimpers and whines to this page feeling that, at least, someone knows you are alive?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Actually, Jono, it’s because letting people like Tom go on about how all we need to do is kill the right people for the world to be a better place makes the world a worse place.

          And because when people like Tom venture out into the rest of the world, they often try for a bit, at least, to pretend like they’re a lot more moderate than they are.

          So, no, I want to make Tom admit to what he is: a person who believes that mass murder is justified purely on the basis of someone’s political beliefs, or because of who they happened to live next to.

          So if he tries to go somewhere else and deny it, or soft-pedal it, he can be pointed out for the liar that he is.

          And otherwise, people can look at him and go “Oh, right, he’s the tinpot Hitler-wannabe” and give him all the credit he *deserves*.

          Besides which; I believe in engagement. If I hadn’t engaged with him about Starship Troopers, I would not have been able to put so clearly into words the problem I saw with the model of “civic virtue” that is presented there. Had I not engaged with an online apologist who felt that the Law of Non-Contradiction could only have come from God, therefore God, I would not have learned about dialethism.

          And, of course, some days it’s just fun to mock someone who is busily announcing loudly “La, la, la, I’m not listening to you!”

          Tom feeds the world misinformation — I provide a different perspective. You can want (as apparently he does) epistemic closure, but that’s not a sane nor healthy way to run a diverse society — and that’s what we have, whether people like it or not.

        • Curt Pangracs

          I’ve never seen someone write so much to say so little. You need to find a hobby. How about you join an NGO and go to these Syrian refugee camps? Why not actually DO something other than stalk Tom? BTW, you don’t provide a “different” perspective, you provide the perspective expected from a clueless elitist who is so far divorced from reality you believe someone who supports western civilization defending against a medieval mindset of violence and capitulation is actually bad, and that you believe that acquiescence is somehow a legitimate way to deal with them.

          One question, Steve – have you ever stood a post with a loaded weapon on a front line with people who are, ideologically, ready to take you out with a word? I have. You learn very quickly to respect your opponent as a soldier like yourself. In this war, our opponent has no respect for anyone or anything, and cannot be considered a soldier. They understand violence, death, their blood, and Allah, not necessarily in that order. If we are unwilling to meet that mindset with the same, we are doomed to fall to their control.

          I think, deep down, you WANT that control. You really have no problem with being forced to kneel at someone else’s command. I’m just wondering why you haven’t bought your ticket to Raqqa yet.

        • TimWB

          Friends of mine have stood a post. Army and Marines.
          Not all military agree with you.
          My friends agree with Schwartz.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Why not actually DO something other than stalk Tom?

          You have no idea, as I’ve said before, what else I do or don’t do.

          BTW, you don’t provide a “different” perspective, you provide the perspective expected from a clueless elitist who is so far divorced from reality you believe someone who supports western civilization defending against a medieval mindset of violence and capitulation is actually bad, and that you believe that acquiescence is somehow a legitimate way to deal with them.

          “Defending” Western civilization by saying “We need to descend to their level, or below, because it’s what works” isn’t defending it. It’s corrupting it from within.

          And why is it that somehow, when I say “You’re doing it wrong!” I’m bad, while when he says “You’re doing it wrong!” he’s supporting Western civilization? He and I fundamentally disagree on both a strategic and tactical level, but we have the same basic goal; the survival of Western civilization.

          You know, once upon a time, Western civilization was racked with religious warfare at least as, if not more brutal than what we’re seeing now; yet somehow, without turning into a mass extinction of Protestants or Catholics, we got past it. How? Can we apply those answers now?

          These are questions that can move us towards solutions that aren’t “perpetual war and constant bloodshed”. But they’re not the questions people like Tom are asking.

        • Jono

          You are a sheep, trying to convince a sheepdog that the wolves aren’t dangerous.

        • Jono

          Okay, so you _do_ think that acting as a troll validates your existence. It doesn’t really, you know. All you do is waste Tom’s time and our bandwidth reciting the same sad arguments all of us have heard – and rejected – many times.

        • Steven Schwartz

          My existence doesn’t need this to validate it.

          And, pray tell, what shjould I do? Let him spout the same garbage unchallenged again and again?

          Besides, arguing with him refines my own arguments and understanding of the things he goes on about — as I said, and you blithely ignored, I learned about the problems with Starship Troopers from the debate.

          If Tom and the rest of you find me such a waste of time, you don’t need to respond; you can let my responses go unchallenged, if you feel they’re so feeble.

          But that’s no reason I should let Tom blither on without correction or analysis.

        • BigGaySteve

          The only genocide going on is against whites. There is no risk of the world running out of 3rd world moslem scum. Read the Rivkin document Snowden released that covered the plan to turn France from a nation that banned McDonalds to having thousands of cars torched in Paris a year by blacks.
          Moslems only victories happened when they used others civilization against them.

        • Steven Schwartz

          The only genocide going on is against whites.

          Awfully ineffective genocide, that.

          There is no risk of the world running out of 3rd world moslem scum

          Nor, apparently, eliminationist idiots like yourself.

          When you advocate killing off or deporting an entire population, guess what? You’ve moved into genocidal territory. Which is what Kratman did.

        • http://themcchuck.blogspot.com McChuck

          You keep saying ‘genocide’ like its a bad thing, Steven.
          When a genocidal/culturacidal war is being waged against you, the only logical (survival-enhancing) response to to return the favor. When it’s Them or Us, I choose Us.

          Your problem is that you’re a traitor – you choose to defend Them and attack Us at every opportunity. Does that make you feel all warm and snug at night? Do chicks dig traitors? Are you being paid for your treason? Or do you betray your own freelance, as an unpaid volunteer? Did they whisper sweet words into your ear, slowly convincing you that Sauron was going to be victorious in the end, so the only logical choice was to join his ranks early, so as to be a favored slave when his inevitable victory came to hand?

          What is your promised bounty, Wormtongue?

        • Steven Schwartz

          When a genocidal/culturacidal war is being waged against you, the only logical (survival-enhancing) response to to return the favor.

          When a genocidal war is being waged against you by a tiny minority of another group, waging war back against the entire group is both pointless and, yes, *bad*.

          Because it’s not “Them or Us” when the “Them” are Muslims, and the “Us” are non-Muslims.

          “Your problem is that you’re a traitor – you choose to defend Them and attack Us at every opportunity.”

          Nompe; you don’t see what I do on other places. I don’t even *defend* them, for example, here — as I’ve said, many many times, what Daesh is doing is inexcusable. But saying “X is a bad way to deal with Y!” is not the same as saying “And Y is good.”

          The fact that you see it that way says more about you than it does about me.

          I want a world where violent extremists like the leadership of Daesh and Tom Kratman have no power.

        • Curt Pangracs

          Advocate? No. He laid out a plan that would solve France’s problem, fully knowing it wouldn’t happen. He did so using the REAL tenets of “pitiless war”, and he did so as a warning to the French People that their President has no intention of actually doing what needs to be done to “fix the problem”.

          The fact that you missed that tells me you aren’t nearly as intelligent as you’d like others to believe, and is now morphing your visage into that of Jeff Goldblum in that one movie, you know, the one where his genetic code gets scrambled with an insect…

        • Steven Schwartz

          No. He laid out a plan that would solve France’s problem, fully knowing it wouldn’t happen.

          When your rhetoric is “This is what you can do. Your leaders are too cowardly to do it, so why do you tolerate them?”, the only thing that separates that from advocating it, especially given the speaker’s past advocacy of political violence,is a figleaf of deniability, which you’re willing to grant him.

        • Ming the Merciless

          It is not genocide to deport an alien threat. It is simple common sense.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Part of the problem comes in with the definition of “alien”. What you are trying to do — here, and in other comments — is fix a point in time as “the way things are” and everything that does not fit that model is “alien” or “not the way things should be” — e.g. a simple definition of “nation”.

          It is genocidal to deport an entire group because some small subsection of it is a threat.

          I mean, heck; if we deported the group that caused most of the domestic terrorism in the United States, we’d drastically reduce the population, since that would be white men. (Christian white men even more narrowly) — but considering that simply *admitting* Muslims to Europe is being described by people as “genocide against whites”, can you imagine the uproar?

        • Ming the Merciless

          The alienness of Muslims is not “fixed in time”. It has been around for over 1,000 years. Get back to me in 2,400 AD and let me know if Muslim behavior has changed appreciably, and then we’ll talk.

          And anyway, so what if we do want to “fix things in time”? Nothing wrong with that.

          It is genocidal to deport an entire group because some small subsection of it is a threat.

          That’s utter bullshit. We would not need to kill all of them, or even a large number of them to deport them.

          There is a better argument that it is genocidal to permit them to stay.

          if we deported the group that caused most of the domestic terrorism in
          the United States, we’d drastically reduce the population, since that
          would be white men.

          I do not care about Muslims terrorizing their own countries. Let Muslim governments deal with that. And if we have a white male terrorist problem in this country, we will deal with that. What we do not need – and what is a completely unnecessary, unforced error – is Muslim terrorism in this country.

        • Steven Schwartz

          The alienness of Muslims

          Where? After all, for hundreds of years it was Christians who were “aliens” in parts of the Balkans, for example. “Alien” is entirely dependent on who is in charge *now*.

          And anyway, so what if we do want to “fix things in time”? Nothing wrong with that.

          Well, you have to cope with the fact that other people don’t agree with where you choose to fix them. Just look at Alsace & Lorraine for examples here.

          That’s utter bullshit. We would not need to kill all of them, or even a large number of them to deport them.

          That depends; is there anywhere to deport them *to*? Or are you stuffing them in refugee camps within your own borders?

          There is a better argument that it is genocidal to permit them to stay.

          Either you’re making a veiled “Because if they stay, we’ll kill them all” threat, or you’re trying the ridiculous “genocide from within” argument. Which one is it?

          I do not care about Muslims terrorizing their own countries. Let Muslim governments deal with that. And if we have a white male terrorist problem in this country, we will deal with that. What we do not need – and what is a completely unnecessary, unforced error – is Muslim terrorism in this country.

          But all this depends on asserting that Muslims are “aliens” here — in what is in theory a secular society. Which gets back to your simplistic notions around nations, etc.

          Your arguments about what makes Muslims “aliens” are, in fact, the same arguments that were made about Catholic “aliens”, and Japanese “aliens” — and we’ve seen where those led, now haven’t we?

          If “alien” means “distinct from the mainstream culture of a country”, then people who want to make the U.S. a white-only Christian theocracy are more distinct from the mainstream than assimilated Muslims in Dearborn by every measure except skin color.

        • Ming the Merciless

          After all, for hundreds of years it was Christians who were “aliens” in
          parts of the Balkans, for example. “Alien” is entirely dependent on who
          is in charge *now*.

          Nope. Christians were always the owners, Muslims the alien interlopers.

          you have to cope with the fact that other people don’t agree with where you choose to fix them.

          And you have to cope with the fact that your insane policies means that the problems will be fixed with blood and fire.

          is there anywhere to deport them *to*?

          Wherever they came from, back they go.

          Either you’re making a veiled “Because if they stay, we’ll kill them
          all” threat, or you’re trying the ridiculous “genocide from within”
          argument. Which one is it?

          The presence of Muslims within Christian lands fits the legal definition of genocide – and in fact, in actual practice the Muslims have inflicted genocide on a number of Christian populations.

          all this depends on asserting that Muslims are “aliens” here

          As indeed they are. How many corpses do you need to see to prove this to you?

          Your arguments about what makes Muslims “aliens” are, in fact, the same
          arguments that were made about Catholic “aliens”, and Japanese “aliens”
          – and we’ve seen where those led, now haven’t we?

          (Shrug) The Japanese were aliens. They should not have been allowed to immigrate in the first place. I have no problem with them being interned in WW2. Catholics were not aliens; and what exactly did “prejudice” against them lead to?

          If you don’t know what “alien” means then you are insane. But we already knew that.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Nope. Christians were always the owners, Muslims the alien interlopers.

          So, by that standard, we should expect the Christians to auto-deport from North America?

          Your Christian-centric view of history is on ever more vivid display — choosing when to start the clock on “ownership” at a time convenient to your argument. For example, I suspect (though I’d have to check to be sure) that it’s not possible for some portion of Spain, the Balkans, and Lithuania to all be “Christian” by right unless you start ownership in the 19th century.

          And you have to cope with the fact that your insane policies means that the problems will be fixed with blood and fire.

          Nompe. You don’t get to claim that only you have the solution, and then wash your hands of the consequences of the solution you chose. I advocate *against* genocide, mass deportation, and communal violence. You are saying that you must resort to them. The blood remains on your hands.

          Perhaps you should consider why it is so important to you to be rid of it — whether it’s because your conscience quails from what you claim you “have” to do, and want to push it onto someone else.

          Wherever they came from, back they go.

          Dearborn, Michigan, for example?

          The presence of Muslims within Christian lands fits the
          legal definition of genocide

          If mass deportations aren’t “genocide”, as you claim, I’d love to see how you justify mere Muslim *presence* as “genocide”.

          - and in fact, in actual practice the Muslims have inflicted genocide on a number of Christian populations.

          And vice versa, going back thousands of years. Your point?

          (Shrug) The Japanese were aliens. They should not have been allowed to immigrate in the first place.

          Well, they were invited in; not much you can do about that. I am, I admit, entertained by your pursuit of ethnic purity given your username. :)

          And native-born Japanese were “aliens”? Do tell — how long does one need to be somewhere before you cease being an “alien”?

          Catholics were not aliens; and what exactly did “prejudice” against them lead to?

          They were certainly considered aliens back in the 19th Century; and you can look at the Know-Nothings and the Ku Klux Klan as part of the legacy of their emigration.

          Heck, we were having arguments in this country in the 20th century as to whether a Catholic could be trusted to be President, just as there are now people arguing that a Muslim couldn’t be trusted to be President.
          If you don’t know what “alien” means then you are insane. But we already knew that.

          My point is, and remains, that who is “alien” is dependent upon who is doing the defining, when, and to what political aim they are choosing to do it. Your apparent blood-and-soil nationalism is particularly risible when it comes to the United States, but runs into problems when you try and apply it to Europe as well, let alone the rest of the world.

        • BigGaySteve

          I would much rather Europe have Europeans and no turdworlders than turdworlders and no Europeans. Look at what each group contributed to civilization.

        • http://themcchuck.blogspot.com McChuck

          “All trees speak when the wind blows through them, but they do not know what they say, which is equal to saying nothing.”

        • Curt Pangracs

          “I think genocidal religious bigots who want to drench the world in blood are beneath me”

          Bullshit – if you did, you wouldn’t be in such a rush to defend the ideology and acts of radical Islamist, and advocate for anything but their complete and utter eradication from this planet.

        • Steven Schwartz

          1) Do point to where I “defend the ideology” of radical Islam, except by saying “Hey, killing lots of people to get a few people is a) immoral and b) ineffectual”.

          2) One of the principles of Western law, as elucidated (IIRC) by Blackstone: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer”. You can toss that out the window if you like, but be aware that you’re tossing out a chunk of what makes Western civilization superior — and our original poster was talking about killing 10-to-1.

          Sure; we can eradicate radical Islam. Of course, to do so, we may need to start a war that will eradicate humanity, and will *certainly* destroy much of what we consider worth valuing in civilization, but, well, I guess it’s worth the price?

          I don’t think so; I mean, I don’t think it’s worth rounding up and killing Christian Identity people, and they are a far more dire threat to me and mine, *especially* in the light of a violent reaction to Islam, at the expense of Constitutional rights.

          If you want to turn the West into a mirror of Daesh to fight Daesh, you’re missing the point, and playing their game. You’re doing what they want.

        • Curt Pangracs

          Honestly, the only thing broken is your ideology. The proof was fully in play a few days ago in Paris, and a bit before that in Africa. I could go on with the hundreds of attacks perpetrated in the name of Allah over just the last couple years, but I’m afraid that you will start crying about me creating a hostile atmosphere and would run to your safe space.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Well, let’s just take one point:

          People like Tom and Ming are saying, in effect, “you’ll never be assimilated” to Muslim populations in Europe. That is a very effective recruiting tool (the general attitude, as presented by the political Right) — since you are effectively agreeing with radical Islam when you make that statement, and giving them no hope *other* than violence.

          What’s your response to that?

        • Androsynth

          What’s to rebut? You vomited a pile of regurgitated stale leftist memes that have no bearing on reality. We get it, you hate Western/Modern civilization while parasitically living off it, and yell “racissssss” at anyone who tries to prevent you opening the gates to the barbarians.

          Dressing up your rank nonsense as an intellectual exercise that deserves rebuttal doesn’t make it so. I wouldn’t rebut someone who showed up at a math blog declaring 2+2=79 either, even if they did a little jig after and declared victory.

          Point and ((((shriek)))) to your idiot friends all you like.

        • Steven Schwartz

          We get it, you hate Western/Modern civilization

          Given that I’m not the one who’s arguing that we need to destroy fundamental tenets of it in order to survive, I find that hilarious.

          I’m not the one who’s arguing democracy has failed (as other Kratman-commenters have), or that the West is in terminal decline (again, as his commentariat has), etc., etc., and so forth. I’m the one arguing that the modern world can cope with this problem *without* resorting to tactics from Heydrich and Pot.

          and yell “racissssss” at anyone who tries to prevent you opening the gates to the barbarians.

          I’m not the one advocating killing people because of who their relatives are. If that’s yelling “racissss!” then what’s advocating such a thing?

          Look at what you’re defending.

        • BigGaySteve

          This is islam we are dealing with here. They are the zerg of human civilizations.If Islam were strategically smart, they would have conquered the West long ago. Their competence is limited to tactics and zerg-rush operations, and even there they only win against people who fall for taqqiya and other deceptions.

          Muslims… can’t live with them. Sure could live without them.

        • Steven Schwartz

          So, OK, you’re an eliminationist too. Any other point you’d care to make, other than “Hey, I don’t know what I’m talking about, but think it’s fine to dehumanize others?”

        • Curt Pangracs

          So, you expect others to look at them and treat them as “humans”, yet not strive to make them do the same for others? You truly are at the root of our problems today – you expect others to automatically think exactly like you, because you believe that your way of thinking is “correct”, and anyone else is ignorant and uncivilized. Guess what? Thinking like that is awesome…right up to the point that these poor, misunderstood people start sawing your head off with a dull blade. THEY are the ones who are perpetuating this “war”. If they didn’t do the things they do, we wouldn’t have a problem with them and we could live happily together.

          I bet you have a “COEXIST” bumper sticker on your Prius.

        • Steven Schwartz

          yet not strive to make them do the same for others?

          Where you get this notion I have no idea. That I protest against Kratman’s solutions doesn’t mean I advocate no solution.

          I think the way to fight Daesh and organizations like it is to help support democracy and improved living standards in the region. That doesn’t preclude airstrikes or targeted violence — but it *does* preclude the kind of “ten eyes for an eye” violence that people seem to be advocating.

          THEY are the ones who are perpetuating this “war”. If they didn’t do the things they do, we wouldn’t have a problem with them and we could live happily together.

          Well, we’re still bombing them, so it’s not as if our hands are clean. Stopping this “war” is not going to be a unilateral action.

          I bet you have a “COEXIST” bumper sticker on your Prius.

          0 for 2. :)

        • Ming the Merciless

          There is no need to eliminate them if we can contain them – i.e., keep them in their own nations where they belong, and keep them out of our nations, where they do not belong. But the Left won’t let us do that, either.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I find it interesting that you can so clearly divide “our nations” and “their nations. For example, Turkey — “theirs” or “ours”? It’s secular in government, and Turks are ethnically distinct from Syrian Arabs.

          Nations don’t fit the nice boxes you want to put them in; and by doing so, you’re remaking the same problems.

          As usual, binary thinking leads to non-solutions.

        • Ming the Merciless

          Nations do indeed fit into nice boxes. It is, in fact, the Left’s effort to mix up those boxes that has created endless strife and bloodshed.

          Turkey allowing Syrians or other Muslims to enter Turkey is an entirely different kettle of fish than the USA, Britain, France, or Germany allowing Muslims to enter them.

          You can blather all you want about “non-solutions”. The problem is going to be solved, one way or another, through some combination of slaughter, expulsion, or dhimmitude. Leftist multi-culti “tolerance” has failed – not least because the Muslims simply don’t believe in it – so you might as well stop trying to shove that crap down everyone’s throat.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Nations do indeed fit into nice boxes.

          You mean like the religious states like Saudi Arabia and England, and the secular states like Turkey and the United States?

          Or Western states like …wait, is Ukraine Western, or not?

          No, they *don’t* fit in neat little boxes, and simply asserting it does not make it so.

          The problem is going to be solved, one way or another, through some combination of slaughter, expulsion, or dhimmitude.

          So, all the Muslims who are living peacefully in Western democracies….don’t exist? Or need to be driven out because of the radical reactions of some of their co-religionists?

          Shall we remove white Christian males from citizenship because of the large number of them involved in domestic terrorism in the United States, including the second-deadliest such attack in our nation’s history?

          If your tools are blood and expulsion, then, yes, that’s all you’re going to see.

          But, as I told another commentator here, it’s not as if Western Europe didn’t have religious strife as bloody as Daesh is dealing out — and yet it survived without extermination or expulsion, somehow. Without even a massive external existential threat. Perhaps we should figure out *how*.

          Leftist multi-culti “tolerance” has failed

          Strange; Parisians drove off people spouting intolerance from a rally yesterday.

          It’s still the core structure of many nations.

        • Ming the Merciless

          Yes, they do fit in nice boxes, and Lefty efforts to make the issue “complex” are the product of their lying agenda.

          all the Muslims who are living peacefully in Western
          democracies….don’t exist? Or need to be driven out because of the
          radical reactions of some of their co-religionists?

          Who cares, and yes.

          Shall we remove white Christian males from citizenship because of the
          large number of them involved in domestic terrorism in the United
          States, including the second-deadliest such attack in our nation’s
          history?

          So, we have domestic terrorists and criminals, and therefore we should fling open the gates to foreign terrorists and criminals as well? What a hilariously stupid argument.

          If your tools are blood and expulsion, then, yes, that’s all you’re going to see.

          They are not “my tools”. They are yours. They are the products and inevitable end results of your preferred policies.

          it’s not as if Western Europe didn’t have religious strife as bloody as
          Daesh is dealing out — and yet it survived without extermination or
          expulsion, somehow.

          In fact, Western Europe is indeed the product of past extermination and expulsion.

          Strange; Parisians drove off people spouting intolerance from a rally yesterday.

          The multi-cultis – like you – are still around spouting their insanity. Doubtless you will continue to do so even though the bloody proof of your failures is staring you in the face every day.

        • Steven Schwartz

          So what are your “nice boxes”? I notice you actually delete the examples given, that might complicate your system, and then say “complication is part of the problem.” Your Procrustean bed of a political system is more likely to be the problem, for failure to match up to reality.

          Who cares, and yes.

          So, when it comes time for you to be driven out, because you don’t fit someone’s idea of what’s right for the nation, you’ll go, because it’s the right thing?

          I mean, really — trying to create national/geographical blocks of homogeneity has never worked before, and now you’re going to try it in a far more interconnected world than ever before? Really?

          So, we have domestic terrorists and criminals, and therefore we should fling open the gates to foreign terrorists and criminals as well? What a hilariously stupid argument.

          No; I’m asking why you’re arguing for expulsion of one group but not another — why one set of violent religious extremists deserves such treatment as a Kratman would dish out, while another gets support and comfort. I mean, I suspect you’d object to “rounding up and killing 10 radical anti-abortion preachers for every abortion-clinic worker killed”. I could be wrong; in which case, you’re barbaric, but even-handedly so.

          They are not “my tools”. They are yours.

          You’re the one advocating mass deportations and relocations; “ethnic cleansing”. Not me. So don’t try and claim that they are not your tools.

          In fact, Western Europe is indeed the product of past extermination and expulsion.

          Considering that the main groups “expelled and exterminated” were Jews, I sincerely hope you don’t consider that a successful and moral approach.

          However, the Wars of Religion were not solved by massive population relocation; they ended due to increased religious tolerance. How did this happen? That’s what we need to explore, since we’ve been here once before, and we got past it.

          Doubtless you will continue to do so even though the bloody proof of your failures is staring you in the face every day.

          Funny — I see the bloody proof of the failure of the “Let’s kill them before they can kill us” and “We get to civilize them by force because they’re all barbarians” approaches.

        • Ming the Merciless

          when it comes time for you to be driven out, because you don’t fit
          someone’s idea of what’s right for the nation, you’ll go, because it’s
          the right thing?

          If that’s the way it works out, yup.

          trying to create national/geographical blocks of homogeneity has never worked before,

          LMAO you are ignorant. It has worked many, many times.

          I’m asking why you’re arguing for expulsion of one group but not another

          Well duh because one group has no business being here at all, and the other does.

          You’re the one advocating mass deportations and relocations; “ethnic
          cleansing”. Not me. So don’t try and claim that they are not your tools.

          They are your responsibility because they are the inevitable end products of the problems you created.

          Considering that the main groups “expelled and exterminated” were Jews,

          Bzzzt, wrong. Western Europe is the product of the expulsion and extermination of many different groups.

          the Wars of Religion were not solved by massive population relocation; they ended due to increased religious tolerance.

          They ended, you moron, after an enormous bloodbath. So we’ve got that to look forward to. Thanks, open borders cretins!

          I see the bloody proof of the failure of the “Let’s kill them before
          they can kill us” and “We get to civilize them by force because they’re
          all barbarians” approaches.

          Funny. I see that neither one has actually been tried yet. I look forward to full implementation under the benevolent leadership of President Kratman.

        • Steven Schwartz

          LMAO you are ignorant. It has worked many, many times.

          Examples, please?

          And do bear in mind that over the past decade, separatist terrorist attacks have outnumbered Islamist terrorist attacks in Europe — just as a point of data.

          Well duh because one group has no business being here at all, and the other does.

          Because when you decided to stop the changes, one group held power, and another didn’t? Oh, that’s realy helpful.

          Your entire argument boils down to “We’re here, so we get to stay here in whatever bloc we consider important, and can kick out whoever we think doesn’t fit that bloc, whether that’s an ethnic group, a religious group….”

          I am quite impressed with the level of might-makes-right nationalism you’re willing to espouse.

          They are your responsibility because they are the inevitable end products of the problems you created.

          *Your* solutions to problems you claim someone else created are not “inevitable” except to you. You are choosing them; accept responsibility or stop being a coward trying to hide behind “historical inevitability.” You’d laugh at someone saying “Well, capitalists are responsible for the crimes of Stalin because he was resisting the problems they created”, yet that’s what you’re trying to do here.

          Bzzzt, wrong. Western Europe is the product of the expulsion and extermination of many different groups.

          Let’s see — who else was expelled beyond Jews and Muslims from Spain? I’m waiting for examples.

          They ended, you moron, after an enormous bloodbath. So we’ve got that to look forward to. Thanks, open borders cretins!

          There had been bloodbaths before, and there were bloodbaths after — what *else* changed? It’s not as if only in Germany was there a sudden burgeoning of religious peace.

          Funny. I see that neither one has actually been tried yet.

          Oh, that former’s been tried repeatedly; sometimes it even kind of works — there are no more Albigensians, for example. Other times, it just produces a litany of suffering for the next generation, and the next, and the next, stretching for centuries and — guess what? Setting up the next bloodbath.

          The latter, BTW, is the driving force behind a lot of neoconservative foreign policy, and imperial foreign policy.

          I look forward to full implementation under the benevolent leadership of President Kratman.

          Fortunately, that’ll never happen. :)

        • Can Terzioğlu

          Parisians are morons, thats why. That way lies Al-Frankistan

        • Can Terzioğlu

          erdogan brings Syrians to boost his votes, give them false citizenship and use them to disturb secular citizens by the way.

        • BigGaySteve

          Must suck for you to know that a puff is more man than you.

        • James

          Interesting I thought the fundamental tenets of Western civilization were use of Logic, a rather bent towards the republics and such?

          All that other stuff?

          The Romans wouldn’t have this problem. They in many ways ,MADE western civilization along with the Greeks.

        • Curt Pangracs

          You are ignoring the one thing that is undeniable – if you don’t kill the family, they will replicate and attack. It’s like dealing with fleas or roaches. They so utterly destroy their young’s ability to think for themselves, basically enslaving them to the idea that they must destroy anyone who is not their family. Just because you can’t admit that truth to yourself doesn’t mean those that do comprehend it are wrong.

        • TimWB

          Cool! There’s a strategy! Now the tactics:
          How many do we kill?
          For how many generations do we kill?
          Is there a litmus test for determining which ones are healthy or do we lump them together and just drop them?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Hello, Tim, and thank you for helping to point out the reality of the position stated.

        • Steven Schwartz

          You are ignoring the one thing that is undeniable – if you don’t kill the family, they will replicate and attack.

          Oh, that’s *very* deniable.

          After all, if that were true, the way you describe it, we’d be dealing with a massive blossoming of terrorism in the last 14 years — when, in fact, we’ve seen no such thing. We’re hyper-aware and paranoid about it, but if you look at, for example, terrorist attacks in Europe, they’re far more likely to be separatist than Islamist.

          There is, in fact, very little evidence that *not* killing people makes them grow back stronger; there’s ample evidence that killing people makes them more likely to attack you.

          Heck; the number of Iraqi-derived terrorist attacks before Shrub’s war was very small — it’s skyrocketed since we went in there on trumped-up grounds and started killing people.

          Funny how that works.

        • BigGaySteve

          Little cuck, Ann Coulter offered to execute moslem child rapists given the death penalty if there was no one man enough in Europe to do it, I have previously offered to execute the beheaders of Lee Rigby. During the march protesting Ribgy’s beheading in broad daylight gays marched with skinheads. So where does that put you as a man?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Hm. Let’s see: We start with a sexualized insult, and go on to go “Hey, the new test of manhood is being willing to execute people!”

          Color me unimpressed with your willingness to a) address the subject at hand, and b) your unilateral definitions of “manhood”.

          I protest and object to *any* religiously-based violence, whether it comes from Daesh or from your typical gaybashing thugs.

          I think that moronic “ten eyes for an eye” tactics like Kratman espouses are serving Daesh’s purpose, rather than that of anyone in the West.

          And, as it happens, since I’m genotypically, phenotypically, and legally male, I guess that makes me a man, now doesn’t it? ;) You may wish to narrow the definition, but no one gave you any particular authority — heck, many of the people all gung-ho about going to war would assert you’re not a man by the very claims you make in your username.

        • Curt Pangracs

          “And, as it happens, since I’m genotypically, phenotypically, and legally male, I guess that makes me a man, now doesn’t it? ;) ”

          Funny how you completely miss what being a man is all about. You and Caitlyn Jenner would make great sisters.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Thank you, BTW, for acknowledging that your notion of “man” is entirely a social construct — how very feminist of you. :)

          Seriously — “to be a man” by whatever definition you’re peddling is no more than to abide by a particular social construct you’re electing to use; and why should I be bothered with it?

        • BigGaySteve

          All the puffs over at gay patriot are more manly than you are.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Considering I’ve seen 3rd graders capable of better retorts, I’m not really worried about your opinion of what makes a “man”.

        • BigGaySteve

          I guess your willie is so small 3rd grades are what works for you. Do you know why moslems stone gays to death and mutilate little girls genitals? One day moohammad’s oldest wife hit puberty and he realized the gays were right about his PP being smaller than what is now cut off little girls.

        • Jack Withrow

          I think you hear a toddler throwing a temper tantrum, because no one will pay any attention to him.

        • Ciarog

          >assimilate

          Reminder that what this actually means is “we still think we can use our stranglehold on commerce, academia, and the media to make them every bit the soulless, gutless, dickless, mindless hedonists that we are.”

          Maybe you can. Looking at the cultural tohuwabohu of the post-war West, though, I almost wonder if Shariah would be preferable.

        • Tom Kratman

          Might be for men and boys, not so hot for women and girls. You’ll have to accept the legitimacy of slavery – they only sortakinda got rid of it because of pressure from outside, which pressure would have disappeared, and, in practice, they didn’t really get rid of it – because what God permits man cannot prevent. And, of course, gays rights are right out, though lynchings and 7000 lashes for sodomy are in.

          On the other hand, there are a number of deep problems that are inherent and integral to Islam that basically ruin any state or society it gets control of. It can appear to work for a while, living on slavery, dhimmitude, and the capitol of the non-Islamic past, but then it all starts to fall apart.

        • Ciarog

          If mass graves is what they can look forward to, it ain’t like our “outed” gays and “liberated” women didn’t have a hand in digging them. They thought they could vampirize the youth of barbarians the same way they’ve been doing to their native peons; not my fault that the barbarians didn’t want to play that game.

          As for the regressive tendencies in Islam… no disagreements from me. The point I was trying to make is that, as bad as Mohammedanism usually is, leftism has the potential to be a Hell of a lot worse. At least we know where they as a culture are going to be in another thousand years (right where they were a thousand years ago). Gods only know what end-stage leftism is going to eventually look like; the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement is about “end-stage” as you can get, and it hasn’t been around for thirty years.

          (Yes, yes, I know. Fringe movement, no wider following in leftist circles. And was anyone in 1991 talking about transsexuals or “safe spaces”?)

        • Ciarog

          2039:
          “Caitlyn, our reign has gone on long enough!”
          “Indeed. Summon the meteors!”

        • Steven Schwartz

          And was anyone in 1991 talking about transsexuals or “safe spaces”?)

          Yes; that you weren’t listening doesn’t mean the talk wasn’t happening.

          Of course, by your argument, “rightism” can be equated with whatever is coming out of Stormfront right now — “Hey, let’s take a fringe movement and say “maybe it could go this way!”"

          There’s a lot more evidence for eliminationist rightism as a threat (e.g., this column getting onto a site with a decent hit count) than voluntary — (ironically, note the word there) human extinction.

        • Curt Pangracs

          Another claim made that you can’t effectively support or expect anyone to refute. Shameless.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Which part do you think I can’t support? Do be specific, and I’ll provide support.

        • BigGaySteve

          I went to a gay youth conference while I was in college in the 90s. They talked about lowing the age of consent, making sex work safe/legal, destroying conventional marriage/polygamy, tranny rights and removing the tax status from churches.

        • TimWB

          Can one be against what you list and still be Liberal or progressive?

        • BigGaySteve

          I actually stood up and spoke after the sex workers safe on the streets and said that “as an EMT I don’t think the streets will ever be fully safe for EMTs, shouldn’t we try to find alternatives since people that pay for sex are ugly” about 1000 people looked at me like I was quoting hitler.

        • BigGaySteve

          The reason Anderson Cooper defends moslems and talks about how well he got along in moslem nations is that he would rather have bacha bazi than an 18yo boyfriend.

        • Tom Kratman

          I can’t say that it would especially surprise me.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I find it really ironic that somehow your enemies are simultaneously so strong and capable as to achieve a “stranglehold” on major parts of society, and yet simultaneously so utterly worthless.

          Classic hallmark of conspiracy thinking, rather than rational analysis.

        • BigGaySteve

          Well they still get away with the same financial scams Martin Luther wrote about in the 16th century, but they have learned from the 200+ times they got kicked out of nations and the one time they where kept from leaving.

          All of history has been the Elite looters who destroy a nation and its economy, and then swoop in and collect hard assets on the cheap usually with easy money due to proximity to central bankers. The goal that these connected money men want is a publicly sanctioned private looting

        • Steven Schwartz

          Ooh! We can add “anti-Semitic” to your list of characteristics! Wonderful.

          Actually, my observation applies to most any kind of conspiratorial thinking — the simultaneously weak and powerful enemy is a staple of such, whether it was Catholics, Jews, Masons, you-name-it. That you so readily identified it with one particular group, and asserted, apparently, its truth, says much more about you than you might want to admit.

        • James

          WTF why are you talking about jews now?

          WTH is it with people and Jews. Seriously……

          Hell it would be bad enough it I heard a logical argument but all I ever hear is they do the same shit a hundred other groups do. But they settle down and generally aren’t violent so we can kick them out.

          The type of Jews people always high lite as bad are the same type of people who they then uphold when they are talking about corporations or some such.

          World is full of craziness…

        • BigGaySteve

          Who has been behind open borders all the way back to the last 2 times moslems invaded Europe?

        • Steven Schwartz

          And when were those? I mean, I doubt the Jews had much power when the Ottomans were invading in the 1600s….

        • James

          ….that makes no sense. To my knowledge this is the first time a horde of people from the muslim world are flooding in by the million.

        • BigGaySteve

          What happened in Tours France shortly before the inquisition?

        • Steven Schwartz

          If you’re referring to the battle fought there stopping the expansion, you’ve got an interesting definition of “shortly before the inquisition”.

          Of course, you also have to explain how Jews are somehow behind that invasion for your point to make any sense.

        • JoeyJoJoJRShabadoo

          What a steaming load of BS. Go peddle that crap at some limp dicke leftwing site

        • Tom Kratman

          Wouldn’t be so bad if he weren’t so historically iliterate, mathematically deficient, and brain-bustingly stupid.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Try arguing with the points made, if you can.

          And the people on the Left don’t need to hear *this* particular set of statements; it’s the people on the right who do; I don’t believe that epistemic closure is a good thing, unlike, apparently, you.

        • Curt Pangracs

          You have to make actual points for them to be argued. I can see why you don’t, but if you really wanted to…

        • Steven Schwartz

          (reposting as I posted it at the wrong place)

          Well, let’s just take one point:

          People like Tom and Ming are saying, in effect, “you’ll never be assimilated” to Muslim populations in Europe. That is a very effective recruiting tool (the general attitude, as presented by the political Right) — since you are effectively agreeing with radical Islam when you make that statement, and giving them no hope *other* than violence.

          What’s your response to that?

      • Ray

        Si vis pacem, para bellum.

      • Ray

        RE: 10th footnote: From The Enemy Below (1957)

        • http://ReportMom.com jacquelyn weatherspoon

          I left` my desk` `job` and now` I `get` paid` $85` every` h. …Wonder` how? I` freelance` `online!` My` old` job` was` making` me `unhappy` ,so I chose to take my chance on something` new… 2 years` after`…I say it was the smartest` decision i ever` made!` Let` me show you what` i` do…go and check` this “websiteLINK“on my` `Proffile!` for `detailed` `info`

          ^weqrwrw

        • Gail Hall


          .❝my neighbor’s mom is making $98 HOURLY on the internet❞….A few days ago new McLaren F1 subsequent after earning 18,512$,,,this was my previous month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with extra open doors & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $87, p/h..Learn More right Here….
          4las…………
          ➤➤
          ➤➤➤ http://GlobalSuperEmploymentVacanciesReportNetz/GetPaid/$97hourly… ❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦.❦

        • Tom Kratman

          Nah, Mad Magazine, on War Movies Then and Now.

        • Ray

          Ah, I can always attribute it to a faulty memory. Yeah, yeah, that’s the ticket.

      • WJBIII

        “Speaking of fighting, wherever did this nonsense of French military incompetence and cowardice come from, anyway?”

        In the largest single French naval action of World War II, they sank their own fleet in the harbor at Toulon.

        Go look it up.

        • Tom Kratman

          What do you think that proves? In the largest German fleet action in history, they sank their own fleet at Scapa Flow. The reasons why they did were basically the same, and by no means dishonorable.

        • WJBIII

          “What do you think that proves?”

          Read Churchill. He *begged* Darlan to sail the fleet to safety, before Vichy.

          At least the Germans in WWI had put up some decent naval fights. The French didn’t at all in WWII.

        • Tom Kratman

          Which changes essentially nothing at the level of crew, captain, and ship. Or fleet. What did they have left, by the way, after the British treacherously (though needfully) attacked their fleet.

          Try reading footnote 2, and if you can debunk any portion of that, I’ll listen.

        • WJBIII

          “Which changes essentially nothing at the level of crew, captain,…”

          …who simply took their orders and ducked out of the fight. Very heroic.

          ” What did they have left, by the way, after the British treacherously (though needfully) attacked their fleet.”

          What the hell are you talking about? Look, man: go look this up, okay? Go see what they sunk at Toulon.

          “Try reading footnote 2,…”

          … of *what*? If you’re talking about Churhill, it’s six bloody volumes. WTF are you talking about?

        • Tom Kratman

          Footnote 2, above.

          But, in retrospect, don’t bother, You know what you know and nothing will change that. Waste of time to try.

        • WJBIII

          “Footnote 2, above.”

          “Above” *what*? There no “footnote[s]” here. Are you drunk?

          “You know what you know and nothing will change that.”

          That’s exactly correct. Knowledge is ineradicable.

        • Tom Kratman

          It’s not knowledge, not in any complete sense. It’s half knowledge, the kind that tosses contrary fact and twists the rest. It’s half truth (-), hence wholly misleading. But, ya know what? Go ahead and believe it. No skin off my dick and I figure France has bigger problems at the moment.

        • WJBIII

          “It’s not knowledge, not in any complete sense.”

          Don’t skin your dick on it, sonny.

        • Tom Kratman

          Nothing you’ve said seems quite sharp enough to cut butter, let alone pecker, boy.

        • WJBIII

          Well, then, *you* should go hang with those *French* faggots, should you?

        • Tom Kratman

          Wouldn’t think so, no.

        • Ming the Merciless

          After the French treacherously signed a separate peace with Germany, it was not treachery for the Brits to attack the French fleet.

        • Tom Kratman

          If Pearl Harbor was treacherous, so was that. A separate peace with someone is not the same as a declaration of war on someone else.

        • Ming the Merciless

          I don’t regard Pearl Harbor as treacherous. They catch us napping, that’s our bad, not theirs.

          And in any event, Oran was “less treacherous” because the Brits had made their concerns known to the French, and had also given them an option that would have made the attack unnecessary (i.e., sail to a port in the Western Hemisphere and disarm the ships).

        • Tom Kratman

          Then you have an insurmountable semantic problem. Sorry, I cannot fix it.

          A former ally dictating to you what you must do does not mean you must do it.

        • Ming the Merciless

          Pearl Harbor was not treacherous because the USA and Japan did not have an alliance or non-aggression pact.

          Oran was not treacherous because France voided the alliance by surrendering. Indeed, France’s defection from the alliance was treacherous.

        • Tom Kratman

          Yeah, that’s that insurmountable semantic problem. Treachery also includes surprise attacks, while peace negotiations are ongoing, without declaration of war.

        • Ming the Merciless

          The United States had put an oil embargo on Japan – which we knew would force them to go to war very quickly – as well as other financial pressures. We had also presented Japan with an ultimatum to withdraw its forces from China and Indochina, which effectively terminated the peace negotiations. We even knew that negotiations were effectively over, since we intercepted Japanese messages stating that negotiations were pointless and the Americans were only continuing them in order to put the blame for their failure on Japan.

          A Japanese attack in that situation was not merely predictable under those conditions, but was actually predicted – the only issue being where, exactly, Japan would attack. If negotiations are not amicable in the first place, due to intense economic pressure as well as military threats (e.g., the B-17 buildup in the Philippines), and are at an end anyway, due to the presentation of obviously intolerable demands, then an attack is not treacherous.

          Corner a dog and kick it repeatedly, then complain of treachery when he bites you. Then shoot the dog. Such was the American modus operandi from 1941 to 1945.

      • Daniel Mioque

        To answer the questions few Americans want to answer honestly.
        France’s reputation as incompetent cowards goes back to early 2000′s US government propaganda. It has some roots in earlier French defeats, which is why it took hold so well that it still exists. But the systematic snide disdain you see on English language fora and comment threads every time something bad happens to the French? Carefully cultivated by the Bush administration in the buildup to the Iraq war. Reason: the French government of the time did not want to go along with the invasion.

        • Jack Withrow

          After working with both the French Foreign Legion and the French Army in Afghanistan, I have nothing but contempt for the French Military. They refuse to take casualties to accomplish the mission and are more worried about Lawfare than they are about warfare. The individual French Soldier may be worth something, but his leaders are ignorant, petty little tyrants, more concerned with their creature comforts than with winning.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Jack, That could be a sober and fair account of your personal experiences pointing to larger systemic flaws in the French military apparatus. Or you could be keyboard warrior who never said foot outside of the USA, never held a gun and never met a French person in his life. Or anything in between, I will never know for sure.

        • Curt Pangracs

          The exact same could be said for you.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Certainly.
          However.
          I’m not claiming anything more exotic than being older than 31 and not a citizen of the USA. Jack W. is claiming military service in Afghanistan alongside both the regular French army and the Foreign Legion…

        • Tom Kratman

          I have excellent reason to believe he has it, and in the places and with the allied units he says. However, I tend to disagree with the conclusions he draws from that.

        • Jack Withrow

          Col Kratman knows who I am. He has never questioned my qualifications, although he does question some of my opinions. For the record, I am a retired US Army MSG, MOS 11Z5P (Senior Infantry Sgt, Airborne qualified). I retired from the Army after returning from Afghanistan in Jan 2005. I was awarded a Combat Infantryman’s Badge during that deployment in addition to both the GWOT Service and Campaign Medals. I have the DD-214′s, Official Orders, and award certificates to prove that. I had intimate contact with the French Army during that deployment as both the FFL and regular French Army had units assigned to the FOB where my parent unit was assigned. I was first assigned as an Infantry 1SG, and when injured during an operation was reassigned as the Bn Intel Sgt.

          Now that the dick beating contest is over, do you always respond to any comment you don’t like by attacking the qualifications of the person making that comment?

          The Col and I have had disagreements in the past about the French Army. He thinks the French Army is competent and I disagree based on my experiences with them. The Individual French Soldier is no different than any other soldier, there being good and bad ones in any military. My experience is though that while the French Soldier individually may be as good as any other countries’ soldiers, his leadership is shit.

          I watched French Company and Field Grade officers, both FFL and Army, throw temper tantrums because we would not allow them, because of security concerns, to hire personal servants who would live in their quarters and wait on them hand and foot 24/7. I watched the French Commander of the MNF in Kabul, plan an operation to seize an arms cache, that involved almost two battalions of troops and only recovered one AT mine and 200 rds of small arms ammo. After the fact they celebrated that mission as an outstanding success and many awards for valor were given out even though no contact was made during that farce of a mission. I watched French Soldiers routinely lose their personal weapons in the latrines, on the HESCO’s, in the mess halls, etc. That is first and foremost an indication of poor leadership.

          And just to drive this point home. I know very few SNCO’s, Company Grade, or Field Grade Officers who have anything other than a very poor opinion of the French Army. Those opinions are based on personal observation from close range, not on News Reports.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Do I question the ‘I’m an expert!’ bluster of some random dude on the net?
          Yes.
          It is very easy to falsely claim expertise, about all sorts of stuff on the web.
          Apparently you are not a bored housewife from Minnesota, but a real Afghanistan veteran.
          Do have 1 question though. Could you give your assessment of the armies of a couple of other NATO allies you had similar close contact with?

        • Jack Withrow

          Brits and Canadians actively sought out the Taliban, HIG, and other ACM groups. They did not shy away from a fight. Trouble is both the British and Canadian Armies have been gutted, so while the force is fairly well trained and aggressive there are not that many of them. Also they were pretty much totally dependent on the US for logistic support.

          The German Army was handicapped by impossible ROE’s, and as a result engaged in no combat that I know of while I was there. I have personal knowledge of a German Patrol mounted in armored vehicles that was ordered to retreat when they came under fire from a lone Haji with an AK who they caught planting an IED. The Germans did not return fire. We watched the entire thing happen live, on a UAV feed. The quality of the German Army has declined greatly since the fall of the USSR. Also from what I could see alcohol abuse was a problem for them. They had a beer hall set up on their FOB, and had to curtail the hours it operated due to drunken troops and also ration the number of beers the troops could buy per day.
          Other NATO Armies, only had small contingents in country. They either supported ISAF or ran training schools for the Afghan National Army. The Norwegians lost a soldier to an RPG ambush about 2 klicks East of Camp Phoenix’s main gate. They did not return fire during the ambush, but instead retreated. ISAF, then under French Command, treated that ambush not as an act of war, but as a criminal act. I personally heard the French Commander, a one star, say the honor of arresting those responsible belonged to the Norwegians. They turned the investigation over to their Counter Intelligence personnel and the local Afghan Police. Armed soldiers did not go out and actively try to find the ambushers. Lawfare had been mistaken for Warfare.
          And just so you don’t think I am being chauvinistic, The quality of US Army units were spotty also. Some units were extremely aggressive, while others could not even conduct a routine re-supply. Bagram AFB, even though it was rocketed on an almost weekly basis, was run like a garrison post back in the states, with entire units doing organized PT on a daily basis. One Rocket hitting one of those formations could have killed dozens.

        • Daniel Mioque

          In all honesty, the chauvinism question did spring to mind.

          I know German work culture (not from television actual exposure) and they are pretty relaxed when it comes to alcohol consumption on the job. That attitude, combined with the stress of being in a war zone will probably cause problems.

        • Jack Withrow

          I call them like I see them. I have been equally critical of US Army units in Afghanistan in the past. The 25th ID first and foremost. I would not trust that unit to organize an orgy in a whorehouse.

          Germans were far from the only Military that had problems with alcohol in country. For a supposedly devout Moslem country, alcohol could be found anywhere.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Strangely enough, I would completely trust any random unit in the French military with organizing an orgy in a whorehouse. But maybe that is cultural prejudice on my part.

          I know the Dutch military secretly likes it when veterans newly returned from a war zone show a touch of alcoholism, means they are working through their potential p.t.s.d. in a comparatively healthy fashion. But they are a bit weird, with their labour union and openly atheist chaplains.

        • James

          Jack that is true of pretty much most military’s these days and increasingly true of our own.

          Lets count again. How many generals, and other top officers do we have in relation to the rest of the troops?

          How many admirals compared to ships (Yes all the reserves count to.)

        • Jono

          Wow. The Bush White House had Time Travel! I had heard a very large number of jokes about France back in the 20th century – Maybe JFK was a time agent for Bush and all of the sharp elbows between France and the U.S. were the result of orders from Karl Rove? When France pulled out of Nato’s armed forces in 1966, was that Bush or Rumsfeld making it happen?

        • Daniel Mioque

          Jono, see what I told James below for a general answer.
          As for France leaving NATO’s integrated military command in 1966. That was a painful political defeat for the US government.

        • James

          Dude? Seriously? Americans and Brits and others a have had the french “cowards” meme going on sense WW2. Period. So no you are wrong. Sorry need to get off the obsession with Bush.

        • Daniel Mioque

          James.
          Yes seriously, the British have a very long tradition of anti-french sentiment, going back to Jeanne d’Arc at least. The Americans on the other hand disliked the Brits and liked the French, this switched after WWII, but long before the Bush administration. But we are not talking about a general dislike, like the Americans feel for the Russians. We are talking “the systematic snide disdain you see on English language fora and
          comment threads every time something bad happens to the French”. Carefully stoked by the Bush administration and the one thing Hollywood backed them on. There is a remarkable amount of anti-french sentiment in American film&television between 2003 and 2006. And then it stopped, because it was all a bit embarrassing, but a residual effect of the propaganda remains.

        • James

          Dan. I’m fucking American I’m 31. I have been listening to people say that shit sense before the first Iraq war. Remember American’s can’t stand cowards. Its part of that cultural thing we have. From my earliest childhood i heard the french were cowards. As I got older I came to understand the reality and changed.

          Fucking the French being against our invasion of Saddam cemented nothing more than that the french probably made money off the situation. That and they were super progressives in the highest ranks.

          So no….its not. At least not in the south.

          I don’t know where you are getting you info but.,,,no.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Dear James,
          I can’t say I’m an American (well I can but it would not be true) and 31 was some time ago for me. But I do get to watch all flavours of the American news. Judging from how worked up the whole US news (from the extreme left to the extreme right) gets by minor stuff like small scale rioting and bad weather, I confidently say that Americans in general may disdain cowards, but it does not mean they are brave…

          And the US invasion of Iraq in the early 2003 was monumentally foolish, the French said so and you apparently still hold a grudge.

        • http://themcchuck.blogspot.com McChuck

          So, you’re not American, but claim the right to tell us how we think, and what our internal history really should have been, as opposed to what it really was?

          That’s Logic right there!

          And remember – television news is to the truth what cheap margarine is to butter. Yeah, there may be a little of the real stuff in there to give it a bit of flavor, but most of it is a poor imitation, made up out of what they’re really trying to sell.

        • Daniel Mioque

          It is a comment thread, everybody here claims the right to tell the internet what the French, the Syrians and the Americans are really like.
          Hell, I only accused 1 james of holding a grudge about the French, not the entire continental US.
          I’m not even saying I trust the US television news. I’m saying they act mighty scared, about lots of minor issues. Maybe you have to be a coward to get a job in broadcast news in the USA.

        • Tom Kratman
        • Daniel Mioque

          Even in ideal circumstances the benefits would have been lower than the cost. To use a historical example.
          The UK lost it’s status as a superpower in large part because of all those colonial wars in the 2nd half of the 19th century. Colonial wars it won. Those wars were way to expensive compared to what the Brits got back.

        • Tom Kratman

          I suspect you’re neglecting two areas. One is that oil is a lot more valuable than anything Britain was getting back, over the Empire in general; indeed, you didn’t form an empire so much to get back as to sell to. The other is that destroying Iran by partitioning it, and leaving the Persians utterly dirt poor for their annoyance to us, is a good that is almost impossible to calculate the value of, but is very great indeed..

        • Daniel Mioque

          That very attitude. The combination of think of all the plunder! Combined with: “The satisfaction of crushing our super annoying enemies is more important than any economic concern.”, is what drove the British into the Boer War.
          Diamonds! Revenge on the Dutch at all cost!

          In the end the only lasting thing the empire got out of it, was the dubious honour of being the lads who invented the concentration camp.

        • Tom Kratman

          Facile analogy usually doesn’t say much that’s valid. When you look at the details, in this case I think it breaks down rather badly. Were the Boers as wretched soldiers as is typical in the Islamic world? (The Iranians are slightly better than Arabs, but that is a very low bar to meet.) Did Britain need diamonds, the way the world needs oil? Were the Boers something of a worldwide menace to Britain and her interests? If so, how?

          Facile analogy gets even less useful if you don’t give any thought to the mechanism of control. Control the Iranians, post partition? Why not; if they piss us off we roll in and make them, those that live, even poorer than they were after partition. So guerilla war? COIN? Nation-building? Not a bit of it.

          More poor? Not sure if the accompanying articles in the series explain it. The short version is that Iraq needs partition if it’s going to have peace. It’s a fraudulent disease of a country, one that never should have been cobbled together. However, diseased or not, none of its obvious constituent pieces can stand against Iran for five minutes, even though Iran sucks, militarily, too. Thus, Iran needs partition, for all kinds of reasons, not least to punish them for everything from 1979 on.

          Fortunately, the gas and oil reserves are largely in areas dominated by Azeris (much lesser extent) and Arabs. There’s a substantial exception along the coast, but we’d want to take that from the Iranians anyway. So the partition of Iran is that Pakistan gets the southwest, The Turkmen can take the fields in the northwest, the Arabs in Iran, who are Shia, get the oil and gas rich areas they currently sit on, near the coast, and the areas in between, them are joined to Shia Iraq as Shiastan. The Kurdish area of Iraq and Iran are joined to become Kurdestan. We invite the Turks to drive their Kurds out into Kurdestan. And the rump of Iraq becomes Sunnistan. Thus Iraq is nicely chopped up in ways that don’t require them to kill each other all the time, Iran is punished viciously, thus overturning the nasty precedent set in 1979, while also providing a useful lesson in “Don’t fuck with us,” and, concurently with that lesson, Azeristan and Shiastan, which will remain militarily hopeless, much suck the Imperial Schlong (that would be ours) to defend them from the marginally more competent, militarily, but dirt poor Iranians.

          It’s so elegant it might almost be French.

        • Daniel Mioque

          That carving up Iran and Iraq plan actually sounds very clever in a neo-colonial/realpolik kind of way. And that is why I think it could never happen in the real world.
          You have to very deliberately walk away from the moral high ground to have a try with this, to the point that no amount of hypocrisy can hide the fact that you are not the good guy in that scenario. The group of people in the USA that needs the delusion that they are on the side of angels is to large to make it work.

          Also I suspect that the Boers were just as bad as soldiers as the Arabs are. They were a major hassle for the British army in the same way a large bunch of bedouin clans in a desert like setting would have been.

        • Tom Kratman

          I don’t think so, no. The ones who walked away from the moral high ground were the lunatics who tried to create states out of the mess of tribe and clan in Iraq. The other crew who walked away from the moral high ground were the Iranians who held our people hostage and have been waging low level war against us and ours for 36 years. The moral high ground would consist of undoing that earlier wrong, and punishing the latter wrong vigorously.

          You ought to look into the Boer war more closely, especially the early stages before Britain mobilized the Empire against the Boers. Short version, no, no comparison.

        • Daniel Mioque

          I understand you think so. But that is very much going to be a minority perspective.

        • Steven Schwartz

          He’s right, in that there’s no real comparison — the terrain over which the bulk of the Boer War was fought was far more conducive to British operations than any war we would be fighting in Iran.

          Given that we strained our existing resources to the limit to fight a war that *wasn’t* about reducing a population deliberately to poverty, in terrain ideal for us to operate, going into Iran would be yet another case of throwing bad money (and lots of American blood) after bad.

          I mean, as we know, annoying another country is a perfectly valid casus belli… ;)

        • Tom Kratman

          Don’t try military opinions, Steven; you’re even less well versed and less competent than in other areas.

          The terrain really doesn’t matter unless we’re planning on sticking around, fighting an insurgency, and nation building. If we’re just going to roll in to kill, burn, and destroy the Persian areas of Iran, and ethnically cleanse and partition off the rest, difficult terrain is mostly to our ultimate advantage.

        • Tom Kratman

          Minority where? Across the world? So what; we should base our decisions on the moral standing and intellectual acumen of Eastern Westfuckistan? Of it’s mortal enemy Northern Southsodomia? Of the little boy bungers in Afghanistan? Of the newspapers in Butfuq, Sudan? Of the unutterably corrupt, ineffectual, and hypocritical UN? The vile EU? In Heaven’s name _why_? For that matter, if they’re not going to help or hinder, why should we care what France and Germany think? We’ll always care somewhat what the UK thinks, but why should that stop us? (Sidelight: Given the Tranzi treaty regimes that have sprung up, our “allies,” even where the troops are superb, have grown into albatrosses. It’s long past time to write them off and go our own way.)

        • Daniel Mioque

          I was actually thinking more along the lines of the American voters. Widespread foreign disapproval is expensive and annoying, but not a roadblock if you are willing to put up with it.
          The Democratic Party, or the Republicans if the Dems are the group that start the invasion, will happily screw up your plan halfway through in exchange for 1 midterm election victory.

        • Tom Kratman

          We have about 22% fairly hard left voters. Nothing will change that; they will always vote on the side of chaos and ruin. We have about twice that in voters that, in modern Euro terms, probably seem indistinguishable from Nazis. I invite your attention to Walter Russell Meade’s essay on the subject, here: http://denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html.

          What actually seems to happen is that, rather than the country moving against a given harsh policy, the Jacksonians abandon a harch policy when it’s not forthrightly carried through because of weak politicians and left wing carping. SInce the left will carp no matter what we do, obviously they should simply be ignored and the policy be carried through as ruthlessly as required.

          However, your timing is also off. Even if the left were to turn more enthusiastically against American interests than they normally are – hard to envision what comes after their normal detestation of their country, though – so what? It takes them time. Invasions, however, by us on them are quick, and partitions, once done, are done deals. What would you expect the American left, or even the left and center, to actually _do_ once Kurdestan is a reality and Shiastan is pumping oil? They’re going to demand we re-invade to recreate our mortal enemy, Iran? That we re-invade to ensure that Sunni Iraqis and Shiite Iraqis have maximum feasible opportunity and reason to kill each other? Pull the other one; it has bells on.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Tom,
          Unless 44% of the US electorate is pining to commit genocide for arbitrary reasons they are still distinguishable from Nazis.
          I’ve met people on this side of the pond who would fit in well with the Jacksonians in that article you linked and even more examples of wannabee Jacksonians. Not that any of them would recognize the term.
          Anyways, just not seeing any political will on the US side to carve up Iran even back n 2003.

        • Tom Kratman

          44% have no real problem with genocide, no. Ask the indians. However, “thees word you are usink? Ah dunno thin’ it means wha’ you thin’ it means.” Since when is partition genocide? Since when is having a specific punishment oriented as an enemy society and a specific solution to ethnic strife arbitrary?

        • Daniel Mioque

          Tom, reread your post I replied to. I was referring to you saying that about 2x 22% of the American electorate would look like Nazis to modern Europeans, not to your carving up Iran plan.

        • Tom Kratman

          What someone replies to here, without there being a quote function, is sometimes less than obvious. However, I think my answer still stands. It’s just not the problem you may think it is.

        • Curt Pangracs

          So, you admit here that the totality of your views are based on US media, and not actual truths or personally-observed behaviors. That explains quite a bit.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Hi Curt,
          Why yes I am not a cultural anthropologist, who has spend decades observing the citizens of the USA, or France, or Afghanistan. Nobody on Everyjoe is.
          Nonetheless everybody here happily pontificates about nations&cultures they all know a lot less about than I know about the USA.

        • Curt Pangracs

          Dan, that’s the stupidest “observation” of the matter I’ve ever read. The fires of continued disdain for the French were fueled by France’s refusal to allow US overflights of France to attack Qadafi in Libya. I was in the US Army then as well as in 2003, and I never saw any of the anti-French sentiment you allude to. I challenge you to provide specific examples of Bush-led anti-French sentiment, as well as this “wave” of anti-French sentiment in American media. There was coverage of individuals in Congress and one media “personality” calling for a boycott of French goods, but nothing that even remotely smacks of a coordinated, Bush-led attack. Sure, the administration wasn’t happy to not have France’s support, but we are, as a nation, somewhat used to that. Again, true history far outdates your own. France has had a long history of snobbery and disdain for its American cousins, and I have encountered it personally while stationed in Germany in the early 80′s and again in the early 90′s. So, in conclusion, I believe you are much mistaken in your claims, which seem to more run along the lines of media sensationalism than actual fact.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Freedom Fries.

        • Ming the Merciless

          Nah. Their reputation as incompetent cowards dates from May 1940. And then they lost in Indochina, and Algeria, and Suez 1956, and then withdrew from the NATO military command in the 1960s.

        • Steven Schwartz

          and Algeria

          Minor note: Algeria was the classic case of a war being lost not militarily, but politically; the cost of maintaining the war in terms of morale, expense, and international opinion was too high. The actual military involvement was, generally, successful.

        • Daniel Mioque

          Let me point out that losing the occasional war can happen to the best of us.
          You would have to lose to a country like Canada too make it really embarrassing.

        • Ming the Merciless

          I know some Canadian is going to chime in and tell us about the failed American invasions of Canada. =)

          Incidentally, their reputation for cowardice and incompetence based on the episodes I cited is certainly overstated.

      • James

        I can agree with the Idea that this is what it’s going to take to stop people like isis and their ilk. Do I see it happening? Nope but then western civilization reaches its greatest achievements long ago and has started to collapse again. One thing about Western Culture is that it seems to breed its own destruction the more peace settles in and the more prosperous it gets.

        Hell the Greeks had their Tyrants even.

      • Curt Pangracs

        I wonder…can anyone enlighten me as to what ANY Islamic nation has actually “produced” over the last few hundred years that has actually contributed to the world as a whole?

        Anything?

        Anyone?

        • Daniel Mioque

          Shoarma?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawarma
          According to certain experts(well o.k. drunkards) the best drunk food in the world.

        • http://blog.timp.com.au TimP

          Yeah, middle eastern/north African food as a whole is pretty good in my experience. So they’ve got that going for them.

        • Can Terzioğlu

          Shawarma was done by a relatively secular Bursa Turk called Iskander Iskanderoglu. So even that is done under shadow of civilisation. :P

        • Emilio Desalvo

          Gyros is better, as they also use pork…

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gyro_%28food%29

        • guest

          Petroleum.

          Of course, all the oil fields were found by American or American-educated geologists, and the drilling done by American or American-trained engineers. The vast oil fields of Saudi Arabia are worked almost entirely by Filipinos, Koreans, Poles, Ukrainians, who dirty their hands doing hard labor that their hosts won’t, in order to enrich them.

          I believe a fellow named Schwarz once noted that not since the Spanish colonial empire of the 16th and 17th Centuries has so much gold flowed into so few hands and left so few improvements to the society surrounding them. When the oil runs out it’ll leave behind a society indistinguishable from the one that existed before OPEC or ARAMCO, one notable mainly for ignorance, superstition, filth, disease, and violence.

        • Tom Kratman

          One thing that I know of; they gave us the concept of Holy War, which we’ve ever since been using. Holy War, by the way, doesn’t necessarily mean religious, when we use it. It means war for a cause so vastly important that all things are permissible, and also war for a cause so important that the individual ought, in effect, be proud to be sacrificed like a pawn.

      • Tom Kratman
        • Can Terzioğlu

          I think my brain made a sound like a gear shifting without pressing the clutch pedal when I read it.

        • Tom Kratman

          Oh, I can imagine.

      • Can Terzioğlu

        I hope you were joking with machinegunning boats. You are going full Carrera. Never go full Carrera. second and third is OK, since it still has a punitive motive to an existing group responsible. But I think the first one dives into Moral Event Horizon.

      • Hammer4

        I know this ( the paris attacks ) happened a couple months ago, but I just found this site – that said, the first thing I thought of when I saw the news of the attacks was Mr Kratman’s book Caliphate, as well as some of the prehistory parts of the Carrera series.

      Be Sociable, Share!