And Another One Bites The Dust

Gateway Pundit has the story on an Aussie terrorist who was gunned down.

We seem to be kicking some terrorist butt in Iraq these days, as well. Now if only Jorge Bush would untie the military's other hand in Iraq and allow for prudent Rules of Engagement, perhaps we'd be able to kill even more of them. And don't get me started on Iran.

I found myself sitting by the side of a favorite fishing hole the other day with some time to think. I began thinking about relationships, love, etc. How it grows, how it dies .... If you aren't one of those fortunate enough to have been born into a family that instilled it in you almost as second nature, I think it's easy to take such things for granted and when you do that, love, if you will, simply dies. And it is never an easy thing to bury. Most of us have to work at loving someone and I doubt we do it as well as we might.

So how did I get to thinking about Iraq from there? Simple, I never think in straight lines. I often think in opposites and abstractions, so I found myself thinking about both love and death ... then thought of Iraq, or war fighting more specifically, as I was thinking about death.

The sum total of this grand line of thought? That mankind finds itself in the incredible difficult situation wherein, to thrive, if not simply survive, it must be able to love and even work at it, and must also be prepared to kill and work at that, too. The trick is in knowing whom to love and whom to kill, as well as when and where.

Love thy neighbor and kill thy terrorist? Well, it works on a certain level, I suppose. Helps if the neighbor isn't a pain in the ass, or is especially good looking, though! lol

Comments

[Abner]

Me suspects you may have been smoking some powerful weed while sitting at that fishing hole....

[Phoenix]

No pot. I was with you all the way and marveled at your ability to follow the line of thinking into coherent form on 'paper'. No one thinks in straight lines, and all thoughts are analogies that lead to instant association and on and on. Even when someone is thinking sequentially, say, for the purpose of a mechanical need, when they're not focused their mind associates. I will say some people free-associate more easily than others, but we all do it. It is thinking.

This made me think and now I'm wondering which is harder - love or war. I think love is. War is crisp, clean and of killing. With the exception of our current war, they end and people rebuild. War is intense but it is almost an abstract. Love is all-encompassing and takes everything out of you until you realize it isn't worth it. Older generations let it turn to habit. Current generations and many of us said 'Forget it' and walked away. The up-coming generation puts off marriage until the thirties and disdains commitment until then. Also, falling in love - the high from it - is the best feeling in the world. You have to figure nothing that good can stay. And who wants to be a habit?

[Mark]

You've got it all wrong here Dan. It's only "news" if an American is killed. When members of al Qaeda are killed or progress is made in Iraq that's just "spin" and not worthy of being told to the public.

[BobInStamford]

Wow, its like the flatearthers all got in their F150's and drove up to Walden Pond. Sadly, they just littered the place and left.

[Purple Avenger]

Terrorists need a union. Their current retirement plan sucks.

[IslamoLlama]

Hey, look! All that image and foreign goodwill you guys have been saying isn't important? Well, it looks like those chickens have come home to roast.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2111473,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=networkfront

"A US delegation led by Ryan Henry, principal deputy under-secretary of defence for policy, returned to Washington last week with little to show for consultations with defence and foreign ministry officials in Algeria, Morocco, Libya, Egypt, Djibouti and with the African Union (AU). An earlier round of consultations with sub-Saharan countries on providing secure facilities and local back-up for the new command, to be known as Africom and due to be operational by September next year, was similarly inconclusive.

The Libyan and Algerian governments reportedly told Mr Henry that they would play no part in hosting Africom. Despite recently improved relations with the US, both said they would urge their neighbours not to do so, either. Even Morocco, considered Washington's closest north African ally, indicated it did not welcome a permanent military presence on its soil."

Victory is at hand! Now all we have to do is invade all of Africa.

[templar knight]

IslamoZifnab, you stupid jerk, the US already has secure facilites in many African countries. You believe anything that British rag the guardian says. You're nothing but a tool. And a pathetic one at that.

[Purple Avenger]

"Even Morocco, considered Washington's closest north African ally, indicated it did not welcome a permanent military presence on its soil."

Yet Djibouti, apparently NOT our "closest north African ally", welcomed a permanent US presence on its soil that's been there going on 5 years now.

Curious that. Damn curious.

[rwilymz]

"Curious that. Damn curious"

What's curious about it? Djibouti's poor and US military bases bring cash.

Djibouti's surrounded by popular revolts and pan-islamist hooliganism and they -- or their government, more to the point -- doesn't want to be seen as an easy border to cross.

Morocco, on the other hand, is fairly rich compared with it's neighbors, and fairly stable. Risk/reward.

[Phoenix]

PA was being facetious.

I laughed out loud at Robbie's quip. Not bad, Robbie. Is it original? :)

The Guardian? That's like getting your news off AOL's front page.

[rwilymz]

"PA was being facetious."

An act or instance of being a facet. I see.

What about this one:

"Victory is at hand! Now all we have to do is invade all of Africa."

Hollywood is all hot on a war to Save Darfur for the Slave-trading Incompetent Revolutionaries. The whole War for Peace; Kill to Stop Others from Killing thing.

[IslamoLlama]

Honestly, I'm glad we're not going into Darfur. With this CiC, I'd really hate to see America pull off the trifecta of three military disasters in a single Presidential Term.

[seekeronos]

The Dafurians (mostly the Fur) pose very little strategic value. No developed oil infrastructure, not much concern for us.

Oh, and I think TK is on to something here: IslamoBob sounds a lot like ol' Ziffykins used to.

Yeeesh. If so, it would make me why some folks - the lib commenters - seem to come back so frequently with new nicks.

I mean, really:

- nowinger/nowinker/nowingker? (at least he is somewhat consistent in phonology)
- Carl/Artie/BoobInStamford/NAMBLAPresident? (his one dimensional logic and parroted squawkings about "the SURGE is WORKING!!" and references to his life as a member of the Trailer Park Elites gets him pegged regardless of whatever new nick he uses here within a few picoseconds of using it)
- Legalize/LOL - maybe two different guys, but certainly sound eerily similiar at times

It's like "Libtard Whack-a-Mole" in here at times. :P

[rwilymz]

"The Dafurians (mostly the Fur) pose very little strategic value. No developed oil infrastructure, not much concern for us."

Don't be too quick to write off the value of a little interventionism in Sudan.

Yes, the superficial neophytes in Hollywood are all for it -- with their depth of subject knowledge garnered from escorted parades hosted by those to whom they're prejudicially sympathetic while filming their Save The Children soundbites -- and that automatically makes a great many reach for the air sickness bag.

But not everything they do/propose is monumentally retarded.

Iraq is "working" in large part because it provides a draw for the simple-minded pan-islamist zealot: "The US is in Iraq; going to Iraq is easier than going to NYC; I'll go fight the US atheist infidel in Iraq." And then when they get there, they see other people to fight, and they spend most of their time too engrossed in tribalist nonsense to shoot at us.

This will have a limited shelf-life; eventually the pan-islamists will stop treating Iraq as the gory automobile accident and cease coming to gawk. At that point, we'll only have the administrative nightmare of Iraq -- cat-herding -- and no benefit. That's the point you declare victory and come home.

But because Greater Islamia is itching for a confrontation [and most people in the US do not want to take on the principle players in that: Iran and Syria], we still need a gory automobile accident to siphon off the hottest of heads. Here's where the poor, poor, pitiful Fur slave-traders can be a benefit.

Posture for months over the Sudanese daring to inflict rude domestic policy in their own country, make it be known that we'll do something about it, mass at the gates and invade. Take out the government [which is vaguely allied with pan-islamism anyway], rout the Bagara "janjaweed", and declare more democracy. Here's a brand spanking new _cause celebre_ for pan-islamist hotheads to come and die for.

No oil, no. But a purpose nonetheless.

================

"That's the trouble with you Americans. You never do any clear cut stupid moves, but only very complicated stupid moves that leave us wondering if there wasn't something that we missed."
- Gamel Abdul Nasser

[rwilymz]

Correction, fwiw:
"The genius of you Americans is that you never make clear-cut stupid moves, only complicated stupid moves which make the rest of us wonder at the possibility that we might be missing something."
-Nasser