Lileks has a depressing Christmas radio newscast from sixty-one years ago. The cause was clearly hopeless. Why didn’t we just give up?

Lileks has a depressing Christmas radio newscast from sixty-one years ago. The cause was clearly hopeless. Why didn’t we just give up?

Lileks has a depressing Christmas radio newscast from sixty-one years ago. The cause was clearly hopeless. Why didn’t we just give up?

If this is true, Syria has made her bet, and is going to stand or fall with Iran.

Is there any reason that we shouldn’t simply declare war on both of them? We don’t necessarily have to do anything about it immediately, but it would certainly bring diplomacy in synch with reality, and open up a lot more options in dealing with them.

Miranda Devine says that many of the problems in Sydney are a result of years of lax law enforcement against the Lebanese Muslim gangs. I disagree with this, though:

Rather than a problem of race, religion or multiculturalism, Sydney is suffering from a longstanding crime problem. It is a textbook case of how soft policing and lenient magistrates embolden successive waves of criminals, infecting other people who might otherwise have been law-abiding.

But that begs the question of why the policing was soft, and the magistrates lenient. Ultimately, I think it still comes back to a misplaced multiculturalism, and an unwillingness to crack down on religious minorities, even when they were breeding a culture of intolerance and criminality.

There’s quite a bit of discussion in Sam’s post, some of which expresses appropriate concern about how long we have to put up with a modest (and sorry, that’s all it is, despite all the nonsense about living in a police state under Bushitler) suspension of some of the civil liberties that many of us had taken for granted, given that we don’t have a declared war, and that it’s not clear when it will be over. Tigerhawk has an excellent essay on that subject.

I doubt if this is true, but if there’s anyone on earth who deserves to be beaten in detention, it’s surely Saddam Hussein.

People (unconvincingly, to me, and probably to anyone who’s not suffering selective amnesia about the runup to the war) accuse George W. Bush of shifting justifications after 911, but how about shifting justification for 911?

…bin Laden’s justifications for 9/11 are continually moulded and shaped by Western media coverage. At first – on 28 September 2001 – he disavows responsibility for the attacks, instead trying to pin the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself: ‘The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself

People (unconvincingly, to me, and probably to anyone who’s not suffering selective amnesia about the runup to the war) accuse George W. Bush of shifting justifications after 911, but how about shifting justification for 911?

…bin Laden’s justifications for 9/11 are continually moulded and shaped by Western media coverage. At first – on 28 September 2001 – he disavows responsibility for the attacks, instead trying to pin the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself: ‘The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself

People (unconvincingly, to me, and probably to anyone who’s not suffering selective amnesia about the runup to the war) accuse George W. Bush of shifting justifications after 911, but how about shifting justification for 911?

…bin Laden’s justifications for 9/11 are continually moulded and shaped by Western media coverage. At first – on 28 September 2001 – he disavows responsibility for the attacks, instead trying to pin the blame on some dastardly conspiracy within America itself: ‘The United States should trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself