atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,

#4375: Wars and rumors of wars

Chinese think war with Japan is inevitable. The article begins thus:
When it comes to current geopolitics, one has to stretch their memory to recall a time when there were more overt and not so overt conflicts, humanitarian interventions, drone bombings and proxy or outright civil, and/or otherwise, wars.
He's right.

Global trade has fallen flat on its face thanks to the ongoing depression that started in 2007. Money is probably the best motivation for keeping nations who hate each other from fighting, but international trade is not doing so very well right now which--needless to say--is reducing the effectiveness of the mitigating effect that such trade has.

That article leads with a map showing all the current areas in conflict in the world right now--actual "bang bang" shooting and other violet conflicts, as well as "tensions" between historical rivals--but it does not show the possibility of civil war in Spain and it also doesn't show things like the ebola epidemic. Or Scotland's increasing lean towards independence from Britain, which I imagine the English would not take sitting down.

The four horsemen are saddling up.

To make matters worse the United States is being led by an idiot. Worse, he's an idiot who is so convinced of his own genius that he's incapable of understanding that everyone makes mistakes and therefore cannot anticipate making any. And he's doing it with the incompetence which is his prime characteristic.

The progressive claim that islamic groups like ISIS are not "true muslims" is once again being trotted out, but ISIS is more muslim than any of them want to admit:
Muhammad himself was a thoroughly evil man. Quoting Prophet of Doom (p. 3), "He became a pirate, dictator, and terrorist leader. He used Quranic scripture to justify horrific behavior: pedophilia, incest, rape, torture, assassinations, thievery, mass murder, and terror all in an unbridled orgy of sex, power, and money." This picture of Muhammad comes from the founding documents of Islam. Nobody has to make up anything. The founding documents themselves tell all.

Once he had gathered enough followers, Muhammad changed from evangelist to conquistador. He was a barbaric savage, claiming Islam as the authority for his behavior. He was the first "Islamic terrorist," and he set the standard which Islamists follow to this day.
We ignore this at our peril.

Which rather neatly leads us into JayG's 9/11 post for today and he says, "That we didn't turn their training camp into 50,000° orange glass will someday be viewed as the biggest mistake we made in the 'war' on terror."

It wasn't a war on terror; it was a war on some terror. We went after Al Qaeda and (temporarily) disrupted their organization, but we didn't go after the people who fund and support them because that would have meant going after Syria and Saudi Arabia and a whole bunch of other miserable savages, people we only kiss up to because they have oil. (And we have to do that because the United States has not had an energy policy for forty years and counting.)

We didn't prosecute the war to win it; we fought that war mainly to keep islamic terror focused on the middle east rather than having them come here. It was fought to stave off another 9/11 rather than to prevent one. And we might as well have not bothered, because ISIS is looking at using our porous southern border against us. For crying out loud, why wouldn't they? Here's a way to get people inside the US without having to do anything more complicated than walk across some desert, and they can carry whatever the hell they want to in the process. Five kilograms of U-235 wrapped in ten kilograms of lead--that's 33 lbs, a load any reasonably fit man could carry in a decent backpack. Two guys carrying the fissionables, two or three guys carrying the tamper (depleted uranium, of course, in sections)--a single 10-man squad could carry the components of a nuclear bomb across the border and we'd never know until one of our cities went FOOM.

ISIS knows they can cross the border with impunity because we are allowing Mexicans to do it.

Meanwhile, letting unescorted Mexican children come to the US and letting them stay and mix with the general population may have had a downside but of course our self-styled betters in D.C. don't care about a few prole children.

What will the answer to this problem be? It won't be closing the f-ing border, that's for sure. Instead it'll be The Number of the Beast. I will not--I WILL NOT--allow my biometric data to be used for anything like this, especially not identification or banking or even access to my f-ing cell phone. They're going to have to strap me down and sedate me if they want to implant any such crap in my body against my will, but I will not choose it.

And that's really all I have to say about this.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.