Drones and Obama

The Financial Times reports that George W. Bush signed off on 50 drone strikes, Obama has approved more than 350. Disturbing things are emerging from the Obama Administration regarding the drone strikes. First, is the unprecedented interest that (some say ghoulishly) Obama takes in the strikes. Personally approving who lives or dies, and reviewing the drone footage of the deaths himself, often alone. Two things that unnerve even Obama’s closest aides. [It is also monumentally stupid for Obama to be anywhere near the decision to kill to someone — he WILL be indicted for war crimes in a Western country and extradition be fought over, Nobel Peace Prize or not.]

Obama views drone strikes as Chicago politics writ large. The equivalent of mob hits, cheap, quiet, not messy, intimidating, and unlikely ever to backfire on himself. It fits into his image of himself as Don Corleone, a guy who scares other men, something Obama has never done (indeed he’s been dogged by gay rumors most of his life). Drones are of course, cheaper than fighter jets, as the article shows, an F-35 costs $130 million, while a Reaper drone costs $53 million. Of course the drone requires an extensive ground crew, which costs, but won’t put pilots at risk.

Simply put, Obama wants to fight war on the cheap. And this is a disaster for America. One, furthermore, that the American people are complicit in, wanting pretty lies rather than ugly truth. And like all lies eagerly preferred to the truth, this one is likely to be one the American people regret deeply as drones are used eventually against them in the service of a corrupt and decadent elite.

Obama (and the elites who back him) don’t like the military. They don’t understand or respect men who look for battle. A man like Sherman, or Grant, or Patton, might as well be aliens. So too, SEALs, Marines, any elite or special forces oriented towards combat. Obama and company don’t like the military, and want to replace a deeply conservative, mostly White force with something cheap and seemingly high-tech. Drones. Which ultimately can answer to just a small group of controllers ordered about by Obama. That’s the dream. Obama deciding who to kill or not, today Anwar al-Awlaki. Tomorrow Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. For him its all the same.

This is why it is essential to elect Mitt Romney. Not that Romney has any desire to get rid of drones, but that as a Republican, the media and NGOs and celebrities and Democratic Politicians who have been silent under Obama will band together and force the issue. Obama means more of the same, Romney means hard limits to the power of the President to kill people with drones. And that is a good thing.

No President should have the power to order individual people killed. He certainly can order military action. That will in the course of events kill people, often a lot of them. Every President since Madison has faced this challenge, potential or actual. But no President until now has had the power to carry out individual killings, deciding for himself who lives or dies. That has to stop. It must stop.

Drones have their place. In Libya, Somalia (where their over-use has been so frequent they disrupt air traffic), Yemen, and Pakistan, places hostile to us and without any real law other than tribal rabble, they can be useful. Whack this man, or that one, and buy a day, or a week, or a month of peace. That is not nothing. But it is not everything either. Those decisions, on who to kill and who to spare, should be the province of the regional commander. Who should be responsible for them, under the code of Uniform Military Justice, if need be. FDR did not select targets for the Eight Air Force, while LBJ personally decided which buildings would be hit in Hanoi. Tell me who was the more effective war-fighter.

The President has the right to replace commanders who have lost his favor (but remains responsible himself to the American people through re-election or impeachment and conviction in that regard). He does not have the right nor should he do so as a practical matter, to order troops around. To move this division or that one to a hill, or not. To order a shot on Somali pirates, or not. He won’t have the right information, being distant and removed from the scene and people. He won’t have the experience or judgment. The President does have the right to approve or disapprove of raids into places like Pakistan, to say, kill Bin Laden. Things like that will always be the decision of the President, involving as they do politics and diplomacy. The same is true of hostage rescue operations, like the failed Desert Eagle. But not a fast-moving situation on the ground, or the air, or sea. And certainly not which individual jihadis will live or die. That is the responsibility of the commander on the ground.

Drones are not a pancea. They are not magic. They kill people, yes, but often only those careless and ill-protected. Drones don’t do well against protected airspace, which includes Iran, Syria, and Russia. Drones operate well into Pakistan, because they come across the Himalayas, well shielded by the mountains from radar. Operating from the sea instead of say, Afghanistan, they would be detected (and likely shot down) fairly quickly. Against poorly armed, ill-trained tribal rabbles in Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, and Libya, drones are effective. Jihadis there have no active radar much less anti-aircraft missiles and jet fighters. That is not the case for much of Pakistan outside tribal areas, away from the mountains, or places like Iran. Drones can also be tricked or hacked, as Iran and even AQ have shown. They have their place but like pinpoint area bombing, are limited. They can’t hold and defend ground. They can’t interrogate prisoners. They cannot storm buildings, or flush out carefully hidden tyrants like Saddam.

The American people want to believe that there is an exit from the nightmare of the Twenty First Century. They want the safety and security of say, the 1990’s back. No more Cold War, no more nuclear threat. Just Party Like It’s 1999, apologies to Prince. They don’t want mass terror, and they want the threat neutralized, off the front pages of newspapers and the evening news. Cheap, and with no US casualties. Meanwhile, Americans still want cheap energy, which runs on oil, and the ability to have nice things. Like power, water, and sewage flushed away, not sitting in a chamber pot and dumped on the street.

Since the US runs on cheap oil, until we can develop North America’s mix of coal, tar sands, oil shale, natural gas, and offshore oil, we are stuck in the Middle East propping up the corrupt House of Saud. George W. Bush and Iraq showed us what replacing the corrupt regimes would cost, and the order of blood and treasure it requires to remove an old corrupt regime and replace it with a new one to our liking.

No one in the Muslim world really gives a damn about the Palestinians. The Saudis are in semi-open alliance with Israel over Iran’s nukes. Syrians are busy killing each over who will rule: a corrupt and brutal, bloody Shia-allied family dynasty, or a corrupt and bloody Sunni salafist rabble determined to turn the place into the Taliban’s Afghanistan. The US as a protector of the Saudis to get cheap oil will ALWAYS be drawn into these feuds. Al Qaeda wants to supplant the corrupt House of Saud and rule the place themselves. They’ll be even worse. Iran wants to control the Gulf and raise the price of oil to at least $150 a barrel.

It is a fantasy and fallacy that we can ever escape this fight, as long as we run on oil. At best, we can manage it. Putin did that by killing 40,000 Chechens or more. No more terrorist attacks. He scared people. America is not willing to do that. Even if most Americans buy into the fantasy of zapping remote Jihadis in Yemen and places like it, outside any real bother to their lives.

America won’t support any more Iraq or Afghanistan Wars. That is clear. But the alternative is not drone zapping by a President acting like a comic book villain choosing who lives or dies, either. Americans need to come to terms with reality. We need to protect the (loathsome) House of Saud. This means forces in the area, supported by US airpower. This has been the traditional US policy since FDR. It includes the Gulf kingdoms, the Israelis, and now pointedly excludes Egypt as Obama handed that place to the Muslim Brotherhood, intent on overthrowing our most important ally, the Saudis, who set the global price of oil through their production levels. America will have to rebuild military alliances with peoples who face real threats from enemies, and have as a result forces willing and able to fight their enemies. We can provide air power, naval power, and supplies. But they’ll have to do the fighting.

And yes, occasionally the US will have to embark on limited, Gulf War style battles of annihilation, but mixed with installing friendly forces to maintain power. George Herbert Walker Bush’s mistake was not to remove Saddam, and install friendly Shia Arab forces, with US help. Let them do the fighting and dying, they were ready then (before the US let Saddam slaughter them), and the destruction of Saddam’s forces had his remaining thugs on the run. Idealism, a lot of blather about noble purposes, and such led Bush to follow Colin Powell’s advice, disastrously.

The US has two main objectives, keep oil cheap, and nukes out of the hands of the jihadis in Pakistan and Mullahs in Tehran. All else is window dressing, stuff that doesn’t matter. Zapping Jihadis is a “nice to have” thing, when it can be done cheaply and without too much trouble. But zapping guys like Awlaki, won’t stop Iran from nuking up, or some jihadi getting ahold of a nuke in Pakistan. That takes a lot of military presence (to deter bad actions), which means a big navy, air force, and repeated but limited demonstrations of US power and the will to use it against enemies who don’t listen to reason.

This means a continued dominant military, and large amounts of money spent on it. It means being realistic about what can and cannot be done with drones. It means focusing the Presidency on strategic decisions not semi-snuff arousal videos. It means limiting the power to kill individual people, keeping that away from the Presidency and limited to answerable military commanders in the field, away from the US. And it means, if need be, demonstrations of US power by limited wars against enemies, and their removal and replacement by friendly forces who will fight on their own accord against sworn enemies.

This is not very nice. Nothing noble or uplifting about it. No democracy, peace in our time, no “from this thistle war, I pluck this flower peace.” No “We can do business, with Mr. Hitler!” No grand bargain. Nothing but a constant readiness, military strength, and ruthless use of allies and promotion of national interests. It is not easy. Or cheap. And requires some sacrifice. On the other hand, it is proven to work. But it requires realism and acceptance of US limits and human nature. That if we like all the things that cheap oil brings, it has a cost.

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in jihad. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to Drones and Obama

  1. Anonymous says:

    I have to disagree, a reactionary, true right-wing president should have the power to kill on command and he should use it brutally

    • Anonymous says:

      Also, we should have done (more) business with Mr. Hitler.

      • We should have disposed of Hitler when it was easy, instead a near-thing when it was hard.

      • oogenhand says:

        Hitler cloaked himself in Anti-Communism, making it hard to dispose him from the Right.

      • john says:

        And when we had disposed of Mr. Hitler,the Jerries would make nice?

      • Matt Strictland says:

        We should have minded our own business back in 1917 and stayed out of Europe in the 1st place. America was meant to be and for the most part should have stayed isolationist.

      • jarl says:

        Yep. The wrong side won WWII. America should have told Britain to go suck balls and backed Hitler early to take out the red menace. Europe died with Hitler.

        [Whiskey: Hitler was insane. He destroyed Germany for what, to kill Ann Frank and her family? He was like Jeffrey Dahmer as leader. That level of insanity.]

      • oogenhand says:

        You can easily reverse the damage done by the red menace by pointing out Churchill was racist and islamophobic.

  2. oogenhand says:

    Whether or not we need oil, Islam needs to be destroyed. The Sunni-Shia war threatens to take down the whole world. Therefore a new religion needs to be promoted, that points out that Muslims will be tortured for eternity if they do not convert. This war will be won by religion, not by high-tech weapons, which cost a lot, and can be bought or copied.
    Both Saudi-Arabia and Iran depend on able torturers, who enjoy their jobs inflicting pain. As my religion promises something better than virgins, that is, torturing the enemies of God with your own hands for all eternity in the Afterlife, it is very attractive to the people who keep the system running.

    • john says:

      Destroy Islam? Riiiiiiight!

      • oogenhand says:

        A handful of goat-herders thumbs its nose against the USA. I thumb my nose against Al-Qaeda. Asymmetric warfare, do you understand?

      • Experienced Father says:

        Genocide was done by the Mongol’s Great Khan against the Baghdad Caliphate & Persia with sword and bow.

        In a world of thousands of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems, it is only a matter of political will.

        The question on the table is when, not whether, that will arrive in America.

      • oogenhand says:

        Yes, political will. It isn’t there, it won’t be there. There is however a place of eternal torment, that will bend the will of the muslims.

  3. Doc says:

    I for one, believe that every country that wants a nuclear weapon, the US should give them 12, riding on a MIRV (multiple-independent-reentry-vehicle) with an overlapping target blast pattern. I can guarantee, after several such “deliveries”, such countries, would give up wanting such. Of course, the ones that we “helped” in this way, would also no longer want them. So this is a win-win approach for the US.

    The world would rant and rave about the US being war-mongers, even though every country that received our largess would be un-going peace – it would be the peace of the grave, but that is fine, as long as NOT ONE AMERICAN is on that pyre… So let the world rant and rave – they will anyway, so I couldn’t care less…

    • Matt Strictland says:

      Not a smart idea. Other nations who have a dispute with us have nukes and one misstep could lead to the pretty much the end of the world.

      Also if we nuke say an oil rich nation, the Chinese may reply (by by West Coast) and at the very best case scenario we risk an immediate reduction or even cessation of oil exports. That means our entire society slams to a halt.

      • john says:

        Chinese nuke Cali? And thats bad why??

      • Matt Strictland says:

        I live here for one, second it produces a good chunk of the nations food and has a lot of our remaining industry . Also a lot of people here are decent, probably 1/3 of them. Last fallout gets saner neighboring states.

      • oogenhand says:

        Neutron bombs? Again, military hardware doesn’t win the day, but attacking the theological weaknesses of your enemies. A Pakistani general said, always attack the religion of your enemies first.

  4. bob roberts says:


    Where’s your fall tv critique?

  5. Armageddon Rex says:

    “Obama and company don’t like the military, and want to replace a deeply conservative, mostly White force with something cheap and seemingly high-tech. Drones. Which ultimately can answer to just a small group of controllers ordered about by Obama. That’s the dream. Obama deciding who to kill or not, today Anwar al-Awlaki. Tomorrow Rush Limbaugh…”
    This is one reason the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution exists. When the United States was founded it was fairly common for property owners of means to display cannons, howitzers & mortars and stacked ammunition for said artillery on the lawn or porch of their impressive dwellings. These were the weapons of mass destruction of the era. It was both decorative and a statement by the home owner to both the jealous poor, the Occupy Wall Street rabble of the day, and more importantly, to overly self important, would be tyrannical government officials that the owners of the property had the tools at hand, and presumably the proper mind set to use them in order to protect themselves from the tyranny of the mob or government. “Don’t Tread On Me!” was chosen as the motto for one of our earliest battle standards for a reason.

    Some wealthy citizens purchased, provisioned, manned and in some cases commanded armed warships with letters of marque to sink or seize enemy ships, docks, harbors and maritime materiel. Every free man, even the poorest, was required by law in many colonies and states to “drill” with the militia twice a year, and to bring their self provided, personal military style weapons, in good repair. There were exemptions for Quakers and other moral or religious pacifists.

    The equivalent today would be an F-16 or similar tactical fighter equipped with AMRAAM & sidewinder missiles and an assortment of laser & GPS guided smart bombs and cluster munitions in every corporate officers garage. The uber wealthy Donalds and DuPonts of the nation would be expected to sponsor a frigate, destroyer, or diesel attack submarine, while our civic minded less martially inclined very wealthy citizens could sponsor the sea-bee battalions, civic affairs companies, or my personal favorite, The Bill & Melinda Gates Hospital Ship. Upper middle class citizens would forgo the yacht and \ or ski lodge in favor of an M-1 tank or Cobra attack helicopter. If you think a boat is a hole in the water your pour money into, you haven’t tried to fuel and maintain a main battle tank yet…
    The “poor” free men (non-felons) would maintain their assault, sniper, or battle rifles, ammunition, body armor, bayonet, pistol, squad UHF/VHF radio, night vision goggles, etc.

    Real modern WMDs, in my opinion, should remain the province of governments.

    My point is that since drones are only effective when complete air superiority exists, we, The People, need to quickly regain control of our airspace. The easiest way to do this is to allow people who pass a back ground check to purchase Stinger missiles or similarly effective shoulder fired surface to air weapon. The better solution would be to allow citizens who pass a similar back ground check to own and operate modern armed fighter aircraft so long as they have current, valid, pilots license.

    We’ve slipped a long, long way from the freedoms we The People had when our nation was young.

    I hope all you statist pussies out there will think about this before you go to the polls and vote for some fascist / socialist (but I repeat myself) apparatchik with a (D) in front of their names. If you want to live in a totalitarian dictatorship do the rest of us a favor and move to Venezuela, Cuba, Iran, or North Korea and let the rest of us who are willing to shed our blood to recapture our lost liberty live without you trying to have the Leviathan of government force us, at gunpoint, to act as YOU think we should.

    Sincerely, Armageddon Rex

    • Matt Strictland says:

      The founding fathers didn’t care if no longer incarcerated felons owned arms. In fact few did till the late 1960’s If someone was a chronic problem they were either indentured, imprisoned or hanged.

      In fact one of the co inventors of the M1 Carbine, David “Carbine” Williams was a convicted murderer and moonshiner, a multiple felon.

      For folks who want the state out of their lives, they are going to have to be consistent and stop punishing after the fact and stop victimless crime laws . You can’t have it both ways, freedom means letting others be free.

      As far as crimes likes child molestation, we need stronger penalties and life time parole not lists on the cheap . if we want to stop it (hint BTW we don’t) Its expensive but one would hope that the number of such persons are small enough to float the expense

  6. Toddy cat says:

    I’m not sure I agree with you about the President and targeted killing, but there’s no doubt that Obama’s attraction to drones and drone strikes is a bit creepy. The fact that the left has been pretty much silent about the largest assasinating program in American history is even creepier. Anyone who still harbored any ideas about leftists being any kind of “idealists”, misguided or otherwise . has just had a reality check. Leftists are interested in power and revenge, nothing more.

    • john says:

      He BE half black,y’all. He party wit Jay-Z,nomesayne?? Jay-Z aint jealous when Obamam be dancin’ wiff Beyonce,nomesayne.

      • oogenhand says:

        In other words, they believe in patrilinearity. Black father; you are black. Half-black people shouldn’t be produced by whites, according to them.

  7. beta_plus says:

    Great as always, but Obama won’t be charged with war crimes. The only 1st world politicians that can be convicted of war crimes are conservative British and American politicians.

    • Well, Obama has made enemies inside Pakistan. Inside Yemen. To name just a few. Suppose Pakistan, or a new Yemeni regime charges Obama with War Crimes? Why not? Would Britain, filled with Pakistani muslims who form key Labor voting blocs, hold Obama like say, they did Pinochet? Sure. Obama is stupid, he’s not thinking AHEAD.

      • Dr Van Nostrand says:

        Whiskey I don’t see how u figure any of this. Remember that Bush in his lame duck was lambasted with threats of impeachments, war crimes prosecution. And to some extent so was Blair.Nothing came to pass in the end.
        Certainly it won’t happen to Obama either. Pakistani villagers in the northwest aren’t the favored victims du jour like the Bosnians and Albanians were (hence the sorry fate of Mr Milosevic and the exonerration of Mr Blair who did all the legwork for the 2nd Balkan war in the 90s).
        According to wikipedia, the villagers were drone attacks are most frequent actally appreciate the precision bombing as opposed to scorched earth approach generally employed by the Pakistani airforce when they attack terrorists in the northwest area.
        All said and done, no is going to issue war crimes charges against the President because…he is the President of the United States.And certainly not Obama , the god king of the Euro elite.
        And no amount Pakistani constituents in boroughs of England can change that.

      • oogenhand says:

        And how will the Euro elite control those Pakistanis?

      • Lawful Neutral says:

        They don’t have to control the Pakistanis, Oog, they just have to refuse to give them what they want. How exactly is Pakistan going to capture an American President and put him on trial? Supposing they did somehow, what consequences would they face?

    • Lawful Neutral says:

      The USG has a few of those lying around, too, I hear. Its upper echelons might just use them rather than surrender themselves for capital punishment.

  8. cecil henry says:

    350 strikes– it really sounds like someone else has control of OBama and OBama has acquiesed to whatever they want.

    I Enjoy your website, very interesting perspective on things.

    I thought you might be interested in this blog site. Some similar themes to what you discuss.


  9. john says:

    A drone strike on Sean Hannity? And thats bad why?

  10. Drone warfare often reminds me of a Gorbachev-Reagan exchange presented in Morris’s “Dutch: A Memoir” (a deeply problematic book but valuable nonetheless). Bandying about the Star Wars initiative, Gorbachev makes some cryptic remark about “the stars, who can count them all?”, which Reagan reads as a dog whistle Christian confession and which Reagan’s aides read as an attempt to play Reagan’s faith.

    Well, like the deathly defense satellites Gorby feared to count, we have more hovering terminators than we can count. Who can even count how many countries Obama has us making war upon?

    Many of these we target, doubtless deserve to die. But it’s hard to persuade me we aren’t playing whack-a-mole (?). Drones are a more unconventional and ominous threat than Guantanamo, a mere prison for state-of-the-art non-life-threatening interrogations, ever was. Oh, but we never stopped the complaining about Guantanamo, as long as W. was there! Yes, me too. Oh the river of sobs over civil liberties. And now–

    Your analogy with the Chicago way is a daring insight. Maybe for Obama it’s a sort of affectation, but there’s no doubt there’s a lot of the gangster, of Michael Corleone if you will (to get a bit far of Chicago) in his temper. God knows what private rites this weasly man requires to convince himself of his manhood. But to think he’d watch drone strikes and then– fair to help Stevens, or even secure the site of his slaughter!

  11. oogenhand says:

    I meant white MEN of course.

    • odds says:

      Of course. Everybody knows that White women are reserved for everyone. Just get rid of those loathsome White men. If only there is a way we can turn White women away from White men…maybe we can promote interracial sex on TV and internet porn, promote non-White athletes and build up non-White men to be mythically super sexual and aggressive.

      All the while destroying and betafying the White men into laughable stereotypes.

      Mark my words, boys. Civilization depends on White women finding White men sexy again. Any ideas how to do this?

      • oogenhand says:

        As they want to breed with White women, can they really be said to want to exterminate the White autosomal DNA, or just the Y-chromosomes?

      • oogenhand says:

        If or when White men become sexy, they will become sexy to non-White women as well. It is very easy to make White men sexy, look how Muslim religion works like Game for its male adherents, but the WN community has its own taboos.

      • If you like and find White women sexy, you can’t have them without White guys. You don’t get say, an Allison Hannigan without a Conan O’Brien. And conversely, if you like Black guys, you can’t have say, Seal or Jay Z or Kanye West, without say, Gabourey Sideby. Or Jennifer Hudson. You just can’t. And if you like Asian women, well you can’t have them without say, that nerdy Asian guy in your Stats class. Or guys who look like extras in Chow Yun Fat movies.

        Yes White guys have to be more sexy. Game is essential. But too much of it and we lose technology which depends on nerdy White guys. What we have now is abundance of providership and safety. Or the illusion of plenty. Like those in Staten Island or the Far Rockaways, that illusion is just that. The reality is its too late when you have no food, power, water, or sewage service, and thugs roam at will without you (White gal) having PROTECTION. Which is not the hot Alpha at the club but the guy right next to you. Willing to kill or die for you.
        We moved away from that. Thankfully. But it has a cost.


  12. Rollory says:

    “We need to protect the (loathsome) House of Saud. ”

    “we” do NOT. Thorium reactors plus shale oil will suffice to remove the necessity for mideastern oil. “we” should set fire to the Arabian peninsula as we leave, and leave permanently.


    • oogenhand says:

      But how much time and political will is needed to get that done? Far easier is it to exploit the inherent instability of the Middle-East. Islam makes the problems unsolvable, so another religion is needed.

    • blert says:

      Thorium reactors = Uranium 233 reactors
      Thorium, itself, is NOT nuclear fuel. One must breed U233 out of it.
      Having spent years and years trying, both the USA and the USSR gave up on it.
      It’s a solution that will forever remain in the ‘out-years.’
      The Thorium-Uranium cycle produces U233 — the single most viable nuclear explosive known. Talk about unlimited nuclear proliferation!

  13. Dr Van Nostrand says:

    And how will the Euro elite control those Pakistanis”

    It will be ahem outsourced to India, India had the Pakistani army go home crying every time they went to war.

    As for the Pakis in Britain, its only a matter before the BNP or someone similar takes matters in to their own hands.

  14. thordaddy says:

    What we have seen in the ME over the last ten years is that the way for jihadists to gain power is in the mass murdering of Muslims BY JIHADISTS in the name of fighting infidels. The jihadist in the White House has simply co-opted American military to mass murder Muslims in order to empower ME jihadists.

  15. Anonymous says:

    This is a battle between two meta-liberationist movements. “Western” Liberalism. Islamic Jihad. Both all-inclusive. Both ONLY REALIZED AS THE “truth” when ALL ARE ASSIMILATED FULLY.. Both seek “radical autonomy,” i.e., absolute liberation. Both end in self-annihilation. The “West” through a life of pleasure, i.e., self-sexualization/homosexualization. And Ismalic Jihad through “life of pain” exemplified by mass-murdering martyrdom. When head to head, they slit each others’ throats. When “white Supremacy” is in view, they are unshakeable allies.

  16. Pingback: LIGFY – November Savings Time | Society of Amateur Gentlemen

  17. anirishtory says:

    Reblogged this on Irish Tory.

  18. Jesus(second in command??) says:

    The warmongering dumbfucks are multiplying too rapidly.

    • oogenhand says:

      That can be used against them. Rub them in that abortion would be worse than the suffering of the Palestinian people.

      • blert says:

        That’s some weird kind of ghetto they’re in: high rise condos on the eastern edge of the Med!
        Their population has absolutely EXPLODED since they’ve been forced to endure the travails of subsidised living, courtesy of the West and the Sauds. This ramp in population exceeds that of any Arab population this side of the Saudi Royal House.
        That Hamas has the ethics of a robber barron is beyond question. Heck, they spill more Arab blood than Jewish Israel — it’s no contest, just ask Fatah.
        In that, Hamas and Fatah are a THE template for Arab modern culture. You can’t stop it. You just have to accept that such is their way.
        And give up on a two-state solution. The Arabs are violently opposed to any such construct. Any serious move in that direction = personal suicide for the politician on point.
        That’s a reality beyond non-Arab control — or even influence.

  19. blert says:

    Our only hope is that they should unify the caliphate… A long and bloody process that must result in a Caliph — living in what should be termed Caliph-formia.

    By dint of living on a belt of desert, muslims would seem to have logistical troubles beyond all other combatants. Camel warfare just doesn’t scale up.

    • oogenhand says:

      The Saudi Royal House does breed. Overpopulation? Overconsumption? They do both. The Saudi Royal House rebelled against the Ottoman Caliph, so some theological problems are inevitable.

Comments are closed.