An Obama voter who assumes if he can lower the seas then local transportation departments can get deer to obey highway signs? A woman called a Fargo, North Dakota radio station last month to complain about how she'd hit three deer with her car over the years and wants deer crossing signs moved so the deer will cross less busy roads -- as if deer read and follow roadside signage! Is she for real? Listen and judge for yourself.
"Why are we encouraging deer to cross at the interstates?" She insisted: "They can direct the deer population anywhere they want to by moving the deer crossing sign."
* FOX NEWS AM Segment > Woman claims that so-called Water, Power "smart meters" [Public Utilities] can be used by Fed-Local Govt to covertly monitor your physical presence inside your own home or domicile vee Usage fluxes = Energy "spikes".
D *** NG IT, AMERIKA, BESIDES SATELLITES + YOUR COMPUTER + CAR GPS, CELL PHONES, IPADS, ETC. YOUR LOYAL WASHING MACHINE + TOASTER + CAPUCCINO MACHINE, ETC. ARE ALSO WATCHING YOU!
Can you imagine telling a Court "YOUR HONOR, MY WASHING MACHINE NARC'ED ON ME"???
[Dawn] STRONG words from the army at a time of intense emotions over the attack on 14-year-old Malala are an important addition to the national revulsion at the Taliban and the way of life they seek to impose on Pakistain. Important as it is to have clarity in the national discourse about the Taliban -- something the religious right even now is seeking to obfuscate by talking of conspiracies and bringing up red herrings -- what is equally, if not more, essential, is to have the determination to build and then implement a clear strategy against militancy. At a meeting of the senior-most officers of the armed forces convened by Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee Gen Shameem Wyne on Thursday, the armed forces did try and lay down a marker against the Taliban. In tone and tenor, it was in keeping with the straight talk of Gen Kayani ... four star general, current Chief of Army Staff of the Mighty Pak Army. Kayani is the former Director General of ISI... on Aug 14 and will help dispel some of the propaganda being spread by those sympathetic to the Taliban and their cause.
But -- and this is a critical qualification -- the strongest of words will not substitute for meaningful policy. And policy will never be meaningful until a fundamental decision is taken: a zero-tolerance policy towards militancy. Only from that starting point will a clear and coherent strategy emerge and only from there can we have a chance of definitively rescuing Pakistain from the grip of militancy and the non-violent extremism that creates an enabling environment for violent action. Too much attention is paid to the details sometimes -- which groups should be taken on first and where, what should be done about North Wazoo, how should Pakistain adjust its preference for a Pakhtun-dominated set-up in Afghanistan. All these are very important questions in their own right and intrinsic to solving the riddle of militancy but they do have the unfortunate effect of detracting from a core understanding: until Pakistain adopts a zero-tolerance policy towards violent militancy and its superficially non-violent turban counterpart, the country will slip deeper and deeper into the vortex of instability and insecurity.
Given the unfortunate political history of Pakistain, the idea that a zero-tolerance policy towards militancy is state policy can only come if the military lays down that marker. Through its actions it must make it clear to its civilian counterparts and the public that the stated policy is in fact the actual policy. Of course, when it comes to rolling back the infrastructure of jihad, the armed forces will need the civilian leadership to exhibit courage and leadership too. But the first step must be taken by the men in uniform.
[Dawn] AS young Malala Yousufzai struggles for her life, spare a thought for Imran Khan ... aka Taliban Khan, who who convinced himself that playing cricket qualified him to lead a nuclear-armed nation with severe personality problems... whose recent high profile motorcade to Tank has been completely overshadowed by the cowardly attack on the 14-year old girl.
But apart from losing all the publicity the PTI leader was hoping to get, he has also lost the argument he was trying to build against the American drone campaign. Correct me if I'm wrong -- and I'm sure many of Imran Khan's supporters will -- but his argument runs something like this:
Once American drone strikes cease, and the Pakistain Army halts all operations in the tribal areas, then militancy will automatically die down. How? By the tribes throwing out the hardline beturbanned goons who, according to Khan, make up a tiny proportion of the Pak Taliban and their ilk.
But all evidence points to the decimation of tribal leaders with the courage to stand up to the gunnies who have infested and taken over their villages. Every time they have tried to raise a lashkar to fight the Death Eaters, they have been bumped off, blown up, or beheaded. According to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, a website on terrorism in South Asia, 109 tribal elders have been killed by gunnies in the last seven years.
The other thing Imran Khan is apparently keen on is that we negotiate with the thugs who attacked Malala Yousufzai. He forgets that there have been many talks and truces with these killers, and every agreement has been broken by them. When the provincial government handed over Swat ...a valley and an administrative district in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province of Pakistain, located 99 mi from Islamabad. It is inhabited mostly by Pashto speakers. The place has gone steadily downhill since the days when Babe Ruth was the Sultan of Swat... to Mullah Fazlullah ...son-in-law of holy man Sufi Mohammad. Known as Mullah FM, Fazlullah had the habit of grabbing his FM mike when the mood struck him and bellowing forth sermons. Sufi suckered the Pak govt into imposing Shariah on the Swat Valley and then stepped aside whilst Fazlullah and his Talibs imposed a reign of terror on the populace like they hadn't seen before, at least not for a thousand years or so. For some reason the Pak intel services were never able to locate his transmitter, much bomb it. After ruling the place like a conquered province for a year or so, Fazlullahs Talibs began gobbling up more territory as they pushed toward Islamabad, at which point as a matter of self-preservation the Mighty Pak Army threw them out and chased them into Afghanistan... and his gang in 2008, they not only terrorised the population, but soon tried to take over Malakand.
However, some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them... what got the army moving was the video clip of a young woman being flogged publicly by the Taliban in 2009. Public anger pushed the administration into action, and Fazlullah's militia was finally driven out of the valley.
But it seems they can still attack there with impunity. Perhaps their attempt on Malala's life will be a similar tipping point, and public revulsion will put pressure on the government to step up the campaign to rid us of bad boy militancy.
While Imran Khan dubbed his recent motorcade a peace march, he seemed to be calling for surrender: 'peace' implies a cessation of hostilities by both parties.
Here, Khan is calling on the Americans to stop targeting gunnies with their drones, and on the Pakistain Army to halt all operations in the area. But to the best of my knowledge, he has not called on the beturbanned goons to also cease their attacks on state and civilian targets within Pakistain.
Despite his courtship of the religious right, he has been rebuffed by the Pak Taliban who denounced him as a 'Westernised liberal'.
There is delicious irony here as Khan never tires of applying the same label to his critics. But the Taliban made it very clear that he is not welcome on their turf, and this is the reason he and his convoy turned back at Tank without entering South Wazoo.
So if the Taliban decide who can enter where they operate, clearly the state has no control over the area. The question then arises if we can claim illusory sovereignty here. This is important because the main thrust of the protest over American drones is based on the charge that they violate our illusory sovereignty. Can we make this claim without control over the territory?
The other issue, of course, is one of collateral damage: several studies and reports purporting to count the cost of drone attacks have come up with conflicting numbers.
A recent one, commissioned by the human rights ...not to be confused with individual rights, mind you... organization Reprieve, and carried out by Stanford and New York universities, has come out with anecdotal accounts based on conversations with a small sample of selected locals.
The unambiguous conclusion of the report is that drones not only inflict unacceptable civilian casualties and psychological damage, they do little to solve the problem.
However, some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them... other studies and reports are not as critical. A New American Foundation analysis cited by Peter Bergen in a CNN report suggests that under Obama, civilian fatalities were 11 per cent of the total killed in the drone campaign, and stand at two per cent in 2012. Conversely, the number of beturbanned goons killed is 89 per cent of the fatalities.
While even a single death is tragic, few in the anti-drone camp talk about the tens of thousands of civilians and soldiers slaughtered by the Death Eaters. They are similarly silent about the hundreds of schools blown up by the Taliban. How many Malalas have been deprived of an education because of the stone-age mentality of these killers?
In talks I have given at universities in the US, the UK and Pakistain, I have been frequently asked about the drone attacks.
In response, I have posed a counter-question: if the drone attacks are stopped, what is the alternative? Should we allow these armed gangs to continue making life hell for the unfortunate villagers they hide behind? Should the Americans permit them to cross the border at will and launch attacks across Afghanistan?
For people like Imran Khan urging the governments of Pakistain and the US to halt their operations against the Pak Taliban, here is a sobering voice: in an article (Pakistain's Peace Deals with the Taliban) on the Combating Terrorism Centre website, Daud Khattak concludes:
"None of the agreements with Taliban factions involved in attacks on Pakistain lasted more than a few months, and the breaking of each agreement resulted in severe bouts of violence including attacks on government installations, security forces and civilians.
"From the Taliban's perspective, by levelling demands at the government and then entering into negotiations, it demonstrates to civilians in the tribal areas that Death Eater leaders are strong enough to sit at the same table as the country's top military officials. This solidifies support for the Taliban among their followers, and suppresses the voices of resistance from civilian populations living under their authority."
The reality is that the Taliban understand -- as Imran Khan and his supporters do not -- that they must pull down the whole country to their primitive level if they are to succeed in their ambition to seize control of the state.
This is just what their Afghan cousins did when they were in power. They see talks as a tactic and not as a path to peace.
Ultimately, their attack on Malala demolishes the anti-drone argument in a way no reasoned argument ever could.