Annabelle, it appears that you are trying to tell us that President George Bush used language carefully designed to signal his unwavering resolve to take out Saddam. Thanks, but we already knew that he was determined to stand firm against an axis of evil.

Some of us even recognise another reality: to prevail against insane fanaticism unequivocally requires complete, unwavering steadfastness and certainty of purpose.

I for one am very grateful we don’t have a postponing Neville Chamberlain, a prevaricating Jimmy Carter or a sexually-distracted Bill Clinton leading the fight to safeguard our Western civilisation against the third great attack launched against it by Islam in 1300 years.

War in not made ‘possible’ by language, Annabelle. Two lions battling for pride supremacy don’t talk to each other, nor the pack of African Wild Dogs to the gazelle they surreptitiously hunt.

You say that to wage war, one must define an enemy and justify the human and economic costs of going to war. Shall we completely ignore that the enemy most often first defines himself—Hitler invading France, Saddam invading Kuwait, Japan bombing Pearl Harbour, Argentina invading the Falklands and al Qaeda flying planes into tall buildings?

Shall we blithley ignore the human and economic cost of NOT going to war, such as was paid by France and Poland in the early 1940's and has recently been paid by Christians in the Sudan.

Or are you happily willing to hand over your freedom to wear what you choose, talk with whom you you like, write what you write --and believe what you believe-- as the price to be paid for NOT standing firm against attack?

While not "made possible”, Annabelle, much of war certainly is covertly *waged* by the use of language. That reality is well demonstrated by not only your own subtle, linguistic war against President Bush in the essay you wrote, but by the general media’s relentless printed, televised and radio airwave attacks on both him and the US’s attempts to democratise Iraq.

Or do you think that our wide-spread and ‘common’ perception of President Bush being ‘an idiot’ stems from millions of Australians having personally met him? That they have made their own first-hand judgement and have not been brainwashed by the media?

For every one positive news headline in our major papers I read about the War in Iraq—and I can honestly not remember when last I did—I read ten or even twenty negative presentations. Scan your papers with honest, open eyes and you’ll be obliged to admit this reality.

I truly wish you could prove me wrong by demonstrating the inverse. In fact I publicly challenge you to do so.

As the Vietnam experience showed, a covert war of the very linguistics to which you refer—commonly known as propaganda—is particularly deadly because the great mass of the population do not recognise it for what it is. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/humvee.htm for a sad example of how it is waged and what response it can force upon the defenders of decency.

Because you, like so many, have been led by the intellectual nose by the media to believe there are many Islamic ‘moderates’, you might object to my broad use of the word ‘Islam’ when stating that it is attacking us for the third time. Before you do, consider that an expert on the Islamic faith, Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes, has calculated the numbers of those who comprise what most media people and individuals like yourself chose to describe as a ‘fanatic fringe’ of Islam.

He says the that ‘fringe’ is made up of ‘only’ about 100 million-plus people.

100 million—five times Australia’s population—is reasonable validation for a ‘broad’ generalisation of the word ‘Islam’, yes? Were those 100 million to launch, as they would dearly and clearly like to, a concerted, organised attack against Western Civilisation—which, in case you forget, includes Australia fair—we would be in seriously deep strife.

You would be running and hiding for your life, Annabelle.

We can be thankful for two realities. They are not as well-organised as is the US. Secondly, President Bush’s perception of world realities—which you cynically refer to as his “constructed view”— is a lot closer to exactly those realities than are the perspectives of people like George Soros and, obviously, yourself. [There is a thoughtful explanation of why the perspectives pf otherwise well-educated and presumably intelligent people like yourself are so ideologically blinded. Read it at http://www.oz-aware.com/ideas1.htm.]

That Soros is a billionaire means nothing. So is bin Laden. They share one other characteristic: they made their billions by parasiting off the benefits of Western Civilisation, which they both now seek to undermine, each in his own way.

Was President Bush “constructing” that 300,000 people were butchered in Iraq by Saddam? Did he “construct” visions of jetliners flying into tall buildings? Did he “construct” a ten year cat-and-mouse game Saddam played with UN inspectors, or the endless Islamic-sourced attacks in the decades before he even became president?
Has he “constructed” the brutal reality of living under the rule under Islam, exemplified in such countries as Iran? [read http://www.oz-aware.com/islamiclaw3.htm ]

The most unfortunate aspect of your essay is that you—whether wittingly or unwittingly, I cannot say—deceive your readers not so much by what you say, but by what you haven’t said. There are many who will read your piece who do not know all the facts and therefore cannot know what you didn’t tell us.

But because you are a ‘Dr.’ with credentials that impress the unquestioning, they they probably will believe you and that is truly scary. There is nothing more fearsome than an uninformed, mindless mob, led by the nose by by cunning ideological manipulators.

You didn’t explain that, with 100 million ‘fringe fanatics’ wanting to wipe the global floor with us, were we to have anything but resolute, determined leaders to protect both us and a freedom only dreamed-of by ordinary people in Islamic-ruled nations, we would, before very long be forced to become Muslims, be enslaved, or be, very literally, killed.

In exactly that order of uncompromising choice, Annabelle. Before you even think of challenging this assertion do two things:

First read about Sharia law at http://www.oz-aware.com/islamiclaw1.htm.

Secondly, ask yourself why it is that, for some thirty years, the supposedly ‘moderate’ Islamists—whom, we are asked to believe, supposedly outnumber their fanatics by ten to one—haven’t publicly, vehemently and relentlessly declared their abhorrence of the ongoing acts of terror by their so-called lunatic fringe? Why is the great mass of Islam thunderingly silent—forget loud protestations—when an innocent Westerner’s head is brutally chopped off? Why have the great majority of Islamic people not determinedly and publicly worked to root out and rid themselves of that supposedly ‘small minority’ of their ‘lunatic fringe’?

Why have the vast majority of those Islamists who live in free, non-Islamic societies, not loudly encouraged President Bush to help their Iraqi and Afghani fellows towards being able to enjoy the exact same freedoms that they enjoy by residing in countries like Australia and the USA?

As with your essay, it is what they don’t say that loudly trumpets what they do think.

With regard to what you quite obviously fervently believe—and want us to believe—are ‘nonexistent’ WMD’s, you also didn’t remind us of the four months ‘warning period’ that Saddam and Syria were given between the time the US announced its intention to invade Iraq and the time it commenced that action. November 2002 to February 2003, remember?

You didn’t tell us about the hundreds—yes, hundreds—of road trains that immediately started convoying ‘something’ from Iraq into Syria. Huge trucks travelling non-stop back and forth for those four months, springs sagging on the way out of Iraq, bouncing emptily on the way back in for the next load of ‘whatever’.

Satellite cameras don’t lie Annabelle.

Those trucks certainly weren’t carrying bottles of Saddam’s champagne, suitcases of his gold bullion or his 70 heavenly virgins!

You didn’t tell us about the independent UN—not US—weapon inspectors who stated unequivocally that Saddam was relentlessly increasing his capacity to develop a nuclear capability over the ten year period during which Bill Clinton pussyfooted around. A period in which there were numerous attacks against the United States' people and property—Khobar Towers, Embassies, the USS Cole, to name but a few. We can even stretch further back to the Munich Olympics and the Achille Lara, which were the early salvos in this new Islamic War on the West.

These, and many others, are clear signals that, contrary to your closing assertion, the word ‘terrorism’ means exactly one specific thing to ideologically unblinkered people—and George W. Bush is merely one example of such a completely grounded and rational person.

You didn’t tell us that it was clearly established that, while Saddam could ultimately not be directly implicated in September 11 —probably because he had plenty of money, received from the UN’s oil-for-food scam (see http://www.oz-aware.com/ungraft.htm), to ensure he wouldn’t be— he was found to be regularly ‘communicating’ with al Qaeda. That, notwithstanding all the ‘closed ranks’ of Islamic/Middle-East secrecy which would have made the job of discovery almost impossible, nevertheless there was a direct link established between the leader of the pilots on those fated September 11 Boeings and ‘training’ activities in Iraq. That, immediately after September 11, even Russian President Putin warned President Bush that Russian intelligence had uncovered that an Iraq attack on the US was imminent.

You don’t mention that, even if there were no weapons of mass destruction—which the evidence most strongly ‘suggests’ there had to have been, or that they were close to being produced— it was clear that Saddam himself was of a “Weapon of Mass Destruction”.

Or are 300,000 dead people not ‘mass’ enough for you?

You, and the media in general, conveniently forget to endlessly repeat—even though all of you so enjoy continually repeating the Abu Ghraib incident—that an unexploded bomb in Iraq was found to contain sarin gas, which meant it actually was a WMD. Which proved they must exist, if not now in Iraq, then somewhere close by.

Nor would you tell us that the terrorists are smart enough to quickly realise that hiding other such bombs and not using them would ensure that 'certain' mindlessly disingenuous people would start jumping up and down, loudly yelling that there were no WMD’s. Smart enough to know that propaganda, spread by unwitting media pawns and 'certain' leftist writers, can sometimes be far more effective than bombs in undermining the effort to rid the world of their terror.

You don’t tell your readers that you are quite thrilled that no WMD’s were found. Happy only because all who share your views—including the majority of the media—want to discredit and destroy President Bush at all cost, even if it means losing Western Civilisation to Islam.

Whether such people blatantly lie or simply leave truths unsaid in their covert war against him is not something they are particularly concerned about.

Read http://www.oz-aware.com.socialsuicide1.htm which offers a verbatim quote from such a person, given the opportunity to sprout her idiocy over the ABC’s airwaves. Said she, “I hope that these dishonest and disingenuous techniques might inspire everyone to go against President Bush.”

This is the ethical and moral standard embraced by people who subscribe to your ideologies, Annabelle. People whom I describe as being treacherous—even if sometimes unwittingly—to the safety and well-being of the Western civilisation that in the first place gave them the freedom to be treacherous.

You didn’t tell us that propaganda—using the very linguistic styles to which your refer—can be exceptionally effective simply because, by its very nature, propaganda is built on lies and deceptions—and important truths left out.

You certainly didn’t tell us that your essy is pure propaganda, Annabelle.

Given that this post is already long —as they often have to be to clearly expose the dishonesty behind so many leftists’ unctuously persuasive, short sound-byte appeals to mindless emotion— readers who are interested in straight-talking truth, not cunning and covert propaganda, are invited to read http://www.oz-aware.com/response1.htm for a much more honest, even if sometimes brutally blunt, perspective of the War in Iraq.

It is ‘brutally blunt’ because it is honest in addressing realities. Unfortunately, such realities as planes being deliberately flown into buildings, innocent people’s heads being sawn off or even just women being stoned to death for having sexual interaction with someone they love are indeed frighteningly brutal, even if you no doubt would prefer that nobody mentions them, Annabelle.

Brutal. Frighteningly brutal, as also would be the consequences of a *small* ‘fringe group’ of 100 million ‘fanatic’ people —with relentless propagandist help from people like yourself— prevailing in their ‘Jihad’ against us. A Jihad whose front line is currently Iraq.

But, Annabelle, even though there are about 100 million people out there seriously intending to either control your thinking by forcing you into worshipping their choice of a God, or intending to enslave you, or, if you resist, to literally cut your throat, you can still sleep soundly tonight.

Because, even if for the wrong reasons, you certainly did get that one thing right.

George Bush (and, if I may add, John Howard) indeed does maintain a determinedly steady, deliberately unwavering hand at the helm.

In the overview of the Oz-Aware Project [http://www.oz-aware.com/overview.htm], written long before your piece was published, I stated that most public commentators are woefully ill-informed in that which they absolutely need to know if they are to responsibly, intelligently and knowledgeably broadcast their views regarding important social or world matters.

Unhappily, Annabelle, you become yet another who proves the point.

OZAWARE.... you really are a 'rip snorter' :) u said a lot of what I was planning to.
My take on the whole thing.. is that the WMD thingy was more of a public relations exercise to massage an understandably reluctant public into accepting 'what had to be done', in terms of strategic advantage as well as liberating a country from a mass murderer.

We are at war with fundamentalist ISLAM..
this is not an opinion, it is a very clear fact.
A newsreport today kind of says it in one word. A group the Russians are currently hunting down for some recent terrorism is named "YARMUK". Anyone with a few clues about how Islam expanded will know that the decisive battle of Islam, between them and a Roman/Byzantine Army the 'Sword of Allah' Kalid bin Al Waleed, was the Battle of Yarmuk. to quote from an Islamic source:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It was a complete victory. The Romans had been fought in a set-piece battle after the regular imperial fashion, and were not only defeated tactically but also slaughtered mercilessly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, the thinking in these 'extremists' is very much linked to the 'normal' history of the expansion of Islam.
A close examination of that battle, shows that the Romans had 4 times the numbers of the Muslims, yet they were defeated. The main reason was that their leading general (George) converted to Islam before the battle even began, unsettling the soldiers no end.
The lesson in this, is that a society which 'doesnt have a clue' about its moral and spiritual convictions, will be easily defeated by those who DO have such convictions, however invalid or false they may be.
In regard to Yarmuk.. the battle and its significance..and George Bush, and the current military superiority of the west and the invasion of Iraq.. and Bush's own faith, and his support from the religious right, one can only say, that its 'our turn'. There is no less justification of a 'Christian' west, invading a 'Muslim' east, than for the Muslim armies invading the Romans in historical terms.
We only have our 'today' as we know it because of the Battle of Tours in 732, where the Arabs were stopped from spreading Islam all over Europe. its almost a joke how they understand their loss there. "OH.. they were just after 'war booty'...thats why they lost" hmmmmmm....

I hope Annabelle will be responding to our comments.

Or should I not hold my breath?

Hello my friends. What a great response. Prehaps the 'Blind Annabelle' could enlighten us as to why the USA is hated so in The Middle East.
Is it Israel? - No.
Is it Imperialism? - No.
Is it Resources? - No.

Bernard Lewis discuss's these themes in his great book "The Crisis of Islam" & offers some startling opinions.

Ist country to cause European Jewry to emigrate to British Mandate of Palestine = Germany 1930 - 1939.
1st country to recognise Israel - Soviet Union & France gave immediate recognition to the Jewish state, USA only 'defacto recognition'.
1st country to sell arms to Israel - Checkoslovakia, then France. The USA only sold arms to Israel AFTER the Soviet Arms deal to Nasser in the 50's.
The USA is the enemy of 'Islam' as it represent us, THE WEST. It is "House Of War", not of the bossum of Islam, therefore must be destroyed.
Please Annabell, read Bernard Lewis tome, look at his other works (for perspective) understand what we are up against.

The USA is the enemy of 'Islam' as it represent us, THE WEST. It is "House Of War", not of the bossum of Islam, therefore must be destroyed.
Please Annabell, read Bernard Lewis tome, look at his other works (for perspective) understand what we are up against.

SAYERET... can u 'interpret' that last comment of yours pls :).. I mut confess I haven't a clue what u mean by it.. are u Jewish ? Muslim ? who.. give us some more of a handle to 'who and what' you are.

Warm regards
BOAZ

Boaz,

Must definately Christian, NOT THAT IT MATTERS.

MY reference refers to the fact that it is irrelevant whatever foreign policy is used by the US towards the Middle East. USA inherited the 'mantle' as leader of the west once the British empire declined, & thus are hated. Simple us that.

Check this out:

http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/lewis1.html

hey Sayaret.... our presuppositions do matter.. they are what we speak from.
Anyway, now I understand your point... thanx
BOAZ

Sayeret, your great post failed to raise one other important 'hate' question.

WHY is the USA so viciously and relentlessly hated by...er, ah...'educated' people like Annabelle?

Why do leftists (including the US's own Democrats)---and academics generally (yeah, same thing)--- resolutely, determinedly, relentlessly try and show the USA up as a "loser"? This is the nation that provides 40% of all the planet's foreign aid to underprivelaged countries and about half of the UN's budget, all of which the 'caring and sharing' leftists would like to dismiss as 'irrelevant'.

A nation that could with the greatest of ease right now annexe Iraq, declare martial law, shoot half its citizens, hang Saddam upside down by his..well, anyway...pump as much oil as it wants, enslave the rest of the Iraquis and DARE the rest of the world to even utter a peep of protest---------BUT DOESN'T

THINK about it.....

By the way, for those who don't get it, 'Hollywood' is NOT the USA. All half-decent people---including the more-than half of the USA population that voted for Pres. Bush.----are disgusted by Hollywood.

So WHY would anybody in the West hate the USA the way the likes of Annabelle do? So much that she would gleefully do that disingenuously dishonest linguistic dance in stillettos on its valiantly trying, fairly damn bloodied torso?

WHY, Annabele?

Biting the hand that protects and feeds...and all that.

WHY? WHY?

Any answer, Annabelle?

Helloo....anybody there...Annabeeeelle??...helloooooo?

Oh well, I guess the good Doctor's lights are on, but....

Ozaware,

I doubt very much Dr Lukin will be able to stop laughing long enough to respond to your comments but I am somewhat immune so....

You state that Dr Lukin appears to be telling us that Bush "used language carefully designed to signal his unwavering resolve to take out Saddam." A rather novel interpretation of the article - I suggest a re-read.

Then you build a the usual straw men and knock them down - tired old stuff I'm afraid... A few of my favourites :

"War in(sic) not made ‘possible’ by language, Annabelle. Two lions battling for pride supremacy..." If you are seriously equating a few tufts of flying fur to the loss of human life (soldiers/innocents)and the suffering caused by war I suggest an adjustment of your moral compass and the purchase of a good dictionary as quickly as possible.

"You say that to wage war, one must define an enemy and justify the human and economic costs of going to war. Shall we completely ignore that the enemy most often first defines himself—Hitler invading France...". You have completely missed the point here - this is not a refutation. In your example Hitler has defined the enemy - France. If the French government was led by Ghandi or Christ, they might turn the other cheek and not even name an enemy. Some Iraquis considered the coalition forces liberators, some considered them as enemy forces. Language is important.

The bulk of Dr Lukin's essay you characterize as a "...subtle, linguistic war against President Bush.." and then blithely ignore most of the discussion of rhetoric,modality,grammatical analysis and linguistics and busy yourself with the construction of some lovely straw men...nice work if you can get it. 18 or so mentions of Islam for example and some associated "Why is..." questions to Dr Lukin, even though the word Islam is not mentioned once in her essay.

A few cheap shots about ideologies, leftists and "people like yourself" - information which you have miraculously gleaned by methods no doubt privy only to you.

And finally, as much fun as this is, as for the "‘nonexistent’ WMD’s you imply (but I note cannot quite bring yourself to state directly - funny about that) that they were whisked out of Iraq on "hundreds or road trains" and caught on satellite cameras that don't lie.

Once again I see you have information not available to the US or other governments.

Perhaps you could have passed it on to the White House so that when Barbara Walters asked the question, instead of saying "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction — like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction" Bush could have replied "There were WMD's. The US intelligence services have these photographs showing..etc etc". Alas, a missed opportunity.

Good luck with your reading in the future.

Well done Shemthepost. I didn’t know where to begin (or why) to respond to Ozaware and his rip-snorter mate. It is easy and fun to discredit their rhetoric, but people with paranoid personality disorders do not acknowledge any logical, rational critiques of their delusional interpretation of events.

I suspect that Ozaware did not even read the article. He (I am presuming that this person is male) would have scanned it looking for key words and then launched into a ‘programmed’ response. I wonder why, since he feels so strongly about fighting terrorists, he has not joined up and volunteered to go to Iraq.

Molydukes

shemthepost, girdle your loins and sharpen your sword---or perhaps get a tea-towel to cover your face for fear or being recognised on the streets after these discussions. Unlike the gal who cast the first stone, I do have the moral integrity to respond to those who have challenged my response to Annabelle. It takes time to compose...ahem....well-researched observations that are grounded in reality.

Actually, you may not believe this, I even have the intellectual integrity to say such things as "wow, you were right and I was wrong. I accept what you are telling us."

You'll be a long time looking to find anybody from your side of intellectual/ideological fence who can do likewise. If you want to see the colour of their--and perhaps your own?---kind of thinking, read http://www.oz-aware.com/socialsuicide.htm, and note that the piece is entitled....yep....Social Suicide......for good reason.

But there's a catch to being prepared to recognise a well-groundsd viewpoint. Nobody can rationally make such a response to an attack that's merely a molotov cocktail of ad hominens, generalisations, epithets, wild, unfounded assertions and disingenuous misrepresentations of what was stated.

Why do you think I constantly provide hyperlinks in my posts-many of which refer material that is not of my own original making? (Actually ALL, but that's too complex to explain here....)

Thus far, all you and mollydukes have done is throw noisy cocktails into the arena.

While I compose a response, you two may want to read http://www.oz-aware.com/kooky.htm and http://www.oz-aware.com/pointless.com

The latter (succinctly)points out that it is tyically pointless explaining certain realities to people who have a certain *way* of thinking.

[John Ray provides a rather interesting analysis of such minds at http://www.oz-aware.com/leftistmind1.htm and I explain in at least two different places why many such people don't understand what their thinking invites - http://www.oz-aware.com/askfor.htm and http://www.oz-aware.com/ideology1.htm ,with a recent news report confirming the viewpoints at http://www.oz-aware.com/ideology2.htm]

So if explaining is pointless, why do I invest effort here?

Because there are other *rational* people out there who are 'independent thinkers' (read http://www.oz-aware.com/evil#independent)and who merely need enough reality-based info to be able to then see the truth.

Enough info, which you may recall I stated is the one thing that Annabelle surely wasn't providing in her essay.

Ozaware,

I'm beginning to see a pattern here, and if your further contributions are to be of a similar ilk, I'd advise you not to bother.

Once again I sincerely advise you to actually read the post that you are responding to. My original response was critical of you introduction of extraneous matter, and yet...

Also I note that you have used your secret methods of divination once more to illicit what "your side of intellectual/ideological fence" is, in my case, at least to your own satisfaction. This despite the fact that I make no mention of my politics, beliefs or anything relevant to such an assessment (apart from the fact that I am critical of your post of course). Dichotomy is a useful concept, but the world is a little more complex than black hats and white hats. I refer you back to Dr Lukin's essay and the sections on modality and "shades of grey".

Advertising is a wonderful concept and I'm sure your website is just dandy.

A criticism is not necessarily an "attack" - take a few deep breaths.
However, I would suggest that "molotov cocktail of ad hominens, generalisations, epithets, wild, unfounded assertions and disingenuous misrepresentations" more accurately describes your responses that it does mine.

And for future reference, the expression is to "gird your loins" not girdle them.

Cheers

Here’s your reply Shemthepost (SP), but, as I doubt you’ll ‘get it’. Therefore this post is not really for your benefit, but for the benefit of those who may be uncertain who is (succinctly) ‘right’…..

(BTW I'll presume you are male, jsut for the sake of effeciency in replying, but I really don't care what you are....)
-------------------------------------

>>>You state that Dr Lukin appears to be telling us that Bush "used language carefully designed to signal his unwavering resolve to take out Saddam." A rather novel interpretation of the article - I suggest a re-read.

response

That’s “President Bush”, SP….

OK, I did re-read, because I’m fairminded. What I found is that Dr. Lukin said:

“This statement expresses a degree of uncertainty we didn’t hear from Bush, Blair or Howard on this topic before the war,”

She is clearly implying that the people mentioned were ‘certain’ before the war—as in the period leading up the the commencement of the war.

‘Certain’ is typically a word used to describe those who have ‘resolve’ or are ‘determined’ in their viewpoint.

BTW, Her statement simultaneously intends to let us know that President Bush is ‘not so certain” now.

Give her due, the gal is good with words. To really understand, one has to read between the lies—er, uh....lines. And to really, really understand, then one has to qualified in such areas as hypnosis, the unconscious mind, subliminal messages and…yes….the techniques of subliminal seduction.

Which qualifications I actully do have, SP. What about you?

But no matter your knowledge, you can bet your booty President Bush still is as resolute as ever he was.

In fact, your life and freedom really do depend on him being so.

Or did you not note the comment by Boaz_David about that Roman leader whose troops were slaughtered after the idiot decided to be wishy-washy about his beliefs. Which is exactly what a certain Anglican priest in Australia did. Read and weep at http://www.oz-aware.com/response1.htm

---------------------------

>>>Two lions battling for pride supremacy..." If you are seriously equating a few tufts of flying fur to the loss of human life (soldiers/innocents)and the suffering caused by war I suggest an adjustment of your moral compass and the purchase of a good dictionary as quickly as possible.

Response……………..

“War” represents conflict between two opposing organisms, always because one wishes to impose its will over the other—as in a lion wanting to take control of a pride and another lion being unwilling to let that happen. As in a madman (Hitler) wanting to take control of a continent and others (U.K., USA) being unwilling to let that happen.

(Quote) : ‘War’ is “any active hostility, contention, struggle" (Collins--as in that 'dictionary' to which you so sarcastically refer)

Any such “contention”—which typically evolves into some form of physical action commonly known as ‘war’—can take many forms, from north Atlantic stickleback fish who merely bristle at and, with other displays, threaten each other as they establish territorial boundaries (with no bloodshed at all—smart creatures!), to ‘war’ between individuals, such as “The War of the Roses’—a movie title which exemplifies another quite acceptable use of the word to describe severe conflict, even if only between two people— and all the way through a wide range of ‘actions spurred by conflict’ to the ultimate act of ‘war’, in which someone drops a nuclear bomb on someone else’s head.

All these are ‘wars’, my dear SP, and many more besides, including conflict between two ideologies. Since 'war' is not the exclusive domain of humans, that includes “a struggle of active hostility” in which a pack of hunting dogs want to eat a gazelle and the gazelle happens to think that’s not a good idea.

And, let me remind you, you will, if an Islamic fanatic slits your throat as they so inclined to do with any 'Infidel', spurt blood exactly as does that gazelle if the back of dogs catches it. Don't you forget that, SP.

(Sheesh! Is there any point in explaining such fundamental fundamentals to them what obviously doesn’t even know such fundamental fundamentals? And the ‘them what’ is not accidental--I also need light relief!).

I hope you are not a personal friend of our linguistic expert, Annabelle, SP. If you are, she is sure to be embarrassed by your non-comprehension of that word “war”.

As for the ‘moral compass’ comment:

First, you really need to understand that Leftists—real my wortds—*cannot* be moral in the true sense of the word. Read http://www.oz-aware.com/askfor.htm for better comprehension of this complex reality.

In true morality there is no fence-sitting—which is exactly what President Bush was saying when he made the comment that gave George Soros apoplexy.

Let me repeat this fundamental lesson so that everybody—yes, you too Annabelle— can get this really clear: In (ahem) **fundamental** terms of “Good” and “Bad”, no matter the moral relativist’s vociferous dissent, there is NO fence sitting. One is either squarely and unequivocally on the side of ‘Good’ or one is—even if by default, ignorance or simple neglect—on the side of ‘evil’.

This is how it works: (repeat after me slowly, now…..) Good is that which is beneficial for the wellbeing of a society and evil is that which opposes Good.

(Now slowly Repeat after me also this) It is ‘Good’ to defend oneself [even if by pre-emptive attack] against an enemy who has declared his intention to kill you, enslave you or make you unconditionally think his way (see links previously provided). It is ‘evil’ to support that enemy, whether actively (as in fighting within his forces) or covertly, as in giving him implied or propagandistic support.

I dunno about you, SP, but I suspect that all others readers are well aware that I am supporting Pres. Bush’s efforts and that you and mollyduke are supporting Annabel in her subtle attempt to undermine his effort. Therefore, succintly, you three—and a whole bunch of other likeminded ideologically lost souls—seek with propaganda and disingenuous dissent to weaken his chance of success (see previous links re the example of the humvee) and thereby (even if unwittingly or unintentionally) increase the chance of ‘the other side’ (discussed later) winning.

Clearly, therefore, you are propagandists for evil. But remember, it is not I who say so--but YOU, with your words and action in opposing the efforts of those who seek "Good".

So don’t even think about talking to me about moral compasses. You have nowhere to go with this one except to ever more cover your face with egg, SP!

---------------------------

>>>>>(Annabelle Lukin says) that to wage war, one must define an enemy and justify the human and economic costs of going to war. (Ozaware asks her) Shall we completely ignore that the enemy most often first defines himself—Hitler invading France...". You have completely missed the point here - this is not a refutation. In your example Hitler has defined the enemy - France. If the French government was led by Ghandi or Christ, they might turn the other cheek and not even name an enemy. Some Iraqis considered the coalition forces liberators, some considered them as enemy forces. Language is important.

response…

And what do YOU, SP, “consider” to be those who have gone in to rid an oppressed nation of a tyrant who killed hundreds of thousands of people, SP?

What do YOU, SP, “consider” of those who determinedly seek to help an oppressed people attain democracy and who know that if they don’t instill democracy then that country will inevitably again be ab-used by those who are enemies of the West.

As for the fundamental basis of your proposition, you have the cat by the tail, SP.

France was never an ‘enemy’ of Hitler’s, but merely a spineless "No to War" nation, control of which was coveted by Hitler---exactly because he knew it would be easy pickings.

If Hitler were to have ‘defined’ France as anything then it would have been along the lines of him seeing France as a ‘sitting duck’, gutlessly—and idiotically—waiting to become enslaved as it waved banners proclaiming......"No To War!"

Yeah, like Hitler was going to pay attention. Like bin Ladin and Iran are going to pay attention! Grow up people.....

Maybe I’m really dumb with an i.q. of only 135 and only in the top 2% of the population with regard to what the experts call ‘verbal intelligence’, but I think your point is pointless, borders on the unintelligble and certainly is irrational.

Sorry SP. By now you know I call it like I see it…..
---------------------------

>>>The bulk of Dr Lukin's essay you characterize as a "...subtle, linguistic war against President Bush.." and then blithely ignore most of the discussion of rhetoric,modality,grammatical analysis and linguistics and busy yourself with the construction of some lovely straw men...nice work if you can get it.

response………

SP, people have motives for what they say and do. Nobody, except the odd academic, is really too concerned with Lukin’s ‘technical analysis’ of the rhetoric etc. Actually most who who would respond along the lines I have almost certainly couldn’t give a zig about her ‘technicalities’. We literally have more important things to think about.

One of those critically important things is the question of WHAT is Lukin REALLY trying to achieve with her “discussion” and WHY? She isn’t just writing to tell us how linguistically talented she is—which I am sure she is, and I don’t care.

We, the people who understand the dimensions of the ‘war’ that is being waged, and unblinded by mindless ideologies, realise that Annabelle is cunningly trying to erode respect for President Bush by ‘academically’ painting him as a ‘schemer’ who is ‘deviously’ (unstated but certainly implied) using language to (quote) “Talk up a War”.

In other words, she is saying that she can show that, in effect, there was no need for the War in Iraq and that it came about because President Bush “talked it up”, thereby subtly implying that HE is the ‘cause’ of the war.

Perhaps you haven’t appreciated the extent of the woman’s intelligence, SP.

Intelligence, as in cunning….

But no matter how ‘scientifically’ she presents it, her piece is pure propaganda against President Bush and against the war in Iraq.

And THAT is why I, and others have responded so determinedly.

As for “straw men”, what the hell are you talking about? Be specific or I cannot answer you.

And “nice work”? Spare us the mindlessly parroted cliches, SP.

---------------------------------------

>>>>>>>18 or so mentions of Islam for example and some associated "Why is..." questions to Dr Lukin, even though the word Islam is not mentioned once in her essay.

response

Which is again testimony to her cunning.

SP, in how many ways do I need to explain to you that this is a ‘multi-fronted’ war with a huge and mostly invisible enemy—Islamic fanaticism—lurking everywhere and increasingly causing great grief everywhere—from murdered filmmakers in Holland, to (in the current news) the Brits arguing about when house arrest and detention for “suspected terrorists” would be appropriate, to ‘insurgents’ threatening the safety of tsunami rescuers, this fanatic cancer has spread around the world. And if you think Australia is immune—and have forgotten the Bali bombing—well, you’ll probably yet be getting a helluva shock.

And if you don’t know that “suspected terrorists” in the UK are politically incorrectly aka “Islamic Fundamentalists”, then there’s no hope for you SP.

This is so basic that I feel idiotic having to even write this explanation.

What we have here is a war between Islam and Western civilisation. If you don’t know that, well, to put it simply, you are way out of your league….

Let me say that again, because you obviously did not read any of the links I provided.

What we have here is a world-wide war by ISLAM against the social management system (aka Judeo Christianity) that brought to the world virtually all of the many benefits that YOU, SP, enjoy, perhaps as often as every second of your day.

This actually is a third WAR, launched by Islamic fundamentalists against you and me and all of the West.

It's something that I think you don't yet properly appreciate, SP.

Either that or you must be truly evil, barracking for someone who has barracked against President Bush's efforts to stop the Islamist fundamentalists from advancing,

-----------------------------------------

>>>>>>>A few cheap shots about ideologies, leftists and "people like yourself" - information which you have miraculously gleaned by methods no doubt privy only to you.

response….

“Cheap shots” is a cliché in the mind of the beholder. Meaningless and too generalised to warrant response from me.

“information which you have miraculously gleaned by methods no doubt privy only to you.”

No ‘miracle’ at all, just a lot of reading of material OTHER than the popular press, forget watching telly news. Many others do the same thing, so the ‘methods’ are not “privy” to only me. Go read—for example—the book mentioned at http://www.oz-aware.com/wmd1.htm and you too can begin the journey of becoming qualified to join the informed circle of people who are “miraculously privy” to information that the great majority of people do not know exists, let alone know.”


Oh, btw, notice that the overview of the oz-aware project explains that there is too much public comment on our most important social matters---such as this one---by people woefully lacking in the knowledge they need in order to rationally, intelligently and WISELY comment.

Present company included, SP......
---------------------------

>>>>>>And finally, as much fun as this is, as for the "‘nonexistent’ WMD’s you imply (but I note cannot quite bring yourself to state directly - funny about that) that they were whisked out of Iraq on "hundreds or road trains" and caught on satellite cameras that don't lie.
Once again I see you have information not available to the US or other governments.

Response

First SP, that ‘funny about that” attempt at sarcasm didn’t quite make it into the history books.

Second, I am not in the habit of jumping to conclusions or making unfounded assertions, nor are most moral people. Those on this side of the ideological divide are fundamentally honest.

Since the satellite cameras could not peek under the tarps or in the containers of those trucks, there is— “funny about that”—no way we can know FOR CERTAIN.

But let me share with you a metaphor, SP. Imagine you are walking along a dark and deserted street one night and a fella comes walking straight towards you carrying a duffel bag. You cannot see what is inside that bag. If, as he gets near you, he suddenly for no discernable reason starts unzipping that bag and you don’t immediately either pre-emptively attack him or start running like hell, then you are one delusional idiot who is headed for extinction either then or some time soon.

Third, may I ask you to SAY WHAT!? about “information not available to the US government” when it is that government’s OWN satellites that are taking the pictures and relaying them directly to the THAT government?

Unless you are implying that somehow I have the satellites and am supplying the US gov. with the pictures? Stop being plain silly and read the links provided in my rebuttal.

------------------------------------------

>>>>>>>Perhaps you could have passed it on to the White House so that when Barbara Walters asked the question, instead of saying "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction — like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction" Bush could have replied "There were WMD's. The US intelligence services have these photographs showing..etc etc". Alas, a missed opportunity.

response…

Apparently you are unable to comprehend that, actually, governments do keep certain things ‘secret’ as evidenced by the fact that when Pres Putin made the ‘public’ statement about warning the USA, Pres Bush ‘downplayed’ the matter. It is not irratiohnal to presume that his government clearly does not want the world knowing how ‘close’ the USA and Russia cooperate on ‘sensitive intelligence’.

Or were you—and al Qaeda, Syria and Iran—not hugely surprised to hear that the USA and Russia are working rather more closely on these issues than one would have thought?

And you don’t think that al Qaeda, Syria and Iran have made some changes as a consequence of that little piece of ‘intelligence’ becoming public?

OF COURSE THE US GOVERNMENT IS NOT LAYING ALL ITS CARDS FACE UP ON THE TABLE, SP. Especially not on public television.

Hello?!

----------------------------------

Good luck with your reading in the future.

Au contrair, SP, good luck with YOURS. I’ll leave other readers to decide who needs to do the more reading.

In the not unsurprising event that they vote you as number one, SP, may I suggest that you start with the hyperlinks I provided in the original rebuttal and a follow-up.

That way you won’t be wasting any more of our time.

Incidentally, in the unlikely event that you (and Dr. Lukin and mollyduke) actually do “get it”, feel free to apologize, convert and stand side-by-side with us as we battle the single most dangerous phenomenom that Australia and Western Civilisation have ever faced, to wit a psychological war (ahem…there are many kinds of ‘war’….remember?) , waged from within by educated, intelligent ‘anti-Christs**’, against our historical culture and future well-being and freedom of this nation as well.

Even if it is a freedom abused by the likes of you and Annabel as you support “the other side” by arguing against “this side”.

And you know what, you do exactly what the fanatics want you to do. They absolutely love seeing people like you abusing our freedom of speech to chip away at the US’s resolve.

Why? Because the fanatics know all about an ancient principle:

“United they stand, divided they fall”

YOU, SP, and YOU Annabel and ALL those who think the way you do could easily have our blood on your hands as a consequence of fostering dissent and division among us…...

(**And please. SP, don’t tell me I have to also explain to what the metaphor *anti-Christs* means….!)

------------------------

ps re your latest post: OK "Gird" it is- my mistake.

Sorry!

as for your side of the political fence: well, that is actually addressed, quite by coincidence, in the above. Hope you 'get it'.

As for my 'secret methods' of divination, well, no secret at all. By your very own words, sir, shall I---and everyone else---'divine'** you.... (as in "we've got your number, bud"!)

**Hmmm, why does 'divinate' sound better?

As for black hats and white hats and complex worlds, well re-read 'fence-sitting' above and replace the words 'fence-sitting' with the words 'grey areas'. By your words, again SP, do I divine the depths of your misapprehensions, methinks perhaps more clearly than you yourself...

As for the website being just dandy and advertising handy, wow- am I the only one impressed by your perceptions?

FYI that website is a very damned expensive, completely non profit process of getting the ignorant---present company included---to take a long look in the mirror.

For your info the fellow who posts as Boaz-David---who took the time to actually read some of the linked material---was able to find my private e-mail address and privately took issue with some of my assertions. After some e-mails back-and-forth, which was not reflected in these posts, Boaz_David, having read even more of the MOUNTAIN of relative material available for FREE on the oz-aware.com website, had the grace and morality to essentially say, yep, the stuff presented by ozaware is pretty much right. Therefore, SP, instead of 'dandying' that website, read, read and read. It'll take you a few months probably---and I am NOT being sarcastic because there's a bunch of material---and you too may find, as the top of its page says, "enlightenment from ancient knowledge".

Only if you hate the Australian way of life, SP, should you keep harassing me with your snipes.....

And, finally, this last piece was posted, as was the piece with the woman's 'girdle', in much haste and without second thought and certainly without doublechecking, so please forgive ahem...OBVIOUS errors, unless you are a nit-picker in which case there's no hope for my sanity.

Oh, and btw, seeing as how Annabelle--such a sweetly defenceless name---is a damsel apparently now in such distress that she cannot respond to these posts, I must ask you this:

did you happen have a great, great grandfather whose great, great grandfather was named "George" and who had the habit of riding white horses and chasing down what he would describe to faint-hearted and feeble-minded gals as mean and fire-breathing nasties, all of which old George would do with the ultimate, but carefully unstated, objective of finding out the colour of their knickers?

I did tell you that I have just a little knowledge of things subliminal, didn't I?

Ozaware, you have forgotten to take your pills, you naughty boy.

Good on you ozaware! Some of these wackers wouldn't wake up if a country toilet fell on them. Even the sight of those millions of brave Iraqi's risking suicide bombers to vote in an election[ which would never been possible without the courage and determination of George Bush, Tony Blair and John Howard] is probably not enough to wake them up. So far as grace pettigrew and all her stupid leftie comrades are concerned, America can do nothing right. In their eyes, no Western country is as good as any ot the others. They always take an anti-Western view.

As to those WMD's virtually everyone on the planet was convinced that Iraq had them, including John Kerry in 2002, and the leaders of the A.L.P. The delay in the U.N. ["Useless Nongs"] gave Saddam plenty of time to send them to Syria, which he undoubtedly did. If he had none, why frustrate and harrass the UN Inspectors until they quit?

We know for certain that Saddam had nerve gas which he used in the Kurds. A Sarin gas shell was found only in the last couple of months. He had them all right. So far as these lefties deploring the loss of life, where were their protests when Saddam and his crazy sadistic sons were raping and slaughtering and torturing their people? If they had their way, those hideous tyrants would still be there filling their mass graves. Now the Iraqi's can have a say in how they are governed.

Let's remember that Saddam had defied 12 UN Resoutions for disarmament, a condition of the ceasefire in the First Gulf War. One of Saddam's sons-in-law, Kamal Hussein, who was in charge of Iraq's weapons program defected in 1995. He testified that the Inspectors had missed the stockpile.There were also strong links between Osama bin-laden and Iraq Intelligence leaders al-Tikriti and exploives expert Salim el-Ahmed.

One day when these Islamic fanatics are defeated, President George W. Bush will be revered as Washington, Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan are today. Thank God for George W. Bush, his vsion, his courage and his determination to see this through to ultimate victory.

Grace, I am so embarrassed! HOW did you guess that I take Viagr...er...'pills'.

Now my secret is out there for the whole world to know. Rats! And I'll bet you even know that I typically take a larger dose than normal, just 'cause I like the results/effects.

I have to tell you, Grace, I am hugely impressed by your amazing insight, sparkling wit and informed wisdom.

er...uh....you doing anything Friday night?...

Big Al,

An accurate summation.
Remember the old saying, "If your not a Marxist by the age of 30 then you haven't got a heart. If you are one & are over 30, then you haven't got a head"

Thanks SAYARET. A lot of well-meaning people were hoodwinked by Marx, Engels and Lenin. Many of them woke up, particularly when migrants from the Baltic countries arrived, but some remained what the cynical Communist leaders described as "useful idiots". There is no excuse for ignorance of the real nature of totalitarian Communism today.

However, I'm getting off the main topic. PS Don't let yourself be sidetracked OZAWARE.

No being sidetracked here, Big Al. That last line was my way of saying this discussion has been .....ahem...put to bed. That is, no rational person could have any reasonable argument against what has been counterpointed by the various contributors.

See ya at the next bunfight, cause I'm done with this one...

Well done ozaware. See you in another bunfight.

In response to the extremist right wing views and values of Ozaware, it is perhaps timely to review your polemical position and suggest it smacks of an individual who has swallowed hook, line and sinker the debate that satisfies Whitehouse values. Pity - and yes I have "attempted" to read your diatribe and suggest that it confirms my suspicions that you are an advocate of the right that pupports to hold the moral ascendancy on all things Iraq. Pity that you entirely missed the point of Lukin's argument that war can be waged using language. The semiotics of war are littered with the language idealogues - a point you are keen to gloss over or neglect all together.