I’m goping to present this one without comment:
[Edited by Gaudere on 09-25-2001 at 10:05 PM]
He lost my attention after paragraph 6)
Thanks a lot for posting that. I had to run around the room covering flammable objects, for fear of them being ignited by sparks from all that ax-grinding.
Assuming we dump our “effeminate” politicians, stomp on homosexuals in the armed forces and quadruple the military budget, just how does Fred think that’s gonna help us stop terrorism?
I vote we send in Fred to arm wrestle bin Laden. Semper Fi!
Yup.
Yepper pepper doodly doo…
Mmhmm.
Lots of valuable insights, Scylla. Thanks for posting it.
Rain rain, rainer on jane…
jackmannii:
Presented without comment means just that. I don’t share all the opinions presented, and don’t feel compelled to defend them.
Personally, I’m not so much interested in his political analysis as I am his tactical analysis. It’s really only the latter that he’s qualified to discuss, anyway.
I’d kind of hoped the Teeming millions could distinguish between the two parts, and take the military analysis for what it’s worth. Silly me.
C’mon, Scylla, don’t let a few discouraging words get you down.
So what is this tactical strategy Fred is so eminently qualified to present? It seems to add up to: 1) Speak coldly about lots and lots of people dying, 2) Strike back** real hard**, and 3) Recognize that the Moslem World is our enemy.
Sounds like Fred wants to cascade hydrogen bombs on Kabul, Baghdad and Damascus. Or invade Syria, Iran, Iraq and a few other countries simultaneously. I guess we will need to quadruple the military budget, at that.
Pretty neat line about our being a “nation of epicenes” though. Where’s that Funk and Wagnall’s when I really need it? 
Military and tactical analysis like this, you mean?
Sheer brilliance indeed. And he writes for the Washington Times, you say? Preposterous!
…Okay, yes, I’ll ask the obvious question. What exactly about framing, invading, and colonizing Libya makes that a “good” approach? Is there some alternate definition of the word “good” of which I’m not aware?
C’mon, Scylla. You’re not even trying anymore.
(Insert obligatory remark here about marking the day on the calendar when Gadarene and Jackmanii have actually agreed on something. :))
Jack:
I thought his idea that the WTC was just another in a long chain of connected military defeats that we had suffered, and are not incidents to be taken singly merits thought, as does his refutation of the “cowardly” nature of the attacks.
Reed gives the enemy a lot of credit and respect for their commitment and tactics, and, I think rightfully, abuses the US citizenry for it’s laissez-faire attitude.
Gadarene:
I’m going to take this seriously. I don’t think Reed is writing to be taken literally, but rather to reveal the atitude of our enemy.
Such a tactic serves as a mirror to the ruthlessness we are up against, and what it will take to defeat it.
So, the framing of Libya is not a serious suggestion, IMO, but rather illustrates the ugliness we are up against as well as the evils we will have to steel ourselves to commit to defeat it.
This Fred Reed looks like quite the intellectual. Some of his thoughts:
If we assume Blacks are less intelligent than Whites, Fred suggests
http://www.fredoneverything.net/BlackIQ.html
Fred on gay marriage:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Silicone.html
Fred on feminists:
Basically his military analysis is bullshit too. Being a foot soldier in the Marines does not give you the strategic insight of MacArthur, Patton, or Powell any more than being a welder at GE gives you the business acumen of Jack Welch.
From what I can tell, this guy is just some former jarhead goon who thinks that everything can be solved by ‘kicking ass’.
Other than being blantantly racist, sexist, and homophobic, what keen insight are we supposed to derive from this rambling?
You were right about his perspective being different, but only if you compare it to the opinions of mainstream press. I’ve heard and read comments like this for years from “jes’ plain folks”. Charley Reese, retired from the Orlando Sentinel, used to rant like this once every frickin’ week! When I read this guy’s complaint about how “feminized” our society is, I thought it had been written BY Reese! Or maybe Rush Limbaugh.
It really isn’t all that new, I’m sorry to say.
(Oh, look what Bill H. found! Yeech!)
Oh, don’t you?
That’s certainly a creative interpretation! Can you, y’know, support it with anything? Anything at all?
Does this latter-day Voltaire have a history of accomplished satire? According to Bill H., apparently so. That, or he’s just a big ol’ jackass. You make the call.
I’ll grant you that it’s possible to salvage a tidbit or two from Fred’s festering stew of resentment. The idea that a strong and determined response is needed in the face of an enemy with such capabilities (I will not grant you “courage”, not with what happened 9/11) is on target. But we need to go beyond chest fur-thumping and blather about body counts.
I sincerely hope that our long-range strategy targets the people that Fred seems to think do not exist - the dictators who provide support, intelligence and sanctuary to the bin Ladens. Once they realize that they are jeopardizing their regimes, their palaces and other luxury trappings, and their ability to grind down their subjects, the Quadaffis and such may just lose their taste for encouraging terrorism. Intelligent, targeted military options would be a part of this strategy.
But for this we won’t need Fred. He can make movies instead.
“A good approach would be to have the NSA fabricate intercepts proving that ranting American right-wing bigots were responsible, then build those Federal concentration camps for white male heterosexual Christian gun owners they’re always whining about and liquidate them all.”
There ya go. It’s certainly a different perspective, don’t you think? I mean, if “different” is all we’re going for here.
With “different perspectives” like this, who needs lobotomies?!?
Bill H:
I was not aware of those.
If I had been, I would not have chosen to pass on this piece, in spite of the fact that some parts of it might be worthy of discussion in spite of his regrettable politics.
As it is, it appears I’ve plopped down a whole pile of horseshit under the assumption that there must be a pony in there somewhere.
Usually I’m happy to discuss worthwhile points even if the source is less than stellar, but what you’ve revealed is truly vile, and I’m upset that I’ve associated myself with this guy.
In light of those quotes and links it seems likely that he is being literal with regards to his Libyan solution as well, and I must concede so to Gadarene (which just goes to show that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. )
May I pass on your post to the source that emailed me that piece? I doubt he was aware of those either.
At any rate, thanks for doing the due diligence I should have put in before I posted.
This is the first time I’ve ever seriously considered the old “Somebody stole my computer. I didn’t post that,” rebuttal.