Nation of Women?
No post three days. Out of town.
When I left Baalbec was in the news though what was happening or had happened was not clear. Turns out it was just a commando raid, not a bridgehead, but a successful raid in that it embarrassed Hizbollah, the proof being how much they had to spin it. First, some helicopter attempted to set down but was driven off, then that the Israelis did land but entered an empty hospital and were surrounded and had to fight for their lives, then that the Israelis did kidnap a few people but they were only civilians and one was a grocer, and then, of course, that all they really did was kill a lot of women and children and other assorted "civilians". In fact the Israelis did kill people, did kidnap, and did leave unscathed, so it was an embarrassment to Hizbollah, but it wasn't a bridgehead. The Israelis still offensively are timid so they are badly losing this war. The Middle East is a war zone, if you can't kill your enemies you lose. Israel had not invaded in force and has not stopped the rockets. Militarily, never mind the propaganda, they have badly lost this war. In this new age of rockets they are defeated and a subject nation.
I presume they lost because of poor leadership and not because of cowardice. I'm not sure though, it is possible that the whole nation is deep in moral rot. They speak of this as an "existential" conflict, a struggle for their very survival, and yet they sit on their backsides and do absolutely utterly nothing. It is possible Israel has become a nation of women. In that case, living as they do in the Middle East, they are dead, the Zionist experiment finished. Failure.
Of course, there is Time. Months go on, and years. Something might change, but to me it looks like it's over.
There is immediate time, there is the "ceasefire" coming up. No one has to pay attention to a ceasefire if they don't want to, there's no way it can be enforced. They could yet show themselves a nation of resolve...
As I've said, I don't think that can happen without mutiny. I don't think that can happen unless the military, discreetly, takes over the government. --I should note I don't think this would necessarily destroy their commitment to democracy and civilian rule. It would simply argue that in this period of exigency the civilian leadership, unfortunately, was "incapacitated" and so, discreetly, it was necessary for the citizenry, through the military, to "work through this difficult time".
I don't know if this is dreaming on my part, or a possibility, I just know that as a warrior nation Israel now is an embarrassment, and I know that where they live, the Middle East, if they're not a warrior nation they don't belong. Their end is indeed "existential", they're dead.
Strategery?
I have no idea what Israel is doing with all that bombing of bridges and roads, this "piece-mealing" of the country, unless they have some strategy... or unless they have no strategy and are merely bombing what they can destroy.
This kind of thing does cut down movement, of both people and materials. People can still move. It's not a very big country, they can walk, but it does make it very hard to move anything by truck. This results in a certain amount of what might be called economic dislocation. It would mean supplies could only be brought in large quantities by sea, and that's something Israel can control, and with the bridges bombed they can to a degree control its distribution. This suggests a strategy for a long war.
And it makes military resupply more difficult. That again suggests long term strategy. Or again, it might be that they're just bombing what's there.
I always presume there are very bright people in Israel's military. I don't know that I can presume that they're the ones in control.
But whatever Israel does the larger strategic consideration is what it is: The Persians against the Arabs, (or, to a lesser degree, the Shiia against the Sunni); and both against the West, especially against Europe, because it's there that the immigrant population troops are already in place. It's Europe that will lose if Hizbollah wins. I find it hard to believe that hasn't yet penetrated. There may be two considerations:
--Habits of thought determine speech. It's automatic for Europe to condemn Israel, so Israel is condemned. It's automatic that Europe seeks appeasement of those who threaten, so they support Islam. And it's automatic, for sixty years, that Europe hasn't defended itself, so it doesn't defend itself now. I have said that since Europe is already a corpse, eventual domination by Islam probably won't hurt much. But there may be breath yet, and so the brain might yet think, not well but at least with some instinct for survival. Which leads to point two:
--France and the US have worked out common language for a ceasefire. Part of the language calls on Hizbollah to unconditionally release the two Israeli soldiers. What chance is there of that happening? This is a formulae for the struggle to continue, and it may be evidence of the European brain yet alive.
And then there's Iraq. If Hizbollah wins the Shiites win Iran wins and what happens to the nascent development of national democratic government in Iraq? Do we have civil war? That would be a mess, a defeat for out attempt to develope a shining city upon a hill in the Mid East. I consider that a grand vision, a quixotic vision, a marvelous courage. It would be lost, and all because Israel has proven itself a weenie nation and/or a nation of weenie leadership.
I am pessimistic. But people got brains. Perhaps as I've suggested all of this ceasefire stuff is just wind and nobody in anyway means it to be taken seriously and Israel will continue the fight until it achieves its "existential" victory.
I want to note a story. Since shortly after this started it's been in the back of my mind. It has to do with Sgt. Alvin York, Medal of Honor winner, First World War. It seems that at one point he was set upon by seven Germans, screaming, bayonets leveled, running right at him. He picked them off, one-by-one, the last man first. If he had started with the man in the lead, the natural target, the others would have dropped to the ground and opened fire and the Sgt. would have been toast. The way it was the first man was the last, thought he didn't know it and thought his companions were just behind. He died only several feet from his goal of slaughtering the Yankee. In my dreams I wonder if this might be happening now. I know Israel has bright people. I wonder if Hizbollah is being slaughtered from behind and they just don't know it yet?
(7:25 PM)
TWO NOTES:
Gaza
Who cares about Gaza? I have a friend who has a fellow who works in his lab who's from Gaza who just went back to Gaza to try to extract his mother and sisters and bride-to-be. He cares about Gaza, and because of him my friend cares about Gaza, but who else cares about Gaza? The Israelis have been shooting up a storm there recently and nobody notices because it's Gaza and nobody cares. Nobody cares about Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter, or the Palestinians; they're just an excuse to dump on Israel. But now there's something bigger, the Hizbollian State of Lebanon of the Empire of Iran. That'll get you to sit up and take notice, and even the dim bulbs among the reflexive anti-Semites know this isn't just a fine kosher kettle of fish, it's possibly Pandora's Box, and so it is receiving immense attention and some thought. And nobody cares about the Gazilians and the cameras are gone, the megaphones of victimology are silent, and the people of Gaza are having a hard time. It's lonely being not noticed, especially when absolutely your only power is to be noticed. --It's probably all for the good, although one would hope that a mother and some sisters and a bride-to-be will somehow come through this unscathed.
Note Two: Laugh On Mars.
I just saw this: No Life On Mars After ALL? It's hard to believe it was ten years ago but I remember it well because it was so offensive. NASA got a rock it said was from Mars. I know there were at least two other major labs that had an interest in that rock and the appropriate expertize to do an analysis. They weren't given samples. Instead NASA did their own, singular, analysis and then anounced their results at a press conference! The headlines bleated: LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS! The NASA researchers hadn't quite said that but these were the headlines they wanted and these were the headlines they got.
In fact they had observed in the rock certain elements that might have been formed by a living process --and maybe not. The very strongest statement they could have made was that what they saw was consistent with life process. For something so extraordinary as the statement that life had been discovered on Mars a scientist would recognize there was a heavy burden of proof, but these people worked for NASA.
There was a pretty strong reaction. Real scientists immediately wrote articles that within a month debunked three of the four "proofs" NASA had put forward: only the forth proof was not readily explained as something possibly occurring as a natural mechanical process, and now I read that that proof, through a laboratory demonstration, has been debunked as well, if not completely at least solidly, and so we're back to where any honest man would have been ten years ago, saying that NASA indeed had a very old rock that showed characteristics that might have been formed by a life process --or not.
It's interesting that the objections to NASA's conclusions were fueled and supported by motivations that went beyond reverence for the pure ethos of science: Money. NASA wanted a Mars landing. NASA is a sink-hole for funds. Other scientists didn't want to see all that grant money going to Flash Gordon simply because NASA could flim-flam a press conference, and so these scientists objected and were given press by agenda journalists who wanted that money spent to protect the rain forests.
So Life on Mars did not thrive, and probably can't.
(3:40 AM)
When I left Baalbec was in the news though what was happening or had happened was not clear. Turns out it was just a commando raid, not a bridgehead, but a successful raid in that it embarrassed Hizbollah, the proof being how much they had to spin it. First, some helicopter attempted to set down but was driven off, then that the Israelis did land but entered an empty hospital and were surrounded and had to fight for their lives, then that the Israelis did kidnap a few people but they were only civilians and one was a grocer, and then, of course, that all they really did was kill a lot of women and children and other assorted "civilians". In fact the Israelis did kill people, did kidnap, and did leave unscathed, so it was an embarrassment to Hizbollah, but it wasn't a bridgehead. The Israelis still offensively are timid so they are badly losing this war. The Middle East is a war zone, if you can't kill your enemies you lose. Israel had not invaded in force and has not stopped the rockets. Militarily, never mind the propaganda, they have badly lost this war. In this new age of rockets they are defeated and a subject nation.
I presume they lost because of poor leadership and not because of cowardice. I'm not sure though, it is possible that the whole nation is deep in moral rot. They speak of this as an "existential" conflict, a struggle for their very survival, and yet they sit on their backsides and do absolutely utterly nothing. It is possible Israel has become a nation of women. In that case, living as they do in the Middle East, they are dead, the Zionist experiment finished. Failure.
Of course, there is Time. Months go on, and years. Something might change, but to me it looks like it's over.
There is immediate time, there is the "ceasefire" coming up. No one has to pay attention to a ceasefire if they don't want to, there's no way it can be enforced. They could yet show themselves a nation of resolve...
As I've said, I don't think that can happen without mutiny. I don't think that can happen unless the military, discreetly, takes over the government. --I should note I don't think this would necessarily destroy their commitment to democracy and civilian rule. It would simply argue that in this period of exigency the civilian leadership, unfortunately, was "incapacitated" and so, discreetly, it was necessary for the citizenry, through the military, to "work through this difficult time".
I don't know if this is dreaming on my part, or a possibility, I just know that as a warrior nation Israel now is an embarrassment, and I know that where they live, the Middle East, if they're not a warrior nation they don't belong. Their end is indeed "existential", they're dead.
Strategery?
I have no idea what Israel is doing with all that bombing of bridges and roads, this "piece-mealing" of the country, unless they have some strategy... or unless they have no strategy and are merely bombing what they can destroy.
This kind of thing does cut down movement, of both people and materials. People can still move. It's not a very big country, they can walk, but it does make it very hard to move anything by truck. This results in a certain amount of what might be called economic dislocation. It would mean supplies could only be brought in large quantities by sea, and that's something Israel can control, and with the bridges bombed they can to a degree control its distribution. This suggests a strategy for a long war.
And it makes military resupply more difficult. That again suggests long term strategy. Or again, it might be that they're just bombing what's there.
I always presume there are very bright people in Israel's military. I don't know that I can presume that they're the ones in control.
But whatever Israel does the larger strategic consideration is what it is: The Persians against the Arabs, (or, to a lesser degree, the Shiia against the Sunni); and both against the West, especially against Europe, because it's there that the immigrant population troops are already in place. It's Europe that will lose if Hizbollah wins. I find it hard to believe that hasn't yet penetrated. There may be two considerations:
--Habits of thought determine speech. It's automatic for Europe to condemn Israel, so Israel is condemned. It's automatic that Europe seeks appeasement of those who threaten, so they support Islam. And it's automatic, for sixty years, that Europe hasn't defended itself, so it doesn't defend itself now. I have said that since Europe is already a corpse, eventual domination by Islam probably won't hurt much. But there may be breath yet, and so the brain might yet think, not well but at least with some instinct for survival. Which leads to point two:
--France and the US have worked out common language for a ceasefire. Part of the language calls on Hizbollah to unconditionally release the two Israeli soldiers. What chance is there of that happening? This is a formulae for the struggle to continue, and it may be evidence of the European brain yet alive.
And then there's Iraq. If Hizbollah wins the Shiites win Iran wins and what happens to the nascent development of national democratic government in Iraq? Do we have civil war? That would be a mess, a defeat for out attempt to develope a shining city upon a hill in the Mid East. I consider that a grand vision, a quixotic vision, a marvelous courage. It would be lost, and all because Israel has proven itself a weenie nation and/or a nation of weenie leadership.
I am pessimistic. But people got brains. Perhaps as I've suggested all of this ceasefire stuff is just wind and nobody in anyway means it to be taken seriously and Israel will continue the fight until it achieves its "existential" victory.
I want to note a story. Since shortly after this started it's been in the back of my mind. It has to do with Sgt. Alvin York, Medal of Honor winner, First World War. It seems that at one point he was set upon by seven Germans, screaming, bayonets leveled, running right at him. He picked them off, one-by-one, the last man first. If he had started with the man in the lead, the natural target, the others would have dropped to the ground and opened fire and the Sgt. would have been toast. The way it was the first man was the last, thought he didn't know it and thought his companions were just behind. He died only several feet from his goal of slaughtering the Yankee. In my dreams I wonder if this might be happening now. I know Israel has bright people. I wonder if Hizbollah is being slaughtered from behind and they just don't know it yet?
(7:25 PM)
TWO NOTES:
Gaza
Who cares about Gaza? I have a friend who has a fellow who works in his lab who's from Gaza who just went back to Gaza to try to extract his mother and sisters and bride-to-be. He cares about Gaza, and because of him my friend cares about Gaza, but who else cares about Gaza? The Israelis have been shooting up a storm there recently and nobody notices because it's Gaza and nobody cares. Nobody cares about Gaza, or the West Bank for that matter, or the Palestinians; they're just an excuse to dump on Israel. But now there's something bigger, the Hizbollian State of Lebanon of the Empire of Iran. That'll get you to sit up and take notice, and even the dim bulbs among the reflexive anti-Semites know this isn't just a fine kosher kettle of fish, it's possibly Pandora's Box, and so it is receiving immense attention and some thought. And nobody cares about the Gazilians and the cameras are gone, the megaphones of victimology are silent, and the people of Gaza are having a hard time. It's lonely being not noticed, especially when absolutely your only power is to be noticed. --It's probably all for the good, although one would hope that a mother and some sisters and a bride-to-be will somehow come through this unscathed.
Note Two: Laugh On Mars.
I just saw this: No Life On Mars After ALL? It's hard to believe it was ten years ago but I remember it well because it was so offensive. NASA got a rock it said was from Mars. I know there were at least two other major labs that had an interest in that rock and the appropriate expertize to do an analysis. They weren't given samples. Instead NASA did their own, singular, analysis and then anounced their results at a press conference! The headlines bleated: LIFE DISCOVERED ON MARS! The NASA researchers hadn't quite said that but these were the headlines they wanted and these were the headlines they got.
In fact they had observed in the rock certain elements that might have been formed by a living process --and maybe not. The very strongest statement they could have made was that what they saw was consistent with life process. For something so extraordinary as the statement that life had been discovered on Mars a scientist would recognize there was a heavy burden of proof, but these people worked for NASA.
There was a pretty strong reaction. Real scientists immediately wrote articles that within a month debunked three of the four "proofs" NASA had put forward: only the forth proof was not readily explained as something possibly occurring as a natural mechanical process, and now I read that that proof, through a laboratory demonstration, has been debunked as well, if not completely at least solidly, and so we're back to where any honest man would have been ten years ago, saying that NASA indeed had a very old rock that showed characteristics that might have been formed by a life process --or not.
It's interesting that the objections to NASA's conclusions were fueled and supported by motivations that went beyond reverence for the pure ethos of science: Money. NASA wanted a Mars landing. NASA is a sink-hole for funds. Other scientists didn't want to see all that grant money going to Flash Gordon simply because NASA could flim-flam a press conference, and so these scientists objected and were given press by agenda journalists who wanted that money spent to protect the rain forests.
So Life on Mars did not thrive, and probably can't.
(3:40 AM)
posted by mouse at 2:05 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home