Monday, June 20, 2005

Ok, this'll p*ss off the Libs (and French) (and MALDEF, and LULAC)

The Anti-Subjigator writes a letter to Osamma:

Open Letter to Osama Bin Laden, leader of Al Qaeda

Dear Sir,
I have watched with great interest the response to 9/11, and it has gone exactly as I predicted. I thought you might be interested in "what went wrong" so that you can have a sporting chance of winning.

Ok, the first thing you should know about warfare is that it is a SCIENCE. The reason we (the free world) keep on winning is because of the enormous amount of thinking that we do. There are two aspects to this. One is the science of battle, where weapons systems are employed against other weapons systems. The other is the science of geostrategy, which is building up alliances. Basically combining weapons systems. The Anglophones are the masters of both of these things, which is why Anglophones haven't been beaten, except when they fight each other, for nearly 1000 years. Let me explain to you what the UK has been up to for centuries, and the US has been up to since it took on the role after WWII.

The ultimate goal of the UK/US is to convert the rest of the world into countries like Australia (and maybe Poland). You see, Australia turns up to help with a fight ON ITS OWN. Australia uses its own resources to do this. It doesn't need to be forced or bribed by the US. I'm not sure exactly why you think Australia turns up to so many fights. Maybe you've never thought about it at all (first big mistake). Maybe you think it's because Australia is predominantly white (true, but wrong reason again). Maybe you think it's because Australia is predominantly Christian (nominally true, but less than 1% practicing, and wrong reason yet again). There are 3 things that Australians (or at least, a significant number, including the current government) fight against. One is dogma. One is non-humanist behaviour. One is subjugators. Most Australians will not use these words though, they'll probably just say "we fight for freedom". But my analysis is that it is those 3 things that Australians fight against.


You see, terrorists don't normally have access to major weapons systems. As such, they can do limited damage, and it is mainly a job for the police. After 9/11, the US SHOULD have been able to simply ring up Interpol and have you arrested. But why wouldn't this work? Because of two problems. One is that there is territory in the world that is not under the control of the rule of law. The second problem is that in some territory, terrorism is not against the law. The SCIENTIFIC goal of the US is thus to ensure that terrorism is against the law everywhere, and that there is nowhere in the world that is outside of the law. This then feeds back into GEOSTRATEGY, which is to make foreign governments "more like Australia". So Afghanistan was one place where it wasn't against the law to have a terrorist group. The solution therefore is to CHANGE THE GOVERNMENT.

The US makes best use of RESOURCES by using the minimum amount of force required to change the government of Afghanistan. And basically completely ignore the POLICE job of CATCHING YOU. The police in Afghanistan or Pakistan should be in charge of catching you. It's not a job for the US military. It's a waste of resources. Manhunts are not what the US military is trained to do, or good at doing. What the military is good at is changing the government. Now there was no need to change the government in Pakistan. The government in Pakistan was smart enough to realise that it was too dangerous to continue supporting terrorism. So they have stopped doing so. And Pakistan is using its OWN RESOURCES to bring the law, "terrorism is illegal", across all of its territory. Again, this was a wise (scientific) move by the US. Make use of other people's resources.

Now when it came to Afghanistan, the US had another OPPORTUNITY. Instead of using its own forces, it could use the Northern Alliance. Under the Northern Alliance, terrorism was illegal. All they needed to do was assist the Northern Alliance to victory, and the terrorism problem in Afghanistan would be solved. This was a job for the military, and it was accomplished. Then there was a different geostrategic problem - ensuring that Afghanistan remained stable. For that, the Northern Alliance needed to be replaced with a more representative government. This change of government was achieved diplomatically. Fahim and Rabbani weren't very happy about it, but they relented, gradually, without needing to use US forces against them. And the most stable that the government can get is with a democracy. Because then you have the majority of people on your side, and you should have maximum stability


So, who's next? There's only a handful of "hostile regimes" remaining. Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea. Iran is the one that is most likely to give the MAXIMUM BENEFIT for MINIMUM RESOURCES. The regime can likely be toppled with the amazing success of Afghanistan. The infrastructure is already in place for democracy to work. There are already security forces that can be reused - no need to do nation-building. And of course, don't forget the independent goal of spreading human rights. Iran is a horrible violator of human rights. It even rapes its own citizens. By toppling Iran, we kill 2 or more birds with 1 stone.

Now you may be wondering why the US government never says any of this in public. Well, part of GEOSTRATEGY is STRATEGIC AMBIGUITY. They can't give away their whole game-plan, because otherwise they may SCARE ALLIES such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Remember, it is SUICIDE to open a war front with an ally or neutral! They instead do their best to concentrate on an issue such as WMD that more people can agree with. Most people will not agree to toppling Iraq so that the US can save money by not patrolling the no-fly zones and not having to deal with a hostile regime. Others don't care how much money the US has to waste on things like this. It's not their money that's being wasted! And many people won't accept the "human rights" argument either, because they can see that there is inconsistency between US allies and US enemies. As a human rights campaigner, I find this attitude horrible - basically saying that because the US doesn't fix ALL human rights abuses, it shouldn't be allowed to fix ANY. This is condemning people to holocaust for no reason at all. I personally prefer to bring in human rights on the back of US geostrategy. Once again, killing 2 birds with 1 stone. Maximum benefit for minimum resources.


Another thing you should know is that we don't fight for honour, glory or to prove how brave our soldiers are. We're only interested in WINNING. And when we fight, we don't use ANGER. We instead use CALCULATED VIOLENCE. All all levels from the soldier on the ground to the President of the US, everyone is using their BRAIN, not their emotions. Well, people have emotions too obviously, but it is part of SCIENCE to not let the emotions cloud our judgement. Acting emotionally instead of rationally is a recipe for disaster. Instead, the proper thing to do is get your emotions, then FORMULATE A PLAN. You seem to think that God is going to help you win battles. None of the western battle plans involve God coming to the rescue. All the plans we use are based on the assumption that all the weapons systems will operate according to the laws of physics and that God, if he exists at all, will not intervene. How many times do you need to lose before you realise this yourself? In actual fact, do you ever stop to think that maybe you are worshipping the WRONG GOD, and that's why you keep on losing? Just a thought!


Oh yes. You've got an additional problem in that you think that you beat the Soviets in Afghanistan, and that you think the US is weaker than the Soviet Union. This is another misunderstanding of warfare, combined with a misunderstanding of culture. First of all the Soviets were easily able to maintain control of Afghanistan. There was simply a change of management that CHOSE not to assert that control any more. And the same applies to the US in Vietnam. The idiotic Democrats believed that the Vietnamese communists were some kind of great humanists and CHOSE to WITHDRAW SUPPORT from the South Vietnamese. I'm not surprised that you got confused - a lot of people in the west are similarly confused. But the MILITARY is NOT CONFUSED. The MILITARY knows they could have EASILY WON.

He's got alot more, but I like the chest thumping of his final paragraph:

And I'd like to make one request please if you don't mind. The US are our allies. Our mates. The attack on the WTC made me feel that we'd let down our mates, by failing to protect them. If you have any further plans for terrorism, can you hit Australia instead of the US. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, has gone to a lot of effort in an attempt to divert your attention to us. We're in this fight to the bitter end. By the way, did you know that Israel would not even exist if it weren't for the Australian Lighthorse charging Beersheba in WWI? Just thought I'd mention it in case it was of some interest to you. If you could spare Israel and Iraq, that would be nice too. They've had enough. We're just getting warmed up. Do you know where to find us? We're just south of Indonesia. West of New Zealand. Can't miss us. In actual fact, Australia was part of the effort to take some "Muslim land" (East Timor) and convert it into "infidel land". You might want to factor that into your deliberations too. I personally live in Sydney, in case the rumours of you having a suitcase nuke are true. Bless you.

And bless you Paul Edwards.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks to spammers that found this little blog at the edge of the universe, I have to use word verification.