[TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] Let's start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard's home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
One thousand four hundred. Consider the weight of that number, feel its tragic heft. Picture 50 junior-school classes of little girls in Rotherham, once a respectable northern town, now a byword for depravity. We have seen child-grooming cases before, but the disgusting stories revealed in the report by Professor Alexis Jay amount to evidence of abuse on an industrial scale.
Men of Pak heritage treated white girls like toilet paper. They picked children up from schools and care homes and trafficked them across northern cities for other men to join in the fun. They doused a 15-year-old in petrol and threatened to set her alight should she dare to report them. They menaced entire families and made maidens of tender years watch as they raped other children.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/28/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
i have to put pakistan and saudi up there as the most evil nations re religious intolerance and treatment of women.
Posted by: Paul D ||
08/28/2014 2:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Looks like the police have been instructed to help COVER UP child abuse.
These celeb prosecutions are a smoke screen to hide the inaction against the very guilty.
#3
The postmodern left can never acknowledge the horror of these crimes. To do so would undermine the great foundation of their entire world view and philosophy, which is that the white Christian heterosexual male is the greatest evil that the universe can create. This is the monopole to which the entirety of the rest of their beliefs are tethered.
If in fact something were to exist that were more destructive and evil, then the very basis for their universe would be null and void, and they would have to do the hard work of rethinking their most basic tenets. Most of them frankly do not have the intelligence, work ethic, or honesty to do this, so they resolve the cognitive dissonance resulting from the fact of these rapes by downplaying their horrible nature, and going on slutwalks, and railing on about "privilege", etc.
Add to this the fact that reforming their ideas might lead to a change in society where the current order which keeps nearly all leftists fat and happy on publicly funded incomes, tenure, and the like would change, causing anxiety about their pay and status, and it isn't hard to see why these sorts are so reluctant to name this evil for what it is
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/28/2014 5:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sadly, the Brits are past being able to fix this, and they lack the means and cultural will to confront it in civil unrest. This will boil until it pits groups of outraged ethnic groups in open rioting, then they will have to consider what the Empire did in India/Pakistan. Only spitting their little island. Oh perfidious Albion, how the mighty have fallen.
#2
Yes, that's the fellow who owns the seaside villa across the street.... but I have absolutely no any idea who he is. Now, If you have no further questions, I must get to work. The traffic to my office at Fort Clayton is a bitc* this time of day.
#4
Do you suppose the Kurds are so stupid that they actually believe that the US really CARES about them and will "be there" for them in their hour of need?
The US is a whore most of the time and deals with the gullible and the stupid. The Kurds are as smart as the next.
How else is the game played? A nation HAS no friends, only Interests. And the US will USE you if you are stupid. Its just business, Thinking otherwise is Nancy.
Posted by: Big Thromoth3646 ||
08/28/2014 7:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Big Thromoth. In matters of caring or not caring there is no thing like the US. There is a President of the United Sates whose name is Barack Obam.
#7
The Democratic Party sees the US Military as the people who are to server them hors d'oeuvres during White House parties or as the people who fly Pelosi to home and back when she is the majority speaker. There is no such thing as the WOT.
[NEWREPUBLIC] President Barack Obama Ready to Rule from Day One... 's decision to authorize aerial surveillance of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) positions in Syria suggests that Arclight airstrikes employing manned and unmanned aircraft may not be far behind. All of this is right and proper. Yet danger lurks. Ooooh! Danger! At the window!
The head of Syria's preeminent crime family--President Bashar Al Assad--waits, crocodile-like, for the American angler to tumble out of the boat. For Assad, opportunity knocks. If he handles matters correctly he can, with an assist from American inaction, return to polite society while others do the anti-ISIS heavy lifting for him.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
08/28/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Syria
#1
putin must have taught him these chess moves.
Posted by: Paul D ||
08/28/2014 2:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So, Syrian Alawites going to survive = deadly ambush?
#3
Frederic C. Hof is a Resident Senior Fellow in the Atlantic Council's Rafik Hariri Center for the Middle East. He worked on Syria-related issues in the State Department from 2009 through 2012.
RH Fellow and Foggy Bottom dipwad 2009-2012 eh? The author is his own bloody ambush.
By Jonah Goldberg [NATIONALREVIEW] I never liked it when George W. Bush used the term "evildoers" to describe al-Qaeda and other terrorists. I never had the least problem with the description. I thought it accurate.
A lot of other people objected as well, but for different reasons. I didn't like the term because it always sounded to me like he was saying "evil Dewar's," as in the blended Scotch. (This always made some of Bush's statements chuckle-worthy -- "We will not rest until we find the evil Dewar's!") I prefer single malts, but "evil" always seemed unduly harsh. I'm not a scotch drinker and -- never having heard the brand name spoken -- I'd have pronounced it "Di Wars." Just goes to show what I know. Taking exception to the term doesn't lessen the actual evil.
The more common objection to "evildoers" was that it was, variously, simplistic, Manichean, imperialistic, cartoonish, etc. "Evildoers" has a Dudley Dooright air to it. That still never changed the fact that evil was being done.
"Perhaps without even realizing it," Peter Roff, then with UPI, wrote in October 2001, "the president is using language that recalls a simpler time when good and evil seemed more easy to identify -- a time when issues, television programs and movies were more black and white, not colored by subtle hues of meaning." Peter sounds like a subtle sort of fellow, who could see 3000 dead Americans in other than a Manichean light. Yasss, yasss, the world is actually made up of shades of gray. It still remains that some shades are considerably darker than others. Those of us who see the world in Technicolor don't have that much trouble distinguishing among them.
A few years later, as the memory of 9/11 faded and the animosity toward Bush grew, the criticism became more biting. But the substance was basically the same. Sophisticated people don't talk about "evil," save perhaps when it comes to America's legacy of racism, homophobia, capitalistic greed, and the other usual targets of American self-loathing. Us Technicolored folks don't have any trouble distinguishing among "bad," "evil," "Evil," and "EVIL!"
For most of the Obama years, talk of evil was largely banished from mainstream discourse. Diversity is good for you. I've never understood the way that statement has always been met with unthinking acceptance. Perhaps diversity can be overdone just like anything else. Wearing shoes with pom-poms on them and dancing in a circle with the guys down at the Greek center is a bit of diverting diversity. Refusing to speak anything but Greek is stupidly diverse. But you can't get too far into diversity without running into evil and sometimes into EVIL! Diverse human cultures sometimes slice the genitalia off young girls. I, personally, would characterize that as Evil (capital E). If your courtship doesn't work out in Pakistain you might douse the light of your life who's just rejected you with acid. I, personally, would call that EVIL. Just adding the exclamation point when thinking about the things the Islamic State and its cousin Boko Haram are doing seems inadequate. There should be some sort of word to describe "beyond evil." An attitude of "goodbye to all that" prevailed, as the War on Terror was rhetorically and legally disassembled and the spare parts put toward building a law-enforcement operation. Well, you know. (That's a sentence in progressivespeak). Proper progressives are against war, even in the face of existential threats. They keep assuring each other that Violence Never Solves Anything, which any Gepid can tell you is bunk. A hyperarmed police force, on the other hand, is necessary to defeat domestic "terrorism" by those who would attempt to limit the government's writ.
War was euphemized into "overseas contingency operations" and "kinetic military action." There's always been something kinetic about the falling of a bomb from a B52.
There was still bloodshed, but the language was often bloodless. Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a protege of al-Qaeda guru Anwar al-Awlaki, shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he killed his colleagues at Fort Hood. The military called the incident "workplace violence." He was in his workplace, sort of, and he was certainly violent. The fact that he's a religious lunatic was thought to be beside the point, though it did cheat the victims of their Purple Hearts. The language Shakespeare and Walter Raleigh and Ben Jonson and Christopher Marlowe spoke has been soaking for the past fifty years in warm milk. It has become cheesy.
But soaking sanitizing the language only works so long as people aren't paying too much attention. "Whoa! Over there! Isn't that Kim Kardashian!"
That's why the Islamic State is so inconvenient to those who hate the word "evil." Last week, after the group released a video showing American journalist James Foley getting his head cut off, the administration's rhetoric changed dramatically. The president called the Islamic State a "cancer" that had to be eradicated. Secretary of State John Kerry referred to it as the "face of . . . evil." That was after referring to it as the "Junior Varsity of Terrorism." But if you were paying attention back during the Bush years you realize this is nothing new. One poor guy (I think his name was Johnson but I'm too lazy to look it up) was murdered in Saudi Arabia and the murderer had his head in his refrigerator when he was nabbed. But that was years ago, maybe six or seven, and we were all so much younger then...
Although most people across the ideological spectrum see no problem with calling the Islamic State evil, the change in rhetoric elicited a predictable knee-jerk response. There's always room for tut-tuttery, also known as rhetorical Jell-o.
Political scientist Michael Boyle hears an "eerie echo" of Bush's "evildoers" talk. "Indeed," he wrote in the New York Times, "condemning the black-clad, masked militants as purely 'evil' is seductive, for it conveys a moral clarity and separates ourselves and our tactics from the enemy and theirs." Or perhaps it merely illustrates the separation? No. No. That couldn't be it. James Dawes, the director of the Program in Human Rights and Humanitarianism at Macalester College, agreed in a piece for CNN.com. Using the word "evil," he wrote, "stops us from thinking." 'Tis my opinion that being able to recognize it requires you start thinking...
No, it doesn't. But perhaps a reflexive and dogmatic fear of the word "evil" hinders thinking? Y'gotta be started to be hindered.
For instance, Boyle suggests that because the Islamic State controls lots of territory and is "administering social services," it "operates less like a revolutionary terrorist movement that wants to overturn the entire political order in the Middle East than a successful insurgent group that wants a seat at that table." Tut tut, sir. It's just another approach to governance. Different cultures have different ways. Theirs includes chopping people's heads off and summarily executing prisoners and crucifying people. Who are we, who have our own faults, to judge? We used to have slavery in this country too. Diversity is good for you. Shuddup.
Behold the clarity of thought that comes with jettisoning moralistic language! Never mind that the Islamic State says it seeks a global caliphate with its flag over the White House. Who cares that it is administering social services? Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot did, too. That's what revolutionary groups do when they grab enough territory. Mussolini made the trains run on time or else.
There's a more fundamental question: Is it true? Is the Islamic State evil? I'd characterize anyone who actually has to ask that question as not too firmly good him-, her-, or itself.
As a matter of objective moral fact, the answer seems obvious. "Doh!" I shouted, whacking myself on the forehead...
But also under any more subjective version of multiculturalism, pluralism, or moral relativism shy of nihilism, "evil" seems a pretty accurate description for an organization that is not only intolerant toward gays, Christians, atheists, moderate Muslims, Jews, women, et al. but also stones, beheads, and enslaves them. Tut tut, sir. You're not being at all multicultural.
Who are you saving the word for if "evil" is too harsh for the Islamic State? If Lucifer himself stalked down the middle of Main Street there would a pretty big crowd following him. Dissent, y'understand, is the highest form of patriotism.
More to the point, since when is telling the truth evidence you've stopped thinking? Well, yeah. So they crucify people. Isn't it up to us to try and understand their culture?
Posted by: Fred ||
08/28/2014 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Islamic State
The Islamic State has created quite a rhetorical problem for the left. If they acknowledge the IS as evil, they have to find ways to avoid saying that the Taliban, Hezbollah, Hamas, etc. are 'almost as evil'.
Posted by: lord garth ||
08/28/2014 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What i hate is the leftards who actually side with the fascists of Islamism, who excuse the beheadings, the fascism the totalitarianism the degradation. The kidnapping of schoolchildren and execution of journalists. The forced religious indoctrination, the killing of gays, the subjugation of women and the legalised pedophilia with forced marriage of child brides.
all this is ignored
because the leftards identify fascist Islam with a poor, put=upon minority group in need of protection
to protect multiculturalism
meanwhile the intelligence agencies have grabbed the opportunity to try to massively grab power
to force courts to accept illegally obtained evidence
to claim immunity from prosecution for themselves and any affiliates when they deliberately break the law
and to have no oversight or watchdog looking over their shoulder as they massively spy without warrants on everyone
including with tracking devices.
all this because our gutless leftard societies could not gather up the courage to say: ENOUGH. enough multiculturalism. NO fascist Islam is not welcome here.
#7
The left is fully indoctrinated in the critical theory view of society in which everything is some form of oppression of the masses by evil powers who exploit everyone below them.
Look it up. I'm finishing my doctoral studies and most of the texts I have to use are riddled with critical theory crap.
Posted by: Bill Clinton ||
08/28/2014 13:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
don't argue semantics. Plan to call it former instead.
#10
After Isis and the monsters in Rotherham the defenders of Islam better be freaking quiet. If our leaders had any balls all visa's to the islamic world would require a lot of money and a year long waiting period and anyone caught overstaying a visa or abusing the system should get jail time (should have happened Sept 12).
BLUG
[Jewish World Review] The only real advantage to compelling the Ferguson police force to adopt affirmative action hiring policies is that the media will be tickled pink with themselves for striking a blow against "racism." On the other hand, more black people will be murdered, raped and maimed as crime rates rise. I guess it's really just a matter of priorities. Unless one is sent to me, I seldom read Coulter. She nails it squarely with this one.
#3
Jerkface, your are a jerk. Jewish World Review is an excellent i-publication, with a diverse and intelligent distribution of articles and columnists.
...Remember that every time you see a masked protester caught in the act of throwing a rock or a loving couple huddled in fear of dark masked shapes in riot gear, these images are as artificial and posed as anything in an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog. They show you what is in front of the camera, not what is behind it.
Look through the news reports of riots anywhere and you'll see the same poses repeat across continents and generations. The rioters are different people with different causes and agendas, but the photos of them are being taken and selected by the same people from the same news agencies.
There is never anything new on the news because the media has a pre-existing formula for handling any event. What we think of as the newspaper or the evening news just plugs actual news into its formula and turns it into propaganda.
The national news network and the newspaper of record tell the same few stories just like Hollywood makes the same movies, even if they seem to feature different characters and places. That's because the formula doesn't change. The formula is what we are getting from Ferguson's mob of professional and amateur reporters each fighting for the chance to retell the same story to the same audience.
#2
The Truth actually IS that Brown was a THUG and a THIEF. He got called for it by a White Cop, and assaulted the cop and was in the process of attacking the cop who was a smaller man INSIDE the Police Car. And the police officer shot the black hump right in the eye and blew his brains out.
That is real life. Happens a LOT. Live with it. You won't hear a peep out of the "Media" if its a Black Cop shooting a thug going for his face while making a grab.
Don't LIKE the story line? Want a new TV and few bottles of Chivas Regal?
WHITE mutha#$%^. Give "the people" what they want.
Posted by: Big Thromoth3646 ||
08/28/2014 7:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The left and many in the black community put forth a ridiculous narrative about what happened without ever knowing what happened. As things cool down and the legal process plays out, we will find out what happened. Most likely, the evidence will support a justified shooting. That won't matter, we will probably witness another round of burning and looting.
#4
Sadly, the cop has every reason to be terrified, of his own government. If his shooting was justified, and it may well be, and if an honest grand jury fails to indict, rest assurred that the DOJ will charge him with federal civil rights violations, a la LAPD, and those jurors will convict out of fear for their lives. You have seen this playbook before.
This administration wants him, screw the truth!!
#5
What amazed me is it was Brown's accomplice who provided the original narrative and nobody questioned a word of it (or provided any evidence to refute it for at least a week).
The cops in Ferguson were pathetic in the era of the 24 hour news cycle.
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.
[TELEGRAPH.CO.UK] Let's start with a riddle. If South Yorkshire Police can mount a raid on Sir Cliff Richard's home in pursuit of evidence linked to a single allegation of child sex abuse 30 years ago, why were South Yorkshire Police incapable of pursuing multiple allegations against multiple men who raped 1,400 children over 16 years?
[NEWREPUBLIC] President 
An attitude of "goodbye to all that" prevailed, as the War on Terror was rhetorically and legally disassembled and the spare parts put toward building a law-enforcement operation.
James Dawes, the director of the Program in Human Rights and Humanitarianism at Macalester College, agreed in a piece for CNN.com. Using the word "evil," he wrote, "stops us from thinking."
