Why Is No One Worried About The European Reaction?

In all of the discussions I have seen, and read, about this SWIFT situation, I cannot believe that no one is bringing up the fact that we have to worry about EUROPE's reaction! We know that the European populace hates the US (except when offered a green card) and would do anything that they could to hurt US policy. It is clear that there is going to be a reaction in Belgium, at some level, which will probably damage our ability to work effectively with them in the future.

At the very least, the European rags - who are all ticked off that they didn't get to ruin this part of US security actions - will try to enrage the European rabble.

There are so many other sides to this story, many of which are outside of the US, which is why this case MUST go to trial for espionage, at the very least.

How Many Arabs Will Have To Die To Truly End Arab Aggression?

I think it might be interesting to estimate the number of dead Arabs which will be required before they cease their violent and aggressive actions towards Israel, and the rest of the modern world. A simple, though unscientific, way of estimating this number could be derived from the figures from the Japanese side of World War II. We will look at the number of Japanese that were required to be killed (civilians, most importantly) before the Japanese would totally surrender, and no longer wish to fight.

Now, in front of any arguments, the post-war Japanese have been the very model of friendship and productivity and have contributed a great deal to all of the world through their hard work and keen intellects. It would be impossible to argue that the Japanese could have behaved any better, which lends a great deal of weight to the argument that the appropriate number of Japanese civilians were killed.

I use the Japanese, and not the Germans, because the Japanese and the Arabs share some deep non-Western cultural aspects in their anti-individualistic natures. This feature of anti-individualism will weigh heavily in the pure kill ratios and therefore, to me, seems appropriate. One can argue against it, but it seems rather senseble. There are qualities which will change the required kill ratio.

The Japanese, for example, have a strong sense of honor and a respect for fair play (in the larger sense). The Arabs lack both of these qualities and will, therefore, force the kill ratio to be at least double the Japanese, perhaps 5 times the Japanese. What I am talking about, here? I'm referring to the Arab behavior of refusing to acknowledge defeat, when it is clear to any thinking person. The Egyptians still teach their kids that they WON the '73 war. Saddam Hussein built a museum to document the great success of Iraq in the first gulf war - clearly the most embarrassing war to watch, ever in the history of the world. This type of shamelessness and imperviousness to the reality of defeat forces one to crush this type of people much harder than more rational groups require.

There are, of course, other factors, but you get the general idea. I am going to arbitrarily peg the percentage of Arabs required to be killed at 7 times the percentage of Japanese who were killed. This is even though I think the nature of Arab culture, and their obstinate refusal to learn from anyone around them, is going to make this figure that much higher.

There is one other point. Since the Arab 'armies' consists solely of civilians (the terrorists and terrorist groups), we will need to include the military dead from Japan in with the calculation.
The Japanese number:

CIVILIANS KILLED	POPULATION	PERCENTAGE	MILITARY DEAD	PERCENTAGE MILITARY DEAD	TOTAL PERCENTAGE DEAD
600,000	72,000,000	.83	2,000,000	2.78	3.62

The Arab number would then be:

---

PERCENTAGE	COUNTRY	POPULATION	CIVILIANS KILLED
3.62 * 7 = 25.34	Syria	18,000,000	4,300,000
25.34	Jordan	6,000,000	1,600,000
25.34	Egypt	80,000,000	20,000,000
25.34	Saudi Arabia	28,000,000	7,000,000
25.34	Iraq	27,000,000	6,900,000
25.34	Lebanon	2,000,000	500,000 (just muslims and palestinians)
45	Palestinians	3,000,000	1,450,000

The sum total is then, around, 41.8 million Arabs are going to need to be killed to bring peace to the middle east.

Any number less than this will probably result in a new war 10 or 12 years after. (Note: The Persians are not included, though they are going to need to be beaten, militarily, and in the same manner, at some point.)

New York Times Champions Vigilantism

The New York Times arguments, for their "right" to decide on the true security classification of any piece of data (as opposed to whatever classification the official mechanisms have assigned to the data) brings up one very interesting little point that should embarrass the old Soviet Union:

All of those Soviet spies who risked their lives trying to transmit information back to Moscow, could have avoided all of the problems by merely relaying their information to the New York Times, who would then print it and let Moscow know!

And to think that these silly spies were practicing all of these spy-games when they merely needed to tell the NYT.

I guess, by the Times' brilliant reasoning, any Iranian-run blog could publish any secret data (as a member of the media) without having to worry about silly ideas such as security classifications and the like.

The most pathetic part of this whole situation is that the Times could not even find the one argument that they DO have in their favor. The fact that the administration knew that the Times had the information and did not THREATEN the Times, at that point, with prosecution if they printed, could be interpreted (without much difficulty) as a tacit acceptance of the Times' right to run the story, not even to mention the extremely embarrassing fact that the administration then went on to, later, give the information to other press outlets.

But, thankfully, the folks at the NYT are too stupid to have found their one and only possible defense.

In the end, the Times is advocating "Vigilante Security Classification Groups", each of which makes their own decision as to how classified some data should be. Without a doubt, any modern society structured as such could not exist for any great length of time.

Finally, if the Times believe that they have the right to judge security classifications, then why don't I (or you) have the right to independently judge "Acts of Treason"?

Luckily, for the NYT, they don't bend to the will of logic and good taste, so they have no problem with the stupidities and inconsistencies of their own argument. Typical.