Daddy?
Yes, son.
Are we going to have a war with India?
Perhaps.
Oh, goody. We will thrash them, right? Like we did in 1857!
It wasnt in 1857, son.
Oh, okay. But whom did we thrash in 1857?
The British, son
And the Hindus too, right?
Well
Did Quaid-i-Azam fight in that war along with Muhammad bin Qasim and Imran Khan?
No, son. The Quaid and Imran were born much later and Muhammad bin Qasim died many years before.
Then who ruled Pakistan in those days?
There was no Pakistan in those days, son.
But there was always a Pakistan! It has been there for 5,000 years!
Who have you been talking to, son?
No one. Ive just been watching TV.
It figures.
Daddy, why are all these people against us Arabs?
Arabs? But we arent Arabs, son.
Of course we are because our ancestors were Arabs!
No, son. Our ancestors were of the subcontinental stock.
Sub-what?
Never mind.You seem to like wars, son.
Yes. I like to watch them on TV.
But real wars are fought outside the TV, son.
Really? How is that possible? What sort of a war is that?
Never mind.
Daddy, you look worried.
Of course, I am, you little warmongering punk!
Daddy! Why are you scolding me?
Because TV is talking rot and so are you!
Daddy, are you supporting Hindus?
No!
Daddy, have you become a kafir?
Keep quiet! No more TV for you! Go watch a movie on DVD or listen to a CD.
Cant do that.
But we have so many DVDs and CDs, son.
Not any more.
What do you mean?
I burned them all.
What?!
I burned them all.
I heard that! But why?
They spread obscenity.
Oh, God. Son, go do your homework. What happened to that science project you were working on?
Its almost complete.
Good boy. What are you making?
A bomb.
What?!
A bomb.
I heard that! But why?
Because I am a true Muslim who hates America.
But only last week you wanted to go to Disney Land.
Thats different.
How come?
Mickey Mouse is Muslim.
No, he isnt.
Is so. He converted when he heard azaan on the moon.
On the moon?
Yes. Because the earth is flat and
What??
The earth is
I heard that!
Daddy, do you want to see my science project, or not?
Gosh, that bomb? But your science teacher will fail you.
No, she wont.
Really?
Yes. I plan to blow her up as well.
God, what is wrong with you? Go call your mother!
She cant come.
Why not?
Ive locked her in the kitchen.
But what for?
A womans place is in the kitchen. I will not let her out until she covers herself up peoperly!
But shes your mother!
Shes also a woman!
So?
So she should be hidden.
Hidden from whom?
The whole world and Tony.
Tony?
Yes, Tony.
But Tonys a cat.
Yes. But hes male.
Son, have you gone mad?
No. By the way, Ive made sure Kitto starts covering up as well.
Kitto?
Yes, Kittto.
But Kittos a cat!
Yes. But a female cat.
But shell suffocate.
Oh, shes already dead.
What?
Shes already dead.
I heard that! But how?
I buried her alive.
You what?
Yes. To avenge Tonys honour. But now I will behead Tony.
But why?
To save moms honour!
Oh, God!
Dont say that. Always say Allah.
Whats the difference?
Daddy, do you want to be beheaded too?
No!
Do you want to be stoned to death?
No!
Do you want to be flogged?
No!
Do you want to get your arms chopped off?
No!
Then stop asking silly questions. By the way, I wont call you daddy anymore.
What will you call me then?
Whatever that is Arabic for daddy.
I dont know any Arabic, son.
Thats because you are a kafir.
Who the heck are you to tell me who I am, you little fascist twit!
Whats a fascist?
An irrational, violent, self-righteous mad man!
W... aaaaaaa...
Why are you crying?
You scolded me.
Okay, Im sorry. You have to be tolerant and rational, son. Now be a good boy and go read a book instead of watching TV.
I have no books.
Of course, you do. I bought you so many books.
I burned them.
What?
I burned them.
But why?
They were all in English.
So?
Its a non-Muslim language!
But we are speaking English, arent we?
W... aaaaaaa
What now?
Zionists made me forget my Arabic.
But you never knew any Arabic, son.
W... aaaa yes, I did until you and mommy gave me the polio drops aaaaa
Okay, tell me, can you do me a favour?
Sure, dad.
Can you blow up something for me?
Oh, goody! Of course, dad. What should I blow? A CD shop, a hotel, a school...?
No, no, something a lot more sinister.
Mom?
No, no
What then?
The TV set!
What?
Blow the TV set.
I heard that! But why?
Just do it!
I see. Dad?
Yes.
Youre so unconstitutional!
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 12:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Actually - this is sad and sick and funny. A taste for the blackest and absurdest kind of humor seems to be one of the gifts that the British left to India, when they packed up and went home.
Unless, there was that kind of sense already there. In which - roll on, India - and thanks, John F., for posting this.
In 1989, Soviet Union had retreated from Afghanistan. Iran had emerged stronger after the eight years of brutal war with Iraq and democracy had returned to Pakistan, after eleven years of military rule. The dawn of freedom, thus gravitated the three countries to come together, as the bastion of power, to defeat and deter the common enemies. The idea of unity between the states was floated to achieve the essential element of 'Strategic Depth'. Our enemies were unhappy with the idea and resolved to defame and defeat it. They succeeded in causing civil war in Afghanistan, which created dissensions between Pakistan and Iran. As if this was not enough, Afghanistan was invaded and occupied in 2001. The occupation led to hatching dangerous conspiracy by the Indo-US-Israel nexus 'to establish Indian hegemony in this region' and extend power and influence even beyond. The Mumbai contrived incident of November 26 is the first step, in this direction.
The Mumbai episode reflects the Saffron Sensibility characteristic of Hindutva, the Neocons and the Zionists, having a mindset of a boiling antipathy towards Pakistan. It is this congenital hatred which brings "strange bedfellows together." The ultimate objective is 'to establish Indian hegemony over South Asia', including Afghanistan, now considered part of South Asia by Pentagon. Pakistan is the stumbling block to be softened-up. Thus the callous blood bath of Mumbai on November 26 was enacted by RAW, CIA and Mossad, - the Saffron Nexus - to defame Pakistan in the comity of nations and lend justification for punitive action. The pressure is continuously being mounted on our western borders, while the threat of 'surgical strikes' and war against Pakistan, continues, to extract strategic advantages.
No doubt, Mumbai episode was a homegrown conspiracy of the Hindu militant groups in collusion with the Saffron Nexus. The very few terrorists, ten only, who took over Taj, Oberai hotels and the railway station, were used to create a facade of a foreign terrorist group attack from Pakistan. It was also to provide the cover-up to eliminate Hemant Karkare and the officers of Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS), for the reason that Karkare was a brave nationalist officer, who had succeeded in exposing the terrorist involvement of the Saffron Brigade, in the Malegaon Blasts. The main culprit, Praggya Singh - an army officer, along with other noted personalities of the BJP, RSS, Bajrang Dal and VHP were arrested. Karkare and other members of ATS thus were eliminated, to cover-up the real crime. This is killing 'two birds' with one stone.
The Bush administration seems to have convinced Obama to carry the Saffron flag forward and implement the strategy of Indian hegemony over South Asia, which is a bad omen, both for Obama and the region. An occupied Afghanistan is not in the interest of Pakistan and the region, whereas, an independent sovereign Afghanistan makes a reliable ally, together with Iran, to form the Pakistan-Iran-Afghanistan Union (PIAU). The PIAU will thus provide the 'Strategic Depth' to the states, in the same manner as the European Union (EU) provides 'depth of security' to all the members. Depth of Security means, territorial security, economic, socio-political and diplomatic security as the common denominators.
Therefore, while seeking this objective, Pakistan's interests will remain in conflict with the occupation forces in Afghanistan. And the worst is the establishment of the spy network in Afghanistan, which continues to mount pressure on Pakistan. The nerve centre of this spy network is at Jabal-us-Seraj, manned and operated by CIA, Raw, Mossad, MI-6 and BND (German intelligence). It's a huge set-up with concrete buildings, antennas and all the modern electronic gadgetry, one can conceive of. Its out-posts are Sarobi and Kandahar against Pakistan; Faizabad, against China; Mazar-e-Sharif, against Russia and Central Asian States and Herat against Iran. Thus, Afghanistan has become the hub of regional and global conspiracies.
The tribal conflict on the western borders therefore is due to this interference from Afghanistan, yet the problem on our western borders is not worrisome, because the tribals of the area including FATA are adamantly loyal to Pakistan. Thy have declared that, in case of war/threat thereof with India, they will not only ensure security of the western borders but directly confront the occupation forces in Afghanistan, accentuating the ongoing conflict in the region.
The state brutality in Kashmir continues unabated because "Kashmir won't willingly integrate into India; it's beginning to look as though India will integrate/disintegrate into Kashmir. Indian military occupation in Kashmir, a shamefully persecuted, impoverished minority of more than fifteen million Muslims, are being targeted as a community and pushed to the wall, whose young see no justice on the horizon" (Arundhati Roy). What will happen in Kashmir after the retreat of occupation forces in Afghanistan, should be a matter of great concern for the Indians. And, if war breaks-out, now, or later, on Kashmir issue, "it would be catastrophic for India" (Federation of American Scientists report).
Pakistan armed forces, now deployed against India, have full capability to thwart Indian designs. The Pakistan Air Force high altitude interception capability has been improved by means and resources now available. Pakistan's nuclear capability, maintains a credible deterrence with India. "Nukes are not weapons of war nor they compensate for Pakistan's conventional military capability" (Benazir Bhutto). Pakistan's military policy therefore is based on its conventional military forces, to defeat Indian aggression. Being cognisant of this reality it is maintaining the effective and functional military balance, to ward-off pressures from the north-west, while remaining prepared to fight and "carry the war into the Indian territory," implementing the offensive defence concept, well tested in the Zarb-e-Momin Exercise-1989.
The "occupation of Afghanistan" is the main source of trouble, spurred by the Saffron Nexus, which has given India a false sense of hope and strength, and the resultant sabre rattling. India is enjoying the strategic partnership with USA as we enjoyed it in the past and suffered humiliations and betrayal. We wish 'interesting times' to India. Indian quest for South Asian hegemony is a pipe-dream, never to bear any fruition. Will the countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran ever accept their hegemony? If history is any guide, this shall never be.
The sun is rising, breaking the dawn of freedom, heralding the realisation of the Strategic Depth objectives as the guarantee for peace and security of the entire region. The retreat of occupation forces from Afghanistan is eminent, and will revive the 'Strategic Depth Concept.' Historical realities do not die. Invasion of Afghanistan was indeed a great strategic blunder, because, "force, if unassisted by judgement, collapses through its own mass." (Horace)
The writer is a former Chief of Pakistan Army Staff
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 08:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#1
The sun is rising, breaking the dawn of freedom, heralding the realisation of the Strategic Depth objectives as the guarantee for peace and security of the entire region.
They're passing around the strong stuff at the Officer's club
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Purdy much all 'ye need to know:
The PIAU will thus provide the 'Strategic Depth' to the states
#3
Strategic depth of six feet under sounds about right...
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
01/04/2009 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Beg and Hamid Gul (formerly ISI chief) are the two major proponents of an Islamist Pakistan. The United States knows them both very well, having worked with both during the involvement in Afghanistan. Both have sought to destroy the Pakistan democracy, and both belong in jail.
#5
Both reflect the attitudes of the Pakistani praetorian class
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
gravitated the three countries to come together, as the bastion of power, to defeat and deter the common enemies
I'm thinking glass from the Persian Gulf to the Indian border.
#7
This is nothing "emerging". If you look over the course of history, before the British (and Russians) carved up areas with arbitrary lines on maps, one can see where cultural influences extended by looking at language, culture, and traditions. If you add up the Farsi speaking regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan, you can see an area that was naturally culturally "connected" to what we know as Iran. Drawing of borders has created artificial political boundaries where no such cultural boundaries existed before.
Same with other areas, too. See where Uzbek or Tajik is the dominant language and notice that when Russia drew the borders of Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan they intentionally chopped the regions up to reduce the cultural identity. The Azeri regions of Iran should really be part of Azerbaijan. The Arabic speaking regions, part if Iraq. Iran "should" extend further Eastward and include regions of what is now Afghanistan and Pakistan. There "should" be a Kurdistan that includes some of what is now Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey.
What was done at the end of WWI and continued after was to actually set the stage for more strife by arbitrarily chopping up regions without regard to (or in many cases any knowledge of) the people and cultures living in those regions.
It turned proud people into ethnic minorities. imagine if 10 US states were given to Mexico, 10 to Canada, and a chunk if Mexico and French speaking Canada were given to the US. It would turn many Americans into ethnic minorities in Canada and Mexico and the same with Canadians and Mexicans that would now find themselves on the American side of the line. It would set the stage for resentment and unrest.
#8
What on earth gave the retired gentleman the idea that Iran needs strategic depth? john, I think they've been passing round the strong stuff in the Pure Officers' Club for a number of decades. No wonder the Army of the Pure loses every war it starts!
#9
People were drawing lines on subcontinental maps long before the British or Russians came on the scene.
There were borders between the Delhi Sultans, the Moghuls, the Sikhs etc and the Persians. The Peacock throne in Tehran that the Shahs sat on is actually war booty from India.
2500 years ago there was a border between the Persian lands held by Alexander's satrap Selucius Nicator and the Indian Emperor Chandragupta Maurya.
There may be Persian words and a Persian derived script in Urdu but a Hindi speaker will have a conversation with an Urdu speaker and both will think the other is speaking 'their' language.
A Punjabi Urdu speaking Pakistani like Beg has far more in common culturally with an Indian across the border than an Iranian.
There will always be cultural mixing between regions but political borders have always been there.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
An example of cultural mixing/changing: Saddam's manipulations (Arab vs Kurd) in the Kirkuk region.
#11
Also the outer political borders of the Indian subcontinent are determined by geography. The mountains and deserts that divide the subcontinent from Persia were the natural border between the states. Pakistan is firmly subcontinental.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Iran can only gain depth from her enemies by moving the entire nation East. Pakistan by moving her entire nation west. This guys concept of depth make little sense.
#13
"There will always be cultural mixing between regions but political borders have always been there."
That is true but there really was no notion of the nation state as we know it today. A political boundary was basically the land under the control of a king or emperor. The authority of that person went down through individuals who controlled smaller areas, maybe landlords or warlords or others who bound the people bound to the land by an oath of loyalty.
We can't place our notion of nation state into the culture of people who pretty much still live they way people did in medieval Europe with local lords holding peasants in oaths of loyalty (bayat).
#14
ya'll thinkin about this too deep.
Them man is a total loon!
That may be a requirement to be a "Chief of Pakistan Army Staff" but it's undeniable he's a fricking loon!
It's too late to fix Iraq before the pullout date. All U.S. troops can do now is keep trying to slow the killing and get out. They call it 'Iraqi good enough.'
An Iraqi police SUV stays parked across the entrance to the market in Mahmudiyah, about 10 miles south of Baghdad on the highway to Najaf. The market road through town has been closed to traffic for years, but drivers seem OK with the long, bumpy detour. Better to endure the inconvenience than to risk more car bombings or another attack like the explosives-and-gunfire rampage that killed roughly 70 people in one half-hour in July 2006. By late 2007, attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces in the area had slowed but still occurred about 15 times a week. Just last March, the town endured nearly a week of urban warfare in which roughly 2,000 Iraqi troops and 300 Americans battled a few hundred Shiite militiamen and their neighbors, who joined the shootout. Things are quieter nowalthough no one wants to take chances in the area that's been known since 2004 as the Triangle of Death.
Bombs explode occasionally, but mostly without hurting anyone. Awful exceptions remain, like the Jan. 2 suicide bombing that killed roughly 20 people gathered at a sheik's home in Yousifiyah, 10 miles from Mahmudiyah.
But thousands of Iraqi soldiers, police and tribal adjuncts stand guard at checkpoints all along the area's roads, on the lookout for wanted men and possible bombers as rows of cars pass between low concrete barriers. The Iraqis have tried to make some of the stops less grim by sticking plastic flowers to the gray slabs. Some checkpoints are painted with slogans like BE RESPECTFUL AND YOU WILL BE TREATED RESPECTFULLY.
You don't see many Americans now. It's a striking change from about a year ago, when troops scoured the marketplace for wanted killers and helicopters made twice- weekly assaults against Al Qaeda hideouts on the town's outskirts. But in recent months U.S. troops have pulled out of the neighborhood combat outposts they used to share with Iraqi forces, and their numbers have thinned to a third of what they were across the triangle in early 2008. Americans still pass through occasionally to check in with their Iraqi counterparts, attend local council meetings and do what they can about rebuilding the ravaged economy. Otherwise the Iraqis are mostly left to muddle along on their own.
Until now it was impossible to predict with confidence what the end of the war would look like in Iraq. But a clear picture could be emerging here in Mahmudiyah. The outcome is hardly what the occupation's supporters wanted, but it's too late for anyone to do much about that, under the deadlines set by the new U.S.-Iraqi security agreement. By the middle of this year, American combat forces must complete their official withdrawal from population centers. Security duties will be left to Iraqi forces, although U.S. military trainers and advisers will remain. As of Dec. 31, 2011, three years from now, all U.S. troops are to be out of the country. Meanwhile they still have their hands full in the northern city of Mosul, where insurgents and jihadists have dug in for another showdown, and Iraqis are bracing for more violence in the run-up to elections at the end of this month.
In Mahmudiyah the drawdown began almost a year ago. As hard as the Americans tried to fix the place, it's still nothing to brag about. The economy, although improving, remains crippled. Public services are practically nonexistent. Courts and government offices are open, but schools lack working toilets, and teachers are so bad that parents scrape money together for private tutors. Sewage floods some side streets, and telephone landlines fail as often as not. The big government hospital is chronically short of medical supplies; late last month, a man scoured the town's drugstores for surgical thread because the hospital had none for his wife, who was undergoing a Caesarean delivery. "The military is, in some cases, the only government people see," says Maj. John Baker, who advised Iraqi troops in rural areas near Mahmudiyah until late 2008. By normal standards the town is a messbut it's less dangerous than it was, and at this point that's about the best anyone can expect.
The situation is summed up in a phrase you hear among American combat troops and trainers: "Iraqi good enough." The term expresses their resignationrealism, they'd call itabout the limits of what America can accomplish in Iraq. They say it when an Iraqi Army unit has no choice but to buy fuel for its Humvees on the private market because Iraq's military-supply system is so corrupt and inefficient. Or when the persistent shortage of capable leaders forces Iraqi battalions to function with only half the number of officers they require. Or when Iraqi soldiers fall apart in a senior officer's absence because that's the way it goes in a top-down society. The concept has spread to American Embassy staffers, who invoke it when speaking of the near-impossible task of reforming the decrepit old welfare-state economy. "Good enough" may not live up to Americans' hopes for Iraq, but at this point it describes the place we're likely to leave behind in 2011if things stay on track. "It's a hell of a lot better than I thought we were going to get four years ago fighting in Anbar, or two years ago in a civil war," says counterinsurgency expert John Nagl. "The high side may not be that high, but the costs of failure are severe."
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/04/2009 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They jsut cannot bring themselves to admit they wre wrong,a nd ahve to contort to such idiocies as
The outcome is hardly what the occupation's supporters wanted,
Lets se..
Terrs dead
Iraqis policing themselves
Open elections
Democratic government
People's rights restored
Economy BETTER than we found it
Violent Death rate lower than Detroit's
Iraqi Army trained and effective on its own ops
Sure we "oocupiers" didnt want ANY of those things.. yeah right. F**king rube propagandist.
#3
Prolly pissed they leaving the good service and quiet of Baghdad's 'Greenie Zone's Bar and Grill' for Jerusalem or Kabul and like any drunk A*hole leaving an establishment (Where's my story, I ordered a story, the meme was cold and the action flat - and I want a refund!) has to make a big scene on the way out, prolly pee all over the bathroom too.
#5
"It's a hell of a lot better than I thought we were going to get four years ago fighting in Anbar, or two years ago in a civil war," says counterinsurgency expert John Nagl. "The high side may not be that high, but the costs of failure are severe."
It's a hell of a lot better than we thought we'd get four years ago, or two. The Newsweek journalist forgets, if he was ever capable of understanding, that Iraq was one battle in a long war, not the war itself. We succeeded in denying the jihadis Iraq's resources and support with the conquest of Iraq in 2003. We've enabled the Iraqis to demonstrate that self-rule is a viable alternative for Arabs, that they are capable of more than submitting to the most vicious strong man as the Arabs have done at least since Mohammed began jihad. And, we've allowed the Iraqis to demonstrate that they are capable of learning honour and the art of soldiery, to go beyond being bullies with guns abused by incompetent officers.
No, Iraq has not achieved First World perfection. But then, neither has a goodly section of the First World, eg New Orleans and the banlieus of Europe... and Belgium, now hoping some sort of deus ex machina will cause a successful government to appear.
#7
"Last day" > iff only it were true so everybody could come home. Unfortunately, MUSLIM/ISLAMIC MIL HISTORY suggests that there will very likely be a ROUND 2, etc. for the BATTLE FOR IRAQ, WHEREUPON THE SAME HISTORY MUSLIM ARMIES WILL MORESO THAN NOT PROVE MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN THE FIRST IN KICKING WESTERN HINIES, AND IMO MOST LIKELY AFTER IRAN IS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY INDIGENS NUCLEARIZE [2010 = NLT absolut maxima 2012].
IOW, POTUS-ELECT OBAMA + USDOD HAVE 2-4 YEARS TO PREPARE FOR THE ISLAMIST [nuclearized?]SECOND COMING.
Barack Obama's chances of making a fresh start in US relations with the Muslim world, and the Middle East in particular, appear to diminish with each new wave of Israeli attacks on Palestinian targets in Gaza. That seems hardly fair, given the president-elect does not take office until January 20. But foreign wars don't wait for Washington inaugurations.
Obama has remained wholly silent during the Gaza crisis. His aides say he is following established protocol that the US has only one president at a time. Hillary Clinton, his designated secretary of state, and Joe Biden, the vice-president-elect and foreign policy expert, have also been uncharacteristically taciturn on the subject.
But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out. Arab commentators and editorialists say there is growing disappointment at Obama's detachment - and that his failure to distance himself from George Bush's strongly pro-Israeli stance is encouraging the belief that he either shares Bush's bias or simply does not care.
The Al-Jazeera satellite television station recently broadcast footage of Obama on holiday in Hawaii, wearing shorts and playing golf, juxtaposed with scenes of bloodshed and mayhem in Gaza. Its report criticising "the deafening silence from the Obama team" suggested Obama is losing a battle of perceptions among Muslims that he may not realise has even begun.
"People recall his campaign slogan of change and hoped that it would apply to the Palestinian situation," Jordanian analyst Labib Kamhawi told Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune. "So they look at his silence as a negative sign. They think he is condoning what happened in Gaza because he's not expressing any opinion."
Regional critics claim Obama is happy to break his pre-inauguration "no comment" rule on international issues when it suits him. They note his swift condemnation of November's terrorist attacks in Mumbai. Obama has also made frequent policy statements on mitigating the impact of the global credit crunch.
Obama's absence from the fray is also allowing hostile voices to exploit the vacuum. "It would appear that the president-elect has no intention of getting involved in the Gaza crisis," Iran's Resalat newspaper commented sourly. "His stances and viewpoints suggest he will follow the path taken by previous American presidents... Obama, too, will pursue policies that support the Zionist aggressions."
Whether Obama, when he does eventually engage, can successfully elucidate an Israel-Palestine policy that is substantively different from that of Bush-Cheney is wholly uncertain at present.
To maintain the hardline US posture of placing the blame for all current troubles squarely on Hamas, to the extent of repeatedly blocking limited UN security council ceasefire moves, would be to end all realistic hopes of winning back Arab opinion - and could have negative, knock-on consequences for US interests in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf.
Yet if Obama were to take a tougher (some would say more balanced) line with Israel, for example by demanding a permanent end to its blockade of Gaza, or by opening a path to talks with Hamas, he risks provoking a rightwing backlash in Israel, giving encouragement to Israel's enemies, and losing support at home for little political advantage.
A recent Pew Research Centre survey, for example, showed how different are US perspectives to those of Europe and the Middle East. Americans placed "finding a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict" at the bottom of a 12-issue list of foreign policy concerns, the poll found. And foreign policy is in any case of scant consequence to a large majority of US voters primarily worried about the economy, jobs and savings.
On the campaign trail, Obama (like Clinton) was broadly supportive of Israel and specifically condemnatory of Hamas. But at the same time, he held out the prospect of radical change in western relations with Muslims everywhere, promising to make a definitive policy speech in a "major Islamic forum" within 100 days of taking office.
"I will make clear that we are not at war with Islam, that we will stand with those who are willing to stand up for their future, and that we need their effort to defeat the prophets of hate and violence," he said.
As the Gaza casualty headcount goes up and Obama keeps his head down, those sentiments are beginning to sound a little hollow. The danger is that when he finally peers over the parapet on January 21, the battle of perceptions may already be half-lost.
Posted by: john frum ||
01/04/2009 11:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OBama keeps saying that there is "one president and one voice" and he shouldn't comment on the Gaza matter is inconsistent with he his numerous comments relative to the economy and health care.
#3
Yet if Obama were to take a tougher (some would say more balanced) line with Israel, for example by demanding a permanent end to its blockade of Gaza, or by opening a path to talks with Hamas...
So...Simon: what is the 'balanced' line between Hamas, who's charter calls for the destruction of the state of Israel and genocide against the Jews and Israel who is exercising its right of self-defense?
#4
Probably went to a bar or coffee shop, some guy knows he writes articles and went to impress simple Simon, who wants to impress that guy back by quoting him, as "Anonymous person seeking single white writer", shorthanded as "People".
#5
One of my New Years' wishes/dreams...the One turns out to be a self serving Centrist who wants only to be the first Black president for two terms; no matter whose a$$ he has to kiss.
#6
But evidence is mounting that Obama is already losing ground among key Arab and Muslim and progressive and African-American and union and GLBT and Hispanic and anti-war protestor audiences that cannot understand why, given his promise of change, he has not spoken out.
#7
Arab and Muslim audiences... The Al-Jazeera satellite television station... Jordanian analyst...
Silly me, I thought voting was limited to US citizens and he is the US president-elect.
#8
There was a lot of expectation throughout the world that Obama would be their man in the White House. If those expectations fade before he is sworn in, a lot of stupid activity will not occur afterward.
#9
Far be it from me to think or suggest that Obama is thr right guy at the right time...however...with regard to Israel...
Let us not forget tht Obama has placed a great deal of responsiblitiy on Rahm Emamuel. I don;'t recall reading anything to suggest Rahm is a self-hating Jew. In this country that means you don't make common cause with those who want to see Israel wiped off the map.
Perhaps Obama's "silence" is calculated to appease his right hand man, someone who holds no love or brief for Hamas.
#10
Get used to this imperial attitude of simply saying nothing about that which The Anointed does not wish to speak. We are lesser beings, and do not deserve (and would not be able to understand) the workings of His mind. It is best if we wait outside and cheer any announcements that may be made on our behalf.
#11
the One turns out to be a self serving Centrist who wants only to be the first Black president for two terms; no matter whose a$$ he has to kiss.
Another way to look at this is that he tries to be the best President possible for all Americans. And that's what I pray he'll do. And disappoint a lot more than foreigners in the process.
Remember, he may be the first "black" President but when he looks in the mirror he knows, no matter how many lighty Wright sermons he's listened to, that he's half black, half white, raised by a white woman who wasn't his mother and didn't owe him a rearing any more than his black granny.
I suspect his thoughts, his true thoughts that he doesn't share with anyone else, on race are as interesting as Bill Clinton's on paternity.
He wasn't my choice and I doubt I'll like much of what he does, but in a certain way, though I doubt it will happen, I hope he does well enough to be re-elected by the whole nation. We're going to need a President that good for the next four years, and I hope he's the only one we get. Because the alternative's Biden and he's surely an idiot.
#12
Well said, Nimble Spemble. At minimum, that he does the things necessary to get reelected, one of which is not abandoning Israel, as well more than half of the voters would be very upset by that.
#13
Sometimes saying nothing is better than saying something stupid.
Posted by: Grolush Darling of the Hatfields3195 ||
01/04/2009 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Rahm Emanuel was chosen for his ability to help keep Congress in line and because he supports Obama's real priorities: completely revamping our economic system to the left.
That he is Jewish is irrelevant to Obama's choice of him, so far as I can tell.
#15
Agreed, lotp. Although I got a cluster of overexcited emails when the appointment was announced, from various Jewish Democrat friends, all saying, "See -- he isn't an antisemitic Muslim after all, contrary to what those right wing nuts have been saying!!!!!" Only one properly appreciated my response referencing Secretary of State Kissinger and the 1973 war.
#17
RC - He's opened his mouth plenty on the economy and other issues when it suited his or his party's interests. He's not being so professional after all. It may be more that he has nothing profound to say.
Many scratch their heads and wonder what sort of solutions exists for the Hamas arms smuggling tunnels in the Rafiach/Philidephi corridor between the southern Gaza Strip and Egypt.
The Muqata has a real proposal, that offers many, many positive aspects solutions, and is workable.
I present, the modified Med-Dead project. The project proposal has been around for decades -- and in a nutshell is this. A waterway canal is dug from the Mediterranean Sea (sea level), eastwards across Israel to the Dead Sea (420 metres (1378 ft) below sea level, and its shores are the lowest point on the surface of the Earth on dry land.)
This would accomplish the following:
1. Start refilling the Dead Sea, which is evaporating away year by year.
2. Provide for a water desalination plant -- desperately needed water sources for the region.
3. Create thousands of jobs.
4. All for Creation of a hydroelectric generation plant, (the 420 water drop is perfect for hydrop electric generation) -- clean, green, energy.
The Muqata's plan goes one step forward. We propose that the initial water channel from the Medeterannean Sea start not on the Israeli shoreline, but on the Gaza shoreline at its southernmost point. By carving out a 500 meter wide channel for this waterway, it would be virtually impossible for underground tunnels to be built for arms smuggling.
5. Prevention of arms smuggling to Gaza.
Seeing that this is a win-win-win solution for the entire region, I would expect the UN and EU support it fully.
#1
Not bad, but they might consider running it along the south coast of Gaza and then up the East border so that Gaza is hemmed in on three sides by water. That would cut down a lot of nonsense.
Before raising the issue of the inevitable disappearance of Israel, which makes the west furious to hear; let's say that the Jewish living in Palestine for centuries is purely Palestinian citizen, therefore, there's no difference between him and any other Palestinian, except on the religious point of view, because the right of citizenship is granted for everybody, no matter his/her religion is.
As far as the Jewish who came from Poland, Russia, the US, Oman or Somalia, he is considered as an invader, and there's no difference between him and French who invaded Algeria in 1880, while managing making of it an extension to France, but at the end their colonialism came to an end, simply because their existence was against life and nature.
After this pivot point, let's say, far from religious logic that puts Arabs and Jews in an infinite clash that is pretended to end by the disappearance of one of the dispute parties, therefore the Israeli entity is surely to disappear from Palestine, even if all major forces on earth gathered to protect it from its inevitable fate. I say this because history has taught me that the disappearance and vanishing backed up by the curse of history is the inevitable end of all Barbarises recorded by the history of human full of conflicts, while Israel could not make the exception, because she has been reincarnating Barbarism since its existence.
Above this, the entire world tends and head towards unity and integration, one way or the other, but Israel, which is isolated by a wall that separates her from an environment that has never been and never will be hers. So how could Israel pursue existence in a world transformed by technology into a small village?
Above all, let's take a look at the nature of the region, including the ground, human beings, geography, culture, customs and traditions etc...Could invaders who came from Easter Europe or Latin America convert into Arabs and get melted in the entity of the region? In case such a thing happens, Israel entity would disappear, otherwise, if they don't melt, the time would convict them to endless conflicts and wars that would stop by their vanishing. I say this because the survival is for the sons of the region which is their unique homeland inherited from ancestors. In turn, invaders, their sons and grandsons are surely to return, one day, to lands of their ancestors!
Posted by: Fred ||
01/04/2009 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#2
Umm, Ahmad, the Jews were there long before the Arabs invaded and conquered it.
They were there when the Romans conquered the area, and the Egyptians, and the Babylonians, and on and on.
Posted by: Rambler in Virginia ||
01/04/2009 0:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Ahmad,
Please find someone else to translate your 'writings'.
Signed, Infidel
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/04/2009 0:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'll give the paedo prophet worshipper a bet.
They'll still be loads of synagogues and churches around long after the last building formerly known as a mosque is used as a museum about islamofascism.
#6
The global jihad and revival of Nazidom exist for two reasons: Unstinting support from the depraved internal culture of the media-industrial complex and the related ability of oil-rich barbarians to effectively bribe western elites.
Both are doomed, and it is the jihad that is headed for extinction.
Beyond that, Petraeus and the US armed forces have shown the way in Iraq, so it may happen sooner than many believe.
#7
the Ancient Arab Philosophers are shedding bitter tears in their graves in shame of the mind boggling non-sense musings of their remote decendant Ahmad "the great".
#11
Personally, Old Spook, I am NOT racist - I'm a realist.
1) I believe that all my enemies should be made doorknob-dead.
2) Muzzies have declared themselves my enemies.
3) See rule 1.
I think the rest of the world could go along with that, if they only had enough working synapses to think beyond their ingrained prejudices.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/04/2009 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The conflict will end in one of three possible ways. (1) Israel shoves the Arabs out of the region and possibly conquers neighboring states (possibly setting up friendly governments aka Kurds, Marionites, etc) to ensure Israel is not attacked. (2) The Arabs learn that it costs more to continue to fight than to make peace, this is the Ireland scenerio. I don't see it happening until the entire world realizes who is the instigator in this conflict. (3) Israel is destroyed, by nukes or because they gave up and emigrate out
#13
OldPatriot - the thing is you don't care what country the come from nor what color they are.
That just doesnt happen with Arabs -- they fixate on national origin and color. Look at how the Arab descent Muslims abuse black African Muslims in places like the coastal areas of east africa.
#14
As far as the Jewish who came from Poland, Russia, the US, Oman or Somalia, he is considered as an invader
yes Ahmed, just like the Muslim invaders who expanded out of the Saudi Apartheid Islamic Republic. Remember the Battle of Vienna? Oh, you say that's different.
#15
ION ISRAELI MIL FORUM > ISLAMIC GROUP [Observer Islamic Countries] DEMANDS SEAT AT UNITED NATIONS [UNSC] FOR ISLAMIC STATES; + HAMAS, AL QQAEDA [Hizb Hezbs Huzbs?] THREATEN JEWISH TARGETS ABROAD + DENMARK > PAMPLET: KILL JEWS EEVRYWHERE IN THEIR WORLD. No Peace of any sort wid the Jews, JUST KILL 'EM WHEREVER THE ARE???, + PRO-JIHAD VIOLENCE/RIOTS BREAKS OUT IN FRANCE AND GREECE [ + Italy]!?
#16
OOPSIES, my bad [coughs/bronchitis?], SAME > FRONTPAGE MAGZ = A CALIPHATE FROM THE RED SEA TO THE CASPIAN: RADICLA ISLAM EXPANDS ACROSS RUSSIA. Article refers to Russ Officio=General on INTERFAX, as per the WIDESPREAD EXPANSION OF RADICAL ISLAMISM IN PRACTICALLY ALL REGIONS OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION......"
January 3, 2009: The Israeli attack on Hamas forces in Gaza on December 27th, hit fifty targets within 220 seconds. The fifty Israeli aircraft assembled off the coast, and delivered a well rehearsed attack designed to take out Hamas targets before key commanders could get away. Israeli intelligence had discovered Hamas plans for such an Israeli attack, which involved key Hamas personnel immediately dispersing to hiding places. These included hospitals, where the Hamas men would dress in staff uniforms and blend in. Other safe havens included nursery schools, and other places where the Hamas officials would be surrounded by lots of civilians at all times. Thus the tight timing for the Israeli attack, intended to catch the key Hamas personnel before they could disperse.
Hamas knew that the Israelis have an informant network in Gaza. The key to Israeli success in dealing with Palestinian terrorists has always been an informant network within the Palestinian community. Many of these Palestinian informants are doing it for the money. Israelis pay for information. They also use other inducements (help with the bureaucracy, medical care, etc). If that fails, they use blackmail and threats. Palestinian terrorist organizations have been unsuccessful in their attempts to shut down the informant networks, and many innocent Palestinians have died simply because they were falsely accused of being informants.
In addition, the Israelis gain a lot of information via electronic intelligence work and UAVs that are constantly in the air over Gaza. Israel seeks to make the terrorists think that it's the gadgets, not informants, gathering the information. To the Israelis, inducing paranoia among the Palestinians is seen as a successful weapon. All this has helped keep the terrorists out of Israel for nearly five years now, something no one thought was possible.
The Israelis also have hundreds of police and military operatives who can pass as Arabs (their families came from Arab countries shortly after Israel was founded in 1947). These Israelis speak fluent Arabic (with a Palestinian accent), in addition to their Arab appearance. These agents dress as Palestinians and enter Palestinian areas to recruit and run Palestinian informants. At least in the West Bank. In Gaza, the Israelis use pro-Fatah Palestinians. At least a third of the Gaza population is still pro-Fatah, and continued Hamas pressure has not changed that.
The Israelis also make use of the phone system to avoid civilian casualties. For example, the bombing campaign after the initial attack was directed mostly at the thousands of rockets Hamas had stockpiled. Most of these were stored in civilian housing. This was a technique pioneered by Hezbollah in Lebanon. There, some homes would have a basement excavated, to provide more space for rockets. Israeli intelligence is still identifying these storage locations. When one is found, the Israelis will phone the home just before the attack and tell the civilians they have a few minutes to get out before the place blows up. In at least one case, the civilians were defiant, and went to the roof, believing that the Israelis would not bomb with women and children in plain sight. In response, the Israeli fighter came in low and fired some 20mm cannon shells right next to the building. The panicked civilians fled the building and the place blew up shortly thereafter.
Armed robotic aircraft soar in the skies above Pakistan, hurling death down on America's enemies in the war on terrorism. Soon -- years, not decades, from now -- American armed robots will patrol on the ground as well, fundamentally transforming the face of battle. Conventional war, even genocide, may be abolished by a robotic American Peace.
The detachment with which the United States can inflict death upon our enemies is surely one reason why U.S. military involvement around the world has expanded over the past two decades. The excellence of American military technology makes it possible for U.S. forces to inflict vast damage upon the enemy while suffering comparatively modest harm in return. War is about the sacrifice of blood and treasure, and the American style of war is to substitute treasure for blood. From the early days of the republic, when Eli Whitney is said to have used interchangeable parts to manufacture superior muskets, to the invention of Gatling guns and Kevlar armor, American ingenuity has been devoted to devising ever more efficient ways of killing the enemy and preventing the enemy from killing us.
One common factor in much of American military prowess is the surprisingly obscure fact of modern life known as Moore's Law. Gordon Moore, a co-founder of Intel, noticed nearly half a century ago that computing power seemed to be doubling about every two years. Laptops, cellphones, the Internet -- they're simply commentaries on Moore's Law. The rapid emergence of the armed unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) that roam over Pakistan is a sequel to Moore's Law. Onboard computers became far more powerful, so automatic pilots became far more competent. Signal processors became more sophisticated, facilitating collection and processing of more interesting intelligence. Global Positioning System receivers shrank and could be economically employed on small robotic aircraft. Precision-guided munitions could deliver lethal firepower. And so forth.
The U.S. Navy has arguably moved farthest toward substituting treasure for blood. A generation ago the Reagan administration brought World War II-era battleships out of mothballs to provide gunfire support to onshore operations. With a crew of more than 1,500, these ships were designed to be manned by the low-paid draftees of the 1940s, not the more amply rewarded volunteers of the 1980s. The Navy couldn't afford them, and the ships were soon returned to mothballs. In their place, the Navy came up with the new DDG-1000 Zumwalt destroyer, an automated warship with a crew of only 150.
The Air Force is also moving down this path. Long skeptical of UAVs, it has begun to embrace them as the future of air power. Piloted aircraft face fundamental limits of crew fatigue. Heavy bombers flying from the island base of Diego Garcia to Afghanistan would spend more than a dozen hours flying to and from the target area, leaving little time for loitering over it. In contrast, large bomber-size UAVs can spend days over the target. At some point in the next decade, the Air Force will begin replacing cockpits with robotic pilots.
The Army has benefited far less than the Navy and the Air Force from the substitution of treasure for blood. In World War II, the Sherman tank had a crew of five. Sixty years later, the Abrams tank has a crew of four. In World War II, the M1 Garand rifle required one infantryman to pull the trigger, and today's M16 requires the same -- not exactly a testament to improved labor productivity. But now the Army stands on the threshold of one of the greatest transformations in war-fighting history, on the short list with steel and gunpowder. The Future Combat Systems program is aimed at developing an array of new vehicles and systems -- including armed robots. The robots of past science fiction were governed by Isaac Asimov's Three Laws, which precluded bringing harm to humans. But the real robots of the future will be different. Within a decade, the Army will field armed robots with intellects that possess, as H.G. Wells put it, "minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic."
Let us dwell on "unsympathetic." These killers will be utterly without remorse or pity when confronting the enemy. That's something new. In 1947, military historian S.L.A. Marshall published "Men Against Fire," which documented the fundamental difference between real soldiers and movie soldiers: Most real soldiers will not shoot at the enemy. Most won't even discharge their weapons, and most of the rest do no more than spray bullets in the enemy's general direction. These findings remain controversial, but the hundreds of thousands of bullets expended in Iraq for every enemy combatant killed suggests that it's not too far off the mark. Only a few troops, perhaps 1 percent, will actually direct aimed fire at the enemy with the intent to kill. These troops are treasured, and set apart, and called snipers.
Armed robots will all be snipers. Stone-cold killers, every one of them. They will aim with inhuman precision and fire without human hesitation. They will not need bonuses to enlist or housing for their families or expensive training ranges or retirement payments. Commanders will order them onto battlefields that would mean certain death for humans, knowing that the worst to come is a trip to the shop for repairs. The writing of condolence letters would become a lost art. No human army could withstand such an onslaught. Such an adversary would present the enemy with the simple choice of martyrdom or flight. So equipped, America's military would be irresistible in battle.
This would not be a panacea. Thugs would still rob pedestrians, organized crime would persist and so too would terrorists and other small bands of men of violence. But the large-scale organized killing that has characterized six millenniums of human history could be ended by the fiat of the American Peace.
Genocide, and the failure of the outside word to intervene, could also become a thing of the past. The industrialized murder of the Holocaust could perhaps have been disrupted by Allied bombers, but subsequent genocides have been less institutionalized, and far less vulnerable to air power. Intervention would require infantry and a decision to accept casualties. Genocide prevention may be in the interest of our common humanity, but it has never been in the national interest. But with no body bags to explain to bewildered voters, America's leaders may be less hesitant in the future about imposing an end to atrocities in places such as Darfur.
#1
He sounds like he can not reconcile a good like stopping genocide with the fact that it is the USA that will be doing it. I wish this knuckle-head would make up his mind.
Then again, we are talking about John Pike, who was too lefty (and full of himself) for even the FAS
Most real soldiers will not shoot at the enemy. Most won't even discharge their weapons, and most of the rest do no more than spray bullets in the enemy's general direction.
Sir, your ignorace is showing. These little pseudo-factoids has not been true for 40 odd years now.
All soldeirs are extensively (and expensively) trained and indoctrinated to shoot to kill human targets. Even the S-1 Clerks. The reason for high ammo consumption in theater is the regular and frequent in country range time all soldiers see. We don't use "death blossom" react to contact drills, or high volume suppressive fire tactics anymore. Partly because of loudmouth, fith-columnist, useful idiots like yourself.
Posted by: N guard ||
01/04/2009 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And partly because this is a professional army, not the massive draftee-based one that got Marshall put together in virtually no time for WWII.
#4
What an exercise in histrionics. First of all, his assertion that most soldiers don't willingly shoot at the enemy is nonsense, for the simple reason that by a 15 to 1 ratio, it's not the job of most soldiers to shoot at the enemy, but support those who do.
However, all soldiers are given more than adequate amounts of *training* ammunition to fire, which is included in the total amount of ammo used to inflict casualties.
Finally, nobody has suggested that robots are autonomous in identifying and targeting enemy to fire at. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this would be a very bad idea for any number of reasons. So they will still be operated remotely.
#8
Right now it would seem that a narrow, straight sided ditch would stop most of the robots we have now. Vertical 3' walls, 2-3' bottom (ie small canal or irrigation ditch). Automate a tank? Perhaps.
#9
A generation ago the Reagan administration brought World War II-era battleships out of mothballs to provide gunfire support to onshore operations.
Uh, John, don't you ever do any real research? It was LBJ that brought the battleships out of mothballs. I was in Panama when the New Jersey (IIRC) came through. I have photos of it. Manpower was just one of several things that doomed the battleships, including the lack of trained personnel, over-aged powder sacks, the lack of a manufacturing support capability for 16-inch shells and powder sacks, and a dozen other things. As much as I'd love to see a few US battleships in the Navy, it's just not feasible with current budget, training, and manpower restrictions.
John Pike is (I believe) the current head of the Union of Concerned Scientists, and a left-wing moonbat. The factual errors in tis article (and there are far more than the one I covered) show that this leopard hasn't changed his spots.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
01/04/2009 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Right now it would seem that a narrow, straight sided ditch would stop most of the robots we have now.
The Army's future combat systems program includes a number of 6-wheeled, articulated robotic vehicles plus several airborne variants.
#12
As for UAVS, during the recent New Year's eve celebs here on Guam, I'd observed two objects flying abnormally over Agana bay, ostensibly whilst fireworks were occuring o'er Maite + Tamuning/Hotel Row areas - one had only a single RED RUNNING LIGHT, the other a single GREEN RUNNING LIGHT.
My first thoughts were MIL HELOS OR NIGHT GLIDERS, BUT THE ANGLES OF MANEUVER, LIFT AND DOWNLIFT, ETC. WERE TOO SHARP = CONCISE TO BE "NORMAL" AIRCRAFT OR GLIDERS. While the "GREEN" object finally stopped maneuvering and held stationary, the "RED" one eventually came next to it and BOTH MOVED OFF LINEARLY TOWARDS NORTHERN GUAM [Andersen AFB].
I'm inclined now to think UAVS = UAV TESTING > reminded me of Reagan-Bush 1 era SADARM [Search-And-Destroy-Armor], AIR-SPACE MINES, AIR TANKS, etc. COLD WAR PROPOSED PROJECTS.
Perhaps somebody up at Andersen AFB wanted to attend/see the fireworks but couldn't get off base shift, HENCE USE THE UAV???
#16
I read a review of Marshall's Men Against Fire. Seems, according to the reviewer, that the voluminous notes SLAM had did not include any at all referring to the reluctance to shoot at the enemy.
My father, an Infantry platoon leader with six months in contact in the ETO, also disagrees with Marshall.
One factor not acknowledged is that the Germans--the enemies in SLAM's book, were on the defensive. Which means they were in defensive positions. Hard to see. As my father said, they could advance a mile and see no Germans but dead ones, the living having retreated to the next defensive line. The dead having been killed by one or another piece of ordnance directed in their general directionk but without the firer actually having a serious idea of which German was where.
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
01/04/2009 22:20 Comments ||
Top||
#17
..., according to the reviewer
The critic also avoided reading Marshall's book done subsequently in and on Korea, in which he wrote that the fire issue he had seen in WWII had disappeared and that fire rates had increase.
Part of the whole issue about Marshall work is that the standards of today's data collection and techniques was applied against his haphazard methods which were literally the starting point of modern analysis on the battlefield. It's like comparing modern coding standards with the first generation code written in machine language or job control language.
#2
Some of the comments show that the Manmade Global Warming Desciples don't like the facts. They are True Believers in Goreism.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/04/2009 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#3
OTOH, REDDIT > ALL QUIET ON THE SOLAR FRONT FOR END-OF-YEAR 2008 - TOO QUIET!? Sciens is baffled as many theories and models bite the dust = fail to explain the curr lull [e.g. Cycle "24"].
YEAR 2010 [NLT 2012 maxima] chalks up anuther one.
* MADONNA "HEY YOU" [The RIGGER Song = Shipyards of the NWO/Apocalypse], formerly known in past as YOU ARE THERE ...ABOARD THE BATTLESHIP(S) OKLAHOMA/ARIZONA at Pearl Harbor 12/7/41. FIRST TO FIGHT, AND TO DIE.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
It's too late to fix Iraq before the pullout date. All U.S. troops can do now is keep trying to slow the killing and get out. They call it 'Iraqi good enough.'
Before raising the issue of the inevitable disappearance of Israel, which makes the west furious to hear; let's say that the Jewish living in Palestine for centuries is purely Palestinian citizen, therefore, there's no difference between him and any other Palestinian, except on the religious point of view, because the right of citizenship is granted for everybody, no matter his/her religion is. 
By John Pike
