This one's short, so I'll just include the whole editorial below. Got it through netscape's main page, in case linky doesn't work.
Twenty years ago, the Florida Legislature cravenly decided to allow law abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons merely by declaring their preference for self-defense. Then last July, at the prodding of the gun lobby, the current crop of state lawmakers proved they could be even more corrupt and cowardly than their predecessors by deciding to make the list of gun-toting Floridians a secret. I absolutely LOVE the adjectives and adverbs. Of course, to give credit, at least this one's in the Editorial section. Love the scare quotes around "law abiding" too.
Fortunately, a local newspaper has given residents of the state a final look at their representatives gruesome handiwork. Yep, folks it's gruesome to allow a citizen his/her 2nd Amendment Rights. All the fault of the FL State Reps, not the goons carrying out the crimes listed below.
When the law was first enacted, there were fewer than 25,000 licensed gun holders. Since then, the state roll has boomed to 410,000 and counting. As the veil descends on this dangerously macho part of the public record, enterprising articles in The Florida Sun-Sentinel are laying bare the fact that more than 1,400 people easily got gun licenses despite pleading guilty or no contest to felonies that included manslaughter, burglary and child molestation. In Broward County alone, gun licenses grew in 20 years to more than 35,000 from 25. Let's see divide 410,000 by 1,400, carry the 2, ah well, it's WAAAY less than one-half of 1%. But who am I to point out the obvious to this enlightened, progressive Editorialist?
Sampling records just before the law took effect, the newspaper uncovered hundreds of tales of mayhem, official indifference and glaring loopholes in criminal justice protection. One man got a license after pleading no contest to manslaughter in fatally shooting his girlfriend in the head while she cooked him breakfast. Another applicant was licensed despite guilty pleas to grand theft and assault charges for holding a handgun against his roommates head in an argument.
Those permitted to pack concealed weapons include 216 people with outstanding criminal warrants, 128 under domestic violence injunctions and 6 registered sex offenders. But, hopefully, Florida law enforcement put these goons behind bars for good. That way, the gun permit doesn't really apply. But, I'd imagine this Editorialist doesn't get the irony of pleading for criminal's "rights" while also un-arming the "law abiding" citizenry and not allowing them to use self-defense when these goons get out. Boggling mind and all.
The gun lobby, predictably enough, is blaming bleeding-heart, criminal-coddling judges and prosecutors for this grim state of affairs. The truth is that the National Rifle Association has succeeded too well in herding legislators to do its dangerous bidding. Lawmakers in 38 states have approved bills allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons. OH, the horrors, of allowing State Legislatures to arm their citizenry! And, who are these Lawmakers that are allowing democracy to work like that? Crucify them, I say, CRUCIFY them!
As in some of those states, Floridas legislators take the position that its no fun to have a gun if you cant use it. teee-heeee, that type comment will really drive the LLL batty, even more than they really are.
So they loosened the laws on self-defense to allow a civilian to stand and use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary. If lawmakers had any sense of shame, they would undo these lethal threats to their constituents. Serving the citizenry I say. Let's get these Legislators a medal or something.
From official Florida statistics, violent crime commited with firearms was 34.0% of all crimes in 1989, and 22.0% in 2005. In 1989 there were 49,524 firearms-related violent crimes versus 27,676 in 2005. In that same time period the murder rate in Florida was 11.0/100,000 in 1989 versus 4.9/100,000 in 2005, and the percent of murders committed using firearms had decreased (63.2% to 59.1%).
Kinda goes against everything the NYT is arguing here, but don't confuse them with facts.
Posted by: BA ||
01/31/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've got a great idea: Let's have a New York police Day Without Guns.™
No NYC police to protect the NYSlimes and its "people" (and I use the term loosely). (The cop ain't stupid enough to come to work without firearms.)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
01/31/2007 1:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nice opposing-view commentary and facts. Too bad the Slimes has no room for either.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/31/2007 6:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
My prediction: look for a renewed push by the Democrats on gun control and confiscation over the next couple of years. They're salivating over the prospect of a Donk presidential victory in 2008, and if they get it they will want complete freedom to undertake a drastic restructuring of American society along Socialist lines-- and that means freedom from opposition by an angry, armed citizenry.
Fair warning.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/31/2007 6:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
only in non-election years, DD. They figgered out that gun-control is a loser at the ballot box, and confiscation will have to be by other means...
say..."for the children"
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/31/2007 7:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"They figgered out that gun-control is a loser at the ballot box..."
Don't count on it, Frank.
Expect a full-court press by their paid propagandists in the MSM to make it a winner, instead. Their propaganda worked on the WoT, and very likely they're figuring it can work regarding gun control, too.
Fair warning: expect a LOT more of this kind of editorial.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
01/31/2007 7:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
More editorials, perhaps, but significantly fewer readers thereof.
#8
Actually, I like that the NY Slimes is doing this. There are far too many NY expats in my sleepy little backwater town, anyway. If the hurricane threat doesn't keep them home, maybe the "violent redneck" thing will work. Especially since not a freakin' one of them remembered to bring a decent pizza recipe with them. ;)
#9
I'm reloading. I'll read this later (maybe). Might print it out and line the litter box. There are a lot of people that don't beleive in the Constitution.
#10
Cravenly? Corrupt? Cowardly? Gruesome? I ask you NYT, why is that so?
Enacting laws which have saved THOUSANDS of lives, reduced the violent crime rate, reduced the murder rate, and made people safer is cowardly? It's gruesome? You people are trash. Go to hell, and I hope it's hot. Oh, and by the way, you stinking leftist criminal lovers, come and get my guns. I'm waiting.
#11
I got halfway through, this is pure crap, pardon me while i go re-read the constitution, I hope I didn"t miss the part where Florida was excluded from following the law.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/31/2007 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#12
We got an author on this editorial? I mean, somebody had to write it.
I can almost see the veins throbbing in their temples...
#13
I looked for an author, tu, but to no avail. So, I assume it's "Brave Sir Robbin" who wrote it. How "cowardly" of the NYT.
Posted by: BA ||
01/31/2007 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#14
1,400 is about 1/3 of 1%
And New York hardly has room to pontificate about gun violence, even with their "total ban" on CCW permits (except for celebs and friends of da mayor).
#15
If the evil Gun Lobby is mentioned in the first paragraph, such as this, it should be a clue that a sophomoric argument based on arbitrary statistics with no context will certainly follow.
Heres a figure the authors may want to chew on. In December of 1997, 478,000 Floridians were issued right-to-carry permits, yet only .018% had their permits revoked. Do the math. Seems to me there can only be two conclusions. Either the law enforcement officers that gun-control advocates always cite as being the sole arbiters for personal safety are derelict in their duties or more likely the vast majority of citizens that exercise their right to carry personal firearms are indeed law abiding.
Posted by: Sen. Harry Reid ||
01/31/2007 15:26 Comments ||
Top||
#19
An armed society is a peaceful society.
I've heard a number of people spouting off about how the Old West was not nearly as violent as westerns make it out to be. Indeed, statistically, the Old West was a very peaceful society.
What most of these people forget, however, is that a man who was not armed in the Old West was considered either a fool, a pansie, or to have a death wish. The fact that almost every man in most towns went "well-heeled" and felt as naked without his sidearm or rifle as if he'd walked out of the house without his pants made for a society where gunfire was an extremely rare event (shows like Little House On The Prairie notwithstanding).
When you know the other guy has a gun and knows how to use it, you're much less likely to use a gun to commit violence or mayhem against that guy.
Wyatt Earp and a number of other famous gunfighters proved this over and over again.
#20
It has always been a prudent approach to get there firstest with the mostest when trouble comes knocking. This lesson often gets forgotten.
Recently we had a horrific double murder of a young man and woman in out city. The young man was killed; the woman raped and killed. The man's body was set on fire. They were a nice couple in their early 20s. They were carjacked by three thugs--one just released from prison. The couple was not armed. Had they been armed they might have had a chance. Screw the misguided gun grabbers.
#21
...478,000 Floridians were issued right-to-carry permits, yet only .018% had their permits revoked.
The stats are very similar here in Texas as well. It really torques the Liberals off to no end. They screamed and wailed that passing a must issue CCW law would result in raging torrents of blood in the streets, and non-stop gun play. Sheesh.
I want to know when are we going to classify Liberalism as a mental disease and start confining these wacky people to institutions for treatment.
Or not. Treatment that is. I'd settle for just confining them.
The fact that almost every man in most towns went "well-heeled" and felt as naked without his sidearm or rifle...
You don't hear much about it, but the ladies had shootin' irons as well. Cute little things!
Posted by: Chuck Darwin ||
01/31/2007 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#22
The classic pearl handled revolver, Chuck Darwin? Suitable for pocket or garter? (Although the garter placement always struck me as problematic, given the layers of petticoats and skirts the ladies wore...)
John O'Sullivan's account of the Western victory over communism should have a place in the medicine cabinet of every literate family, as an antidote to the stultifying academic drivel and the self-serving bureaucratic memoirs that may cause choking.
#1
Spengler writes (and thinks) the way I only wish I could.
A millimeter or so's deviation in the path of two pistol bullets allowed Reagan and John Paul II to survive. Thatcher was a hotel room away from an Irish terrorist bomb. O'Sullivan agrees with the pope's judgment that his escape was miraculous, and thinks the same applies to the president and the prime minister. Mystical thinking of this sort is not likely to impress the mandarins of the academy, but indicates the right frame of mind to judge the events of 1979-89. Faith drove the actions of the great risk-takers of the West; it was faith that enabled them to take risks. Strangely, he does not mention some truly decisive events, such as the 1982 Israeli turkey-shoot of Syria's Russian-built air force over the Bekaa Valley in 1982, which demonstrated the vast superiority of US avionics, and convinced the Russians that they could not win an air war against the United States.
I had forgotten all about this incident.
O'Sullivan emphasizes Reagan's moral commitment to nuclear disarmament, stemming from his conviction that it was immoral to threaten the destruction of Russian civilians as a penalty for the adventures of their leaders. SDI ultimately became a way to push for disarmament. The United States was the great winner in the Cold War. In an important respect the Vatican lost.
Poland is the most Catholic country in the world, but its population is declining almost as rapidly as Ukraine's. Still the first printing of JP II's recent biography sold out in Poland, immediately. One of the signs of victory will have to be a rise in the birth rate of the next generation of the West. My niece's husband wants to go to Officer Candidate School, and she is expecting her 4th child in April. The question of the brown bells of Merthyr is being answered as we watch.
CEO's who support higher minimum wages are not, as the media often casts them, renegade heros speaking truth to power because their inner moral voice bids them be silent no more. They are by and large, . . . the heads of companies that pay well above the minimum wage. Forcing up the labour costs of their competitors, while simultaneously collecting good PR for "daring" to support a higher minimum, is a terrific business move.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/31/2007 6:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I am a Nebraskan, and chuck hegal is No Nebraskan. Hes a plant come to a smal population state to insert another brand of hybrid leftism on all of us....Nebraskans should send him packing, because he does not represent Nebraska values at all.
#4
Im not necessarily a Hagel fan. In particular I disagree with his stances on Immigration issues. And granted hes been openly critical of the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war. But Boxer of the Heartland a hybrid leftist??? Seems to me his voting record would suggest otherwise. Im not looking for a scrap here but perhaps someone can enlighten me.
The very smart military blog Ace of Spades HQ speculated yesterday that Tony Snow might have been launching a trial balloon for an Iraq exit strategy rhetoric when he quoted President Bush's statement that, taking the long view, we won the war in Vietnam because, 30 years on, it is trending capitalist and has become a pro-American Pacific Tiger.
As a former press secretary, I am inclined not to read deep secret messages into Tony Snow's comments. The president made an arresting statement, and his press secretary commented favorably on it. That is what press secretaries tend to do for a living.
But I (along with Ace of Spades, Mickey Kaus's blog, and I assume many others) could not help but hear Tony Snow's elaborations in the context of President Bush's less than ferocious State of the Union phrases that "it is still within our powers to shape the outcome of this battle," and we should [at least] "turn events toward victory."
All of this mental stretching and twisting comes, of course, while a majority of perhaps even Republican senators express support for a war condemnation resolution, the Pelosi Democrats call to frog march our troops out of Iraq (i.e. re-deploy) starting around May Day, and she who has experience with unnamed evil men (aka, Hillary) stamped her formidable Prada heels and demanded that President Bush should "extricate our country" from Iraq before leaving office, as it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief. (I suppose she is selflessly looking out for Obama's interest on that point.)
It is certainly bracing to be living and working in the capital of the world's richest and most powerful nation during wartime, and to hear so little wisdom or courage emanating from either the government or opposition benches. Even the capitals of backwater third-rate powers usually have a better grip on reality and their own national interest than we do here at Colossus-opolis.
It seems that our vast current prosperity and the still mentally reassuring great oceans that appear to guard us from the outer world's madness create the illusion in the minds of far too many that we are -- as a nation -- immune from the consequences of our foolishness and slackness.
Even some at the White House seem to be buying into the sense that "the surge" is our last chance in Iraq -- after which failure (should it come), Iraq will have to take care of itself, with a greatly reduced number of re-deployed U.S. troops looking helplessly on from somewhere over the rainbow (Kuwait, Okinawa, Timbuktu or perhaps the Epcot Center at Disney World).
Sen. Richard Lugar described in the Washington Post the strongest, most rational sounding version of a redeployment:
"A potent redeployment of U.S. forces in the region to defend oil assets, target terrorist enclaves, deter adventurism by Iran and provide a buffer against regional sectarian conflict. In the best case, we could supplement bases in the Middle East with troops stationed outside urban areas in Iraq. Such a redeployment would allow us to continue training Iraqi troops and delivering economic assistance, but it would not require us to interpose ourselves between Iraqi sectarian factions."
I am not sure that such a limited redeployment is exactly what the war critics have in mind. But even if Murtha, Pelosi, Biden, Hegel, et al. and the passionate anti-war element of the public would accept it, it would probably only delay full retreat. Because, to the extent that Lugar's redeployment removes our troops from Baghdad and other violent areas, exactly to that extent we will be getting poorer intelligence, have less influence on events and be more passive sitting behind fortifications.
How exactly would we able to stop Iranian border intrusions from these remote, passive locations when we have not been able to stop it while currently forward deployed? How would we target terrorist enclaves if we are not in the field gathering intelligence from the people (whose trust has to be earned before their tips will be given to us)? Would our redeployed troops be placed in the oil fields, or over the horizon and forced to truck or helicopter in when an emergency arises -- remembering that it is during the transporting of troops that they are most vulnerable to blind-sided attacks?
Both in conventional and counter insurgency warfighting, fixed fortifications, as Gen. George Patton said, "are monuments to the stupidity of man." In 1983, we lost almost 300 fine Marines who were supposedly bivouacked out of harm's way.
Now is a good time for clear thinking and speaking. If we intend to succeed (and it is vital that we do), then we must persist. If the "surge" doesn't work, then more troops and different strategies should be employed.
If we are going to throw in the towel, then we should bring the troops home promptly, lick our wounds and prepare for the inevitable Third Gulf War, which we will have to fight under far worse conditions than currently. Either of those options are at least honest (although the latter is dangerously foolish).
But the current mentality in Washington -- to pretend that there is a third way between victory and defeat -- is morally despicable. Washington politicians of both parties are trying to salve their consciences for the ignominy of accepting defeat by fooling either themselves or the public into believing they are doing otherwise.
Perhaps they can fool their own flaccid minds, but history grades hard and true. And history may enter its ledger with shocking promptness.
#1
AOS is a lifestyle, not really a milblog, but ....
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/31/2007 7:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Just because "Now is a good time for clear thinking and speaking" doesn't mean we're going to get any more of it than we've had since about 1993. The USA will have to get by with the electorate and leadership class than it has (shudder). The Seventy Years War (between 1919 and 1989) took many turns. By the 1990's the Soviet Union was no more, Red China was regretting its Cultural Revolution, and more recently the descendants of Ho Chi Minh are divesting themselves of government-owned businesses and hoping the US will lease its former Cam Ranh base from them. Iraq is but one battle in what will be a very very long war. Remember the current war is already the 2nd attempt of the USA to clear up the mess Saddam started. Noam Chomsky, the current intellectual traitor class, and John F Kerry, and suchlike pols, won't live forever. The veterans of Iraq will have been changed by their experience, and will have an increasing influence on the electorate as years go by.
#3
PACIFIC DAILY NEWS Commentary [paraphrased]> The Commies have finally learned they can't have either Utopia or Wealth or Global influence without the Private Sector = Capitalism/Free Markets; and that fighting change, i.e. saving the status quo for the sake of the status quo, is self-destructive and does nothing to solve the problems of human-based societies.
Their zealous advocacy of the invasion of Iraq may have been a disaster, but now they want to do it all over again - in Iran
by Francis Fukuyama
Not trying to wave a red cape here on page 4, but it's always good to understand the arguments on the other side. To me, the key paragraphs are these:
None of these considerations, nor the debacle in Iraq, has prevented certain neoconservatives from advocating military action against Iran. Some insist that Iran poses an even greater threat than Iraq, avoiding the fact that their zealous advocacy of the Iraq invasion is what has destroyed America's credibility and undercut its ability to take strong measures against Iran.
All of this could well be correct. Ahmadinejad may be the new Hitler; the current negotiations could be our Munich accords; Iran could be in the grip of undeterrable religious fanatics; and the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger. I believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist. Iran is, after all, a state, with equities to defend - it should be deterrable by other states possessing nuclear weapons; it is a regional and not a global power; it has in the past announced extreme ideological goals but has seldom acted on them when important national interests were at stake; and its decision-making process appears neither unified nor under the control of the most radical forces.
Fukuyama may believe that there are reasons for being less alarmist, but he also believed that we were at the "end of history" 15 years ago. Betting our future on his beliefs seems at least as risky as the dangers he points out.
#3
"the west might be facing a "civilisational" danger." -- just writing that puts Fukuyama out of touch with the current situation & into the class of those who are part of the danger.
#4
As someone who fervently agreed with the President's ambition to remake the islamic world into a non-aggressive, democratic and representative shape I can only agree with Fukuyama; the results have so far been less then impressive. I probably reach different conclusions that he does, however. The problem was not with our aspiration but with the possibility the death cult could be refashioned into anything but the dark religion of conquest and child-rape it has proved itself to be.
#6
I just don't see a land invasion of Iran happening either. That's not seem the way to go--it would be extremely costly. Even the U.S. and Allies have limits to their resources. There are other ways to bring about change in Iran.
#8
In response to 9-11 + 000's of dead Amers, post 9-11 NET > the USA can (1)costs-prohibitively invade any and all Rogues and induce local democratic regime change; (2) instead of invading everywhere, can destroy Radical Islam on limited, pre-selected battleground of Amer's choosing; (3) do nuthin as a nation, i.e. depend on the UNO and UN Sanctions, and only these; and (4) do (3) but increase Gubmint at home + martialize America.
LEADERSHIP = picking one and being willing to accept the blame for it. PCORRECTNESS = POLITIX > DOING ONE = ALL WHILE BEING BLAMED FOR NONE. Iff Dubya's strategy is (2), US Netters including many US Milfors said yarns ago they HAVE NO PROB WITH IT AS LONG AS "THE ENEMY(S)", i.e. THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR 9-11, ETC. IS DEALT WITH, i.e. KILLED, CAPTURED, ANDOR OTHERWISE BROUGHT TO JUSTICE. Iff RADICAL IRAN > US- and WORLD ACKNOWLEDGED MAIN = PRIMARY = PRINCIPAL SPOONSOOR OF TERROR, WHATS THE PROBLEM??? By any historical or pragmatic/realist measure, the USA is winning in the ME and winning the WOT, militarily politically and cost-effectively, aka CHEAPLY.
Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani is a most remarkable man.
Consider these attributes: a Muslim theologian who promotes democracy, an Iraqi Shia leader who supports national reconciliation, an international Shia luminary who believes Sunnis and Shias and Christians -- and human beings in general -- have reasons to cooperate and accommodate. In a just world, he would win a Nobel Peace Prize.
British Maj. Gen. Andrew Graham said of Sistani in 2004: "The pro-democracy moderate Muslim cleric doesn't have to be found. That's Sistani. Fortunately, he is the most influential religious leader in Iraq."
Sistani's influence extends beyond Iraq, into Shia communities throughout the world, including Iran and Lebanon. However, these inspiring attributes are the very reason the so-called "Soldiers of Heaven" militia targeted Grand Ayatollah Sistani for either kidnapping or assassination this past weekend.
News reports describe the Soldiers of Heaven as a "messianic Shia cult" intent on murdering Shia pilgrims visiting shrines in the Iraqi city of Najaf. The Shia pilgrims were commemorating Ashoura, the murder of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Imam Hussein, after the Battle of Karbala in A.D. 680. That murder fixed the schism between the Sunni and the Shia. Najaf (which isn't far from the modern city of Karbala) is also Sistani's home.
I'll get to the Battle of Najaf 2007 in a moment, but first consider who benefits from the mass murder of Shia pilgrims and senior Shia clerisy who support reconciliation and national unity. Here's the answer: the Islamo-fascist killers who fear the emergence of a democratic alternative to tyranny and terror in the Middle East.
Sistani offers a modernizing Shia alternative to Iran's radical leaders. That's why targeting Sistani immediately suggests a touch or two of Iranian involvement, at least in terms of funds and operational advice.
Radical Shia groups in Iraq benefit from such a horror. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has launched a new series of raids on Moktada Sadr's Shiite Mahdi Militia. That's put the Sadrists in a bind. Sadrist propagandists assert that the Shia radical militias protect Shias the government cannot defend. Savagery in Najaf plays into the propagandists' hands -- even though the nominal leader of the Soldiers of Heaven also called himself "the mahdi."
Saddamist and Sunni rejectionists also benefit from murder and chaos. We know from documents captured in February 2004 that al-Qaida saw a Sunni-Shia war as its only path to victory in Iraq. Saddam's supporters gambled that they could murder their way back into power by killing Iraqis and inciting ethnic as well as religious conflict. Saddam's holdouts have been trying to stage an "Iraqi Tet" since 2004, achieving a media-driven psychological victory that will force the United States to abandon Iraqi democrats.
Do these disparate, philosophically antithetical rejectionist groups cooperate? Coalition intelligence analysts suspect they do -- at least at the wink-and-nod level. Iraqi democrats and clerics like Sistani are their common enemy -- a modernity and moderation that seeds their defeat. Shia clerics in Najaf told The New York Times that at least one Soldier of Heaven Shiite leader allied himself with Saddam Hussein in 1993. That's one open-source indication of cross-fertilization.
So last weekend the Soldiers of Heaven -- allegedly a Shia faction, but certainly a rejectionist organization -- gathered at least 600 fighters (and possibly more) outside of Najaf on a farm owned by a supporter of Saddam's regime. But the Iraqi government struck first.
Press reports have emphasized the Iraqi government's and Iraqi Army's inadequacies. An Iraqi Army battalion dispatched to the Soldiers of Heaven camp encountered fierce resistance. It pulled back and requested air strikes and U.S. military support. The firefight raged for 24 hours. The Iraqi Ministry of Defense reported 263 militants killed and over 300 captured.
Striking first indicates improved intelligence. Iraqi forces striking first demonstrates improved Iraqi military capabilities. U.S. and coalition air and ground "back up" is an operational version of "strategic overwatch," which was the goal coalition forces set for themselves in 2004.
Mass murder in Najaf was thwarted. The rejectionist forces were destroyed. American defeatists and Middle Eastern fascists should take note.
#1
Well, yeah, but it's still an unwinnable quagmire.
[/disgusted sarcasm]
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/31/2007 6:32 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Austin Bay is a smart fellow but his Sistani-worship reminds me of Hillary-worship or Obama-worship or Romney-worship.
Its apparently very easy to let some political figure be the repository of your hopes and dreams and spin every factoid into a confirmation that this political figure agrees with you on everything.
#3
Meanwhile the NYSlimes called the recent annihilation of the Soldiers of Heaven position near Najaf by Iraqi forces backed up by US ground & air forces "Missteps by Iraqi Forces in Battle Raise Questions". Bit of a foiled agenda there?
#4
Bill Roggio has an excellent analysis of the 2 groups that tried to attack at Najaf (www.BillRoggio.com)
The first group is a bunch of Shia who were co-opted by Saddam. The secound group is part of Al-Qaeda that specializes in attacking Shia. The link seems to be Some of Saddam's intelligence officers that have transferred their alleigence to Al Qaeda.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
01/31/2007 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists.
This state was officially founded in the summer of 2005, when Israel removed its military forces and civilian population from the Gaza Strip and so established the first wholly independent Palestinian state in history. Israel's destruction of four Israeli communities in Northern Samaria and curtailment of its military operations in the area set the conditions for statehood in that area as well.
And so it is that as statesmen and activists worldwide loudly proclaim their commitment to establishing the sovereign State of Palestine, they miss the fact that Palestine exists. And it is a nightmare.
In the State of Palestine 88 percent of the public feels insecure. Perhaps the other 12 percent are members of the multitude of regular and irregular militias. For in the State of Palestine the ratio of police/militiamen/men-under-arms to civilians is higher than in any other country on earth.
Middle Eastern Arab depravity seems to know no bounds. It's the Religion of Beslan.
The writer reads Rantburg.
To keep from murdering each other, the Arabs of Gaza and the West Bank have decided to murder Israeli Jews instead. Their rationale for killing innocent civilians in Israel, as they did today in the resort town of Eilat, is an attempt to draw the Israelis into a fight with Palestinians, to refocus Palestinian hatred from each other onto Jews.
Personally, I have no problem with Palestinians murdering Palestinians. If I knew that the violence would be contained in the West Bank and Gaza amongst Palestinians, I would chip-in to buy them more guns and ammunition.
Personally, I have no problem with Palestinians murdering Palestinians. If I knew that the violence would be contained in the West Bank and Gaza amongst Palestinians, I would chip-in to buy them more guns and ammunition.
The writer definitely reads Rantburg.
I write this, because I think the Palestinians, and if not most, than certainly many of their Moslem Middle Eastern brothers and sisters are beyond redemption. And if they feel compelled to be murdering anyone, better it should be each other.
Several years ago, a Lebanese Christian client of our ad agency, who had just returned from a family visit to Beirut, told me how fantastic Lebanon was. After I told her that it wouldn't last, and that it was just a matter of time until Lebanon exploded into civil war once again, she became furious with me. I wish I would have been wrong about the future of Lebanon. But no matter how sensitive our client was to my future view, the chances of me being wrong about the path the Moslem Arabs would follow was very remote.
I believe that given the opportunity for Middle eastern Arabs to pick between a road to success and a road to failure, it's the odds-on-favorite they'll choose the wrong road. Anyone who thinks that Middle Eastern Arabs can be brought to the table of reason, is without doubt, not paying attention.
I believe that given the opportunity for Middle eastern Arabs to pick between a road to success and a road to failure, it's the odds-on-favorite they'll choose the wrong road. The territorial history of the Arab Middle East is clear. The violent nature of their religion is without doubt. The tribal instincts of the Arab people reign supreme. And the machismo of Arab men drives them the way testosterone drives a raging bull. It is these characteristics of the Arab world that makes their choices predictable and unredeemable. Anyone who thinks that Middle Eastern Arabs can be brought to the table of reason, is without doubt, not paying attention.
Ariel Sharon was absolutely right when he decided to separate Israel from the Arab Palestinians by building the barrier and leaving all of Gaza. He knew that no matter what Israel did, said and was prepared to sacrifice in order to win peace with the Palestinians, the Arabs would find every conceivable way to screw it up.
In 1973, former Israeli Ambassador, Abba Eban said: "The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity". He was right.
What can we do about this Middle Eastern sickness, other than building impenetrable walls between them and us? I don't know. But, at the very least, we in the modern Western Democracies governed by the Secular rule of law, should all work as hard as we can to find ways to totally disengage ourselves from the Arab world. There's no percentage for us to sacrifice for them, since what the Moslem Arabs want most is Jihad. It's doubtful that peace is anywhere on their agenda. What he said.
Posted by: Fred & Brett ||
01/31/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sunnis and Shiites are mortal enemies. Secular modernism was once thought to be the solution to that conflict. Now killing is like breathing to local savages.
Somewhere in the old testament it is written that muslim arabs will be a thorn in everyone's side until the last one is killed. I don't agree with this statement [ yet :-) ], but I can certainly see where it comes from. Some things don't change with time. Does anyone know the exact quote?
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/31/2007 7:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Numbers 33:55
But if you do not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come about that those whom you let remain of them will become (A)as pricks in your eyes and as thorns in your sides, and they will trouble you in the land in which you live.
Joshua 23:13
13know with certainty that the LORD your God will not continue to drive these nations out from before you; but they will be a (A)snare and a trap to you, and a whip on your sides and thorns in your eyes, until you perish from off this good land which the LORD your God has given you.
Judges 2:3
3 Now therefore I tell you that I will not drive them out before you; they will be thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you."
#7
The last book to be included was written about 130 BCE, just before the Maccabees. Mohammed came along at the tail end of the seventh century, I think. Could've been about the descendents of Ishmail, though.
#8
The writer's courage to challenge the politically correct view of the Arab world as misunderstood or victimized allows him to make many valid points. One line he wrote especially stands out to me: "But, at the very least, we in the modern Western Democracies governed by the secular rule of law, should all work as hard as we can to find ways to totally disengage ourselves from the Arab world." It seems to me that we should correspondingly massively increase funding for research on alternative energy sources and consider caps on immigration from majority Muslim/Arabic countries to Western nations until Islam undergoes a true Reformation which allows for its coexistence with the values of the modern world (assuming it happens at all).
#9
Islam and the Arabs will never go through a reformation until enough have them have died and their lives are hell enough to want too. Once the Middle east nukes up, they might have their chance to do that. I still think the first real nuclear attack in the ME will be between arab states.
#12
DV is right, the only question that remains is: who will be on the receiving end, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Hopefully it will be Iran, as it's hard to drill through radioactive glass. You know, one thing that seems to be missing from the argument of what to do in Iraq, AFAIK, is what WILL happen if we pull out. I think this is a major point that should be made. HEre is what I think will happen: Iraq will obviously slip into full-on civil war. That in and of itself isn't that big a deal, really who cares if muslims are killing each other. But I strongly believe the conflict will quickly become regional. Again, who cares if muslims are killing each other, the problem is they will be fighting on top of oil that the whole world needs. Oil supplies will be compromised terribly. I can foresee China invading Iran afterwards to secure some oil for themselves, then what? Do we invade Saudi? Does it escalate into a world war with muslims killing each other and everyone else trying to grab some oil? To be honest, a regional civil war is inevitable, we have got to find alternatives to oil. And while drilling ANWR and producing more ethanol are good short-term help, we need to be thinking about a post-oil world. It's the only way to ensure our national security.
#13
Assuming that all this about Arabs and testosterone is true, will the world sit by and allow the Arabs to sabvage each other behind a king kong wall, and live happily ever after ?
I think not. We will continue to engage them, and therefore continue to allow them access to bomb us and continue this conflict ad nauseum.
Kill them all without delay. They are nothing more than a disease. They are the tooth decay in the skull of earth. Why do we need Arabs ? Why do we need democrats ? Some kind of handicap in the great human race ?
#14
#12 -- Bravo for bringing up the necessity of planning for a post-oil world. It is a complicated subject, and many have a vested interest in ignoring it.
One of the civilizational dangers in the Persian Gulf area is the simple trashing of the oil drilling & export facilities. Leaving out Iraq, the other Muslim-controlled oil fields are leveling out their production, or in decline, as best I can tell. It is almost impossible to find a graph displaying world oil production through the year 2006. The time for complete disengagement of the rest of the world from the Middle East will only be after Middle Eastern oil is no longer available to the rest of the world, for one reason or another. Until then, we're all in this together.
#15
Actually, wxjames, I'd bet the world could wall off the savages and let 'em go at each other. I'm fine with that. Look at how much press and attention the Paleos are getting (while they slaughter each other)...not NEAR as much as when they're killing our allies.
While the MSM may show the savages killing each other, if we really walled them off and let 'em go mongol on each other, I don't think the world opinion™ would care. Note how much press Sudan gets. Or Somalia (except for recent intervention by the U.S. and Ethiopians), or Rwanda (until AFTER the massacre happened). And, with the possibility of nukes, that "wholesale darwin effect" could go off even quicker than Rwanda did. Just my $.02.
Posted by: BA ||
01/31/2007 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#17
AllahHateMe, it's highly unlikely the Chinese could ever invade Iran. They would have to go by sea and face the US Navy or they would have to cross Afghanistan which is unfriendly terrain. In either case they do not have the logistics ability. Will not happen, unless the US helps (which would be interesting).
#18
Kill them all without delay. They are nothing more than a disease. They are the tooth decay in the skull of earth. Why do we need Arabs ? Why do we need democrats ? Some kind of handicap in the great human race?
Yes! Kill them all. I reached that conclusion a number of years ago. These savages have been doing the same crap over and over for 1,400 years. There is NO reason to think they'll ever change. Arabs in general and Muslims in particular are a failed sub-branch of humanity. Time to prune the tree.
I'd bet the world could wall off the savages and let 'em go at each other.
Why? Why do that, just get rid of them. And while we're at it, lets deport everyone of them from all Western nations. Islam has to go, there is no escaping this conclusion. Try if you must, but sooner or later the hard decision will be forced on the civilized world.
Posted by: Chuck Darwin ||
01/31/2007 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#19
D'oh. You are right they couldn't directly invade Iran. But it does beg the question, what would the rest of the world do as the ME falls into complete chaos, threatening world wide oil supplies? While the Chinese may not be able to invade Iran, at least without preemptively attacking our naval forces in theater, I guarantee they would not sit idly by while their economy hits the shitter. And in that kind of scenario, what *is* to stop them from preemptively striking our naval forces so that they could secure some oil? Could they do it successfully? I think the answer to that would be yes, if they really really wanted to. Then again, maybe they would look towards the Russian oil fields. Regardless, the point that is NOT being made in regards to our involvement in Iraq, is that it is critical that we avoid a regional shia/sunni war, at least until after we have a viable alternative energy source. And by leaving Iraq too soon, we all but guarantee a regional conflict that could escalate to a nuclear conflict. We wouldn't be worrying about $100/barrel oil, there just wouldn't be any available oil.
#20
What can we do about this Middle Eastern sickness, other than building impenetrable walls between them and us? I don't know.
For one thing, we could take the oil. It is useless to pretend any government in that part of the world represents its people and useless to think the people are represented by anything except a depraved dark ages cult. All the talk of Arab science - lies - is hardly a fig leaf for the fact the oil would never have been put to use without Western technology, Western markets and Western industry and still would not to this day. It is our oil. We found it and we put it to use. It is an historic madness and civilization-spanning shame that we should have turned it over to the local barbarians for their sport of rape and slavery and mindless warfare.
#23
But, at the very least, we in the modern Western Democracies governed by the Secular rule of law, should all work as hard as we can to find ways to totally disengage ourselves from the Arab world.
Bravo! The lady get it. I would add this includes outlawing all forms of islam in the western world.
Like the Chinese would ever stand for guerrilla warfare. That's a western luxury and conceit. The Chinese would execute all the males and carry off the women for the millions of unmarriagable Chinese bachelors.
Posted by: ed ||
01/31/2007 17:30 Comments ||
Top||
#24
EU: ROFL. I'd love to see the Chinese in an Iranian guerilla quagmire. Warms the cockles of my cold, black heart just thinking about it.
The Chinese don't do quagmire. They cull the conquered population until it starts snitching on the guerrillas - they don't simply say "you are for us or against us"; they actually practice it. During their punitive expedition into Vietnam in the late 1970's, they are said to have massacred entire villages. They had no problem with Chinese villagers supporting their guerrilla efforts (with food and funds) - but when Vietnamese villagers supported Vietnamese troops, that's when they put their foot down - on the Vietnamese villagers. Guerrilla warfare is seldom a problem for a conquering army that is truly without pity.
#25
gorb might be thinking of the Amalakites who are, in the bible, descended from a marriage between an Ishmailite woman and Edomite man.
I'm not sure what I'm thinking, but I am sure that I am thinking something! :-) I thought muslims claim to have descended from Abraham's second wife or slave or whatever. I thought Sarah got P.O.'d at here for some reason and kicked her out of the house, which started everything, and it's all the evil Jews' fault, of course. Which is very convenient. Anyway, I thought it was these descendants who set up shop somewhere else, and eventually the Jews were commanded to go wipe them out to the last man, woman, and child or they would forever be a thorn in their side.
But that was long ago and my memory sucks, so I could have several things all mixed together.
#26
Arabs claim descendency from Ismael, Hagar's son by Abraham.
Genesis 16:12 "He will be a wild donkey of a man, with his hand against everyone and everyone's hand against him, living his life at odds with all his kinsmen."
#27
#3 Gorb you flatter me, but no.
#12 World is full of oil---it isn't just as cheap to pump as Persian Gulf's. However, Persian Gulf's oil is associated with some hidden costs which work out to > 10$ per gallon.
#28
Technically Ishmael would have been Abraham's first born son, and no doubt his heir until his wife Sarah bore Isaac... and the son of the wife outranks the son of a slave-concubine, whatever the chronology. According to Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible, the Ishmaelite tribes dwelt on the border of th Arabian desert south and southeast of Canaan.
The US justice system has finally established a trial system for captives suspected of international terrorism. Among the first to be confronted will be the Indonesian Hambali, who was seized in 2003. As operations chief of the Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terrorist organization, Hambali plotted attacks that killed hundreds. More than that, he effectively linked Al Qaeda with diverse Islamic militant groups in Southeast Asia, thereby turning local Muslim fighters into global jihadists. And he did this globalizing task so well that, even should justice demand his death, the evil he created will live long after him.
Hambali shares telltale characteristics with many young Muslim men who turn toward violence in Southeast Asia. His education was religious rather than secular, focusing on Arabic, the Koran and the chanting of holy verses, instead of skills that might lead toward a career in government or industry. Raised in West Java as Riduan Isamuddin, he eagerly attached himself to prominent emirs such as the co-founders of JI, Abdullah Sungkar and Abu Bakar Bashir, and Al Qaeda's Osama bin Laden. And he was willing to travel to acquire the religious instruction and the military training he sought, from his home in small-town West Java to most countries in Southeast Asia, as far afield as Pakistan and Afghanistan.
But Hambali also has three traits rare among Southeast Asian militants: First, he is impressively persuasive. As a young man, he was a successful peddler, and the skills of a top salesman have served him well as a terrorist leader, readily attracting new people to his cause. He convinced his emirs that he knew their will and could implement their designs. He gained the trust and cooperation of hardened fighters with much greater experience in jihad than his.
Continued on Page 49
#1
Sorry about the headline. I should have removed the "Legacy of a Terrorist" part and then the rest would have fit. Or probably better, I should have just left only that part. The article is good though.
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.
In the world of international diplomacy few issues receive more wall-to-wall support than the notion that it is essential to establish a Palestinian state. Leaders worldwide are so busy speaking of how essential it is for a State of Palestine to be founded that none of them seems to have noticed that it already exists.
Middle Eastern Arab depravity seems to know no bounds. 
