Wednesday, May 10, 2006
LAUGHING AT THEM
don't care what the New York Times says, or CNN's Jamie MacIntyre for that matter, about how insensitive it would be to laugh at Zark "Owwwie" and his goons' display of holy warrior weapons-handling protocol in the Jihad's Funniest Home Video, which hit the airwaves last week. Frankly, the excuses made in that NYT story, and in a spot of MacIntyre's that I saw, only tempts me to include them in the ridicule.
Instead I would like to ask them, why so much sympathy for these stupid thugs? What's the big deal with laughing at their ineptitude, while they masquerade as heroes? Oh, it's "inappropriate," to ridicule some Arab murderers' capability and manhood, and "culturally insensitive" to boot -- especially since they hadn't been trained on this weapon. Well, these guys are all fully grown men, and they still haven't been trained to control their own rumoured manhood -- and in the absence of said self-control, force their womenfolk to dress in black burlap sacks.
Oh that's right. If a guy catches sight of a bit of ankle, well he might just be inflamed to the point of committing a sinful rape right then and there. And it would be the woman's fault, since that's just the nature of men, as Allah made them. Women of course don't have any sexual drives, which is why Zarkman can show his face and his big, Rambo-like gunslinging arms with pride, and he and his thugs don't have to go around wearing black burlap sacks too. And when men of this calibre prance around in a home video trying to show off how tough and capable they are, but instead demonstrate beyond doubt the absence of simple common sense (doesn't every 6 year old boy know, you don't pick up the gun by its smoking hot barrel?), then pardon me but ridicule is in order. I'm very happy that Zark now knows that millions around the world were laughing at him in his "out takes."
Then there's the other "Owwwie" -- Moose Owwie. (French spelling: Moussaoui) Fresh from his victory over the infidel at the climax of his trial last week (in which he won a lifetime of room and board, with lots of privacy), the French-Moroccan terrorist declared, "America, you have lost! I HAVE WON!" This week, he instructed his lawyers to petition for a new trial. The poor boy (he had a rough childhood, you know) apparently saw the compassion of his jurors and realised that he could get a fair trial in America after all. So, you know, he didn't really mean all that stuff he said during the 3 year judicial exercise, and so ... could he just have another one please? Just a little one this time, since he really didn't have anything to do with that awful September 11 stuff.
That's the jihad spirit, Zacarias, and a fine display of muhahideen manhood I must say. What happened to "I win!" Isn't this pitiful begging for another chance, just another way of saying, "I lost. Boo hoo. Could we start again, please?" This tells me that the sentence was the right one. Had he received capital punishment, he would have decades more "process" to play with, and countless more chances to grandstand with media hanging on his every word. Forget it, Zac. You've had your difficult childhood, you made your adult choices, you've had your compassionate verdict, and you can whimper till the end of your days alone. Zac and Zarq, two fine examples of the vanguard of Islamist manhood. I laugh in your general direction(s).
Then we come to the President of Iran, who made the news again this week with his diplomatic letter to the Great Satan. Not so many decades ago, this was the principle method of communications between states. A letter would be presented to the country's ambassador and transported to the home country, which often would take weeks (and more weeks for a reply). These communications were normally brief and to the point. Now-a-days we have international telephone capabilities, which heads of state are known to frequently use. If GWB can use one to call the Arabist president of the genocidal regime in Khartoum, in return for the Darfur peace agreement, surely the Iranian prez could have called Washington if he had something to say. Maybe he worried about the NSA's "domestic wiretapping" program listening in?
President Ahmadinejad seems to have a way with words, much more voluble than your average head of state. Eighteen pages worth, expounding on social, cultural, historical, religious and civilisational matters. Possibly with this thesis, he's angling for a spot at Yale. They already have a Taliban former minister there. And soon he'd have Juan Cole on staff to translate for him!
But whatever this treatise was intended to be, a diplomatic note it isn't. A rambling lecture in lieu of any single relevant proposal regarding the issue which has gripped the world these past months (including many of his European friends), can't be taken seriously. The letter has already been leaked, and seems virtually content-free, as far as the matter at issue. That the head of state of a major country presently involved in such a serious dispute with most of the rest of the world, having directly threatened another state with elimination on multiple occasions, would consider that an eighteen page lecture is what is called for in the circumstances, is almost hard to believe.
But not totally, in this case. He would have known the Americans would fail to find any meaningful proposal in his missive, since he didn't write any (unless you think "Quit your Zionist masters and give up to Allah's law enforcement," is a genuine proposal). I think it was aimed at his friends on the Security Council, Russia and China, enabling them to keep a straight face while exclaiming, "Look how hard Mahmoud is trying! Eighteen pages!"
I recall when Saddam was getting down to the wire with the UNSC, the Council demanded a full declaration of his weapons programs and inventory. He replied with something like 1200 pages containing no meaningful answers (and the Council recognised it as such). When you've run out of distractions and excuses, bury them under excessive volume, seems to be the strategy. It doesn't matter if the content isn't there -- your friends can cite the sheer volume as a measure of your sincere effort.
It's ridiculous that real leaders of actual states can believe that this stuff will wash, and get them out of a tight spot -- and it's equally appropriate to ridicule such "efforts." Not quite as "ha ha" funny as Zarq Owwwie and the Keystone Jihadis, but only because he was spraying bullets in all directions rather than having his trigger finger on Iranian ballistic missiles. Condi has already stated that the letter from Iran was thoroughly useless (using more diplomatic language, of course). That's as near to laughing as she can go.