February 14, 2005: Never underestimate the value of good will. In Kuwait, efforts by Islamic radicals to set up terrorist operations have, so far, been constantly thwarted. The main reason is the willingness of many Kuwaitis to tell the police what they see, which, for example, has enabled the police to destroy three terrorist cells in the past month. Eight terrorists and four policemen were killed during these operations. But 18 terrorist suspects were arrested, and several more are now known and being sought. Many Kuwaitis are still appreciative of American efforts to liberate them from Iraqi occupation in 1991. But there is also a major culture clash going on in Kuwait between conservative and moderate Moslems. The conservatives are a minority, but they are using their, largely self-assigned, occupation of the moral high ground, to try and impose their social and political ideas on all Kuwaitis.
More so than in Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Islamic radicalism, Kuwaitis are resisting the call for strict application of Islamic law to all facets of life. One way of resisting is not tolerating the presence of Islamic terrorists. Kuwaitis can see what that has done up north in Iraq. The Kuwaiti police and intelligence services have taken advantage of the anti-radical attitudes of most Kuwaitis, and have established an informer network that makes it difficult for Islamic radical Kuwaitis to set up terrorist operations. Kuwait is a very family oriented society. Everyone knows everyone else in extended families and clans. If one of your cousins has grown a beard, spends a lot of time at the mosque, and owns an AK-47, you'll know about it. Foreigners are carefully watched, especially those from Saudi Arabia.
The Islamic terrorists are reacting to these police tactics, but are having a hard time "disappearing" in a society that places so much emphasis on "belonging." In Kuwait, "don't be a stranger" isn't a friendly comment, it's an order.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/14/2005 10:52:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I remember reading after 9/11 that Kuwait was going to institute shari'a but then 9/11 happened and it went on the back burner.
Maybe Iraq will loosen up the parliament. They keep voting down more rights for women.
And they're making tons o' money from Iraq and US.
#3
Hey Sarge, don't listen to that MSM Crap. Kuwait Proper is as meek as a lamb these days. I have spent a lot of time gunning for //classified// over there, and besides being shot at every so often, the whole country is just a big cream puff in a big hurry to go somewhere. Remember R-Burgers, this Valentines' Day, don't forget to Shoot, Move, Communicate, Secure, & Sustain.
#4
And don't forget that there is no love lost between the Saudis and the Kuwaitis. The average Saudi thinks the Kuwaitis are rich a**holes. The emnity flows right back the other way.
#2
This is why I believe comparative religion should not be taught in schools until college where it is an elective. One religion or another is going to be "insulted" no matter what you do. I took a course in Old Testament and really had my eyes opened, comming from a Fundamentalist Baptist up-bringing. We called our study sessions, "Scotch and Scriptures". I don't believe most children that young are able to grasp the concepts of what a religion entails.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/14/2005 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Would they accept MTLHMOHS? (May the Lord have mercy on his soul) reference here
Posted by: James ||
02/14/2005 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This appears to be the policy of only one of the half-dozen-or-so examining boards in the UK, and OCR have been up to it since at least 2002 (2003 exam's specimen paper here). I'd suggest that David Holford asks that his school switch RE to another examining board. Some are better than others, and some are less pissy than others. Exam boards operate in a free market.
#5
I disagree, Deacon. High School kids are capable of understanding and appreciating that others have different beliefs (after all, isn't that the point of all the PC nonsense they've been fed since kindergarten?). And by high school they'll have noticed that some of their friends don't go to the same church, and wonder why. I'm starting to get questions from Trailing Daughter's friends about what makes Jews different from whatever they may be, and she is in 9th grade. I don't give them any scotch, though.
#6
But I think it should be taught as comparing religions: the Catholics think this, the Methodists think that, the Jews the other, Muslims... Bhuddists... and so forth. This (pbuh) nonsense should be presented only as "the Muslims always say/write this after the name of prophets and saints (or whatever), just as religious Jews do not even write out G-d out of respect." Treating the Muslim religion differently and more respectfully than the rest is indeed a mark of dhimmitude.
#7
I guess by the 9th grade most children do understand. Younger than that I'm not so certain. I agree with your post #6. But to get into detailed studies I still think College is best. The class I took was beyond High School level.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/14/2005 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I tend to agree w/DB. We didn't have any religious studies in high school & I think it's better that way. There's enough work teachers have to do just w/the core curriculum of math, science, english, history, etc that needs to be addressed prior to even hedging the relgious question imho.
#9
Me, too, JH. A general overview of world religions would add to students' knowledge base, but it seems like these religious discussions devolve quickly into why my religion is better than yours and would absolutely do so in high school, when kids are so ego-fragile. Plus, imagine the litigation nightmare when schools have to handle complaints about the ingrained biases of teachers for/against a certain religion? This sounds like a mess to me-I don't know what the solution is. I wouldn't outlaw a religious survey class, but perhaps you could protect the school and its families/students by 1) making it an elective course, 2)supplying an outline of the class to parents which they must agree to, sign and return to the school before class even starts.
(2005-02-13) -- With little international fanfare, Venezuela's popular President Hugo Chavez is quietly overseeing creation of a utopian society similar to Fidel Castro's Cuba, according to experts at several U.S. universities.
"Venezuela, an oil-rich land of 25 million citizens, has suffered for years under the vagaries of democracy and capitalism," said an unnamed professor at the University of Colorado (C.U.), "but Mr. Chavez has ushered in a new golden age of Venezuelan glory by...
-- unifying the judiciary,
-- reducing annoying dissent,
-- encouraging poor people to move onto land owned by rich people and grow crops,
-- replenishing the nation's supply of peacekeeping AK-47s and Russian military helicopters, and
-- replacing the old national anthem with a re-written John Denver song, "Almost Heaven, Venezuela."
The economy is expected to boom in the coming years, the expert added, as investors pour their resources into a nation committed to the common good of all of its citizens, and to stability and uniformity at the highest levels of government.
"When you look at the success of Castro's Cuba, you get an idea of what's possible if Chavez follows the same time-tested success principles," the C.U. professor said. "Venezuela will become a model of a new progressive vision for human societies worldwide."
In August 2004, Mr. Chavez received a ringing endorsement from the Venezuelan people during a recall election, when only 42 percent of the voters called for his immediate ouster.
Posted by: Korora ||
02/14/2005 12:02:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
We should be grateful that Kim Jong Il wants to spare us more rounds of the pointless six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program. They might otherwise have dragged on for years as Kim doggedly extracted all the aid and guarantees he wanted in exchange for more empty promises. The latest crisis raises hopes that the case for engagement with North Korea has finally run its course. If so, we should be glad, even though that case was initially strong.
The collapse of the Soviet Union and the liberation of its East European satellites were followed by the death of Kim Il Sung in 1994 and a disastrous famine in the North. Together, these factors made change seem inevitable. Pyongyang, it was hoped, would open its economy, abandon its ambitions to conquer the South, and seek a rapprochement with Seoul. U.S. President Bill Clinton tried hard to encourage such moves.
But Kim realizes that if he were ever to really reform, both he and his kingdom would quickly disappear—as did similar regimes in the Soviet bloc. So Kim wants guarantees that if he takes the risks asked of him, Washington will keep the dynasty in power. In other words, while some in Washington seek regime change, Kim wants regime preservation. Especially in South Korea, there are those who think that such a deal would be the best way to reduce tensions and to wean Pyongyang off the habits of a rogue state. But the analysis is flawed.
Whether or not Pyongyang really has a small or large nuclear arsenal—or is simply bluffing, like Saddam Hussein—the military calculations on the Korean peninsula will not change. With large stocks of chemical and biological weapons, together with special forces to release them in South Korea, and missiles with which to terrorize Japan or threaten U.S. bases in Asia, Kim already has all the deterrence any country could want. But the dynasty has lost whatever popular support it ever enjoyed, and the ruling family is riven by murderous internal feuds. To keep Kim in power would hence mean going against the wishes of his own people, while entrusting him with large sums of foreign aid—this despite his long record of corruption and economic incompetence. WoW! Rantburg is becoming mainstream. This could be a summary of our comments minus the ridicule, sarcasm and nukemem comments. We certainly do live in interesting times.
Posted by: phil_b ||
02/14/2005 6:24:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
and a disastrous famine in the North.
If it was Dubya's fault they'd have metioned it.
U.S. President Bill Clinton tried hard to encourage such moves.
#6
Our man JOE would whip his ass in a second, even if the so called REF were from some schemeing OWG monopoly like the NCAA supported by Burger Koening and it's assorted Betty Crockerites.
Posted by: Charles ||
02/14/2005 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Note to the Jihad-inclined: The United States still has 550 ICBMs in addition to 18 nuclear submarines that carry up to 192 warheads each. Don't push your luck.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/14/2005 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Bravo to Popular Mechanics for dissecting and refuting these people! Its a point by point debunking of the conspiracy theorists attempts to make 9/11 into a US Government Plot instead of what it was - an evil bunch of Jihadi's trying to kill as many infidels as they can.
And thanks to PM also for pointing attention at these sites and people - nothing roaches hate more than light (attention form the rational) and bug spray (truth). Especially assholes like French author Thierry Meyssan -who continues to pump garbage that the US military attempting a coup is behind the whole 9/1 thing - and is widely published in the middle east and France. (A sample quote of what France and the Arab WOrld hears in their "news" as bing the truth: "This attack, could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel.").
What the hell is wrong with the conspiracy nutbags?
Why must they contort themselves so badly, and try to delude others in their nearly insane attempts to run screaming from the facts?
Another thing to note, nearly every one of these sites was claiming it was a government conspiracy that either crashed military planes into the buildings or allowed the jet liners to hit the buildings on purpose in order to bolster Bush and allow the war to go forward in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. And every one of those type of sitse is a "hate" site aimed at Bush and the US Military. (For example, Indymedia is one of the cited loon-fest sites).
I think the Hate-Bush crowd is mentally ill, at least this part of it. They simply cannot accept that evil people do evil things with no conspiracy required other than that of the hijackers. Its very "Old Testament" evil - in their hearts they are evil and act accordingly. Liberals and these loons have no conceptual basis forEvil in their world view - moral relativism allows for any and all actions when you push it to the extremes. And add to that the cauldron of hatred these people have for Bush and America: They cannot accept the fact that George Bush has provided solid leadership as a "War President" since 9/11 - that the office forced "W" to grow into a good president instead of a mediocre 1-termer (which was arguably where he was headed before 9/11). SO they go to extremes to produce an alternate reality in which their insanity is allowed to blossom instead of them having to face facts and live in reality where Bush is right and they are wrong.
Conspiracy theories just can't be debunked because they feed on belief, not rational thinking.
Who believes in a conspiracy theory first wants to believe in something (in this case, the CIA/Jews/Bush orchestrated 9/11), and then they build their own "facts" around this belief which can't be shattered.
Witnesses will systematically be ignored. They can never be "reliable". Hundreds of people must have seen (and many reported having seen) that plane crossing the freeway they were driving on (it was still rush hour) and flying low towards the nearby Pentagon. They saw that plane seconds before it crashed. But no, they "cannot have seen it crashing into the Pentagon, because all they saw was a plane seconds away from the Pentagon and then a big fireball". How can you be so sure that the plane really hit the Pentagon and not that mysterious missile?
No way to beat that reasoning with stating the obvious, or with the question about just where did this plane go if it didn't hit the Pentagon? And why, if you already had a plane a few meters close would you need a missile? You see, all logic questions, but no chance.
The "true believer" will prefer to quote "experts" who will explain by small details that this plane crash couldn't happen, period. They have thousands of those little details. And if you manage to prove them scientifically wrong on all of these, the answer will be: "Umm yes, maybe, but that still doesn't explain the fact that..." and the Sisiphus rock rolls back down the hill.
The most important rule for conspiracy theorists is: Never say that something happened this or that way, always state that this or that couldn't have happened this way. Raise "questions"... the true believers will "connect the dots" themselves.
Has been done for centuries. No way to stop this. People just love conspiracies, because they make them feel "knowing" something that others don't. Whether it's the Templars, the Illuminati, the Nazis or the Bush Administration... those theories will always find followers, and in the days of paste and copy the most absurd ideas will multiply like rabbits.
That doesn't mean that REAL conspiracies don't exist. But a good conspiracy will always require one important thing: Only very few people must be involved. This reason alone would immediately disqualify 9/11.
#6
TGA, quite correct. For any 9/11 conspiracy theory to be correct, hundreds if not thousands of people would have to be in on the secret. It's not going to work.
I've battled the ingnobats from the beginning. The collapse of both towers was clearly due to the fire and the physics of the fire. Any knowledge about fires and buildings would illuminate that issue completely.
The Pentagon was hit by a plane, among other reasons, because the outer hole demonstrates that the plane hit just short of its target. Rookie pilots underestimate the distance above the ground when landing 7x7's. A landing just short is typical of a rookie not recalling that he is actually 40 feet or so above the ground and he must aim slightly "high" to land where he wants to. A cab-over type truck driver makes a similar error when turning, tending to turn too short. A missle would not have made the same error.
#8
I only made it about halfway through the article. Swimming against the tide of half-truths, innuendo, paranoia, leaps of illogic, etc. was just too tiring for me - and I didn't do any of the actual work of refuting all this. Some of the "experts" cited by these sites prove the old adage: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. TGA mentioned Sisyphus - I was reminded of the Hydra.
Bravo to PM for taking this on, though I hope they aren't expecting to change any minds.
#9
Listen, alot of those theories are obviously crap. But some of them might have merit. No, I don't think Bush or the gov't did it.
Bush may have reasons to keep things quiet, but that doesn't "prove" that it was a conspiracy by our own government. I know some here might be shocked, but the gov't doesn't tell us the truthallofthetime.
Let's seperate the poison pills from the rest, and see if there's any substance in it. Here's a rebuttal to the Popular Mechanics article, though sadly these folks are still convinced that Bush & Co. had a hand in the whole thing.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
02/14/2005 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Bravo to Popular Mechanics for dissecting and refuting these people! Its a point by point debunking of the conspiracy theorists attempts to make 9/11 into a US Government Plot instead of what it was - an evil bunch of Jihadi's trying to kill as many infidels as they can.
And thanks to PM also for pointing attention at these sites and people - nothing roaches hate more than light (attention form the rational) and bug spray (truth). Especially assholes like French author Thierry Meyssan -who continues to pump garbage that the US military attempting a coup is behind the whole 9/1 thing - and is widely published in the middle east and France. (A sample quote of what France and the Arab WOrld hears in their "news" as bing the truth: "This attack, could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel.").
What the hell is wrong with the conspiracy nutbags?
Why must they contort themselves so badly, and try to delude others in their nearly insane attempts to run screaming from the facts?
Another thing to note, nearly every one of these sites was claiming it was a government conspiracy that either crashed military planes into the buildings or allowed the jet liners to hit the buildings on purpose in order to bolster Bush and allow the war to go forward in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. And every one of those type of sitse is a "hate" site aimed at Bush and the US Military. (For example, Indymedia is one of the cited loon-fest sites).
I think the Hate-Bush crowd is mentally ill, at least this part of it. They simply cannot accept that evil people do evil things with no conspiracy required other than that of the hijackers. Its very "Old Testament" evil - in their hearts they are evil and act accordingly. Liberals and these loons have no conceptual basis forEvil in their world view - moral relativism allows for any and all actions when you push it to the extremes. And add to that the cauldron of hatred these people have for Bush and America: They cannot accept the fact that George Bush has provided solid leadership as a "War President" since 9/11 - that the office forced "W" to grow into a good president instead of a mediocre 1-termer (which was arguably where he was headed before 9/11). SO they go to extremes to produce an alternate reality in which their insanity is allowed to blossom instead of them having to face facts and live in reality where Bush is right and they are wrong.
#11
Bravo to Popular Mechanics for dissecting and refuting these people! Its a point by point debunking of the conspiracy theorists attempts to make 9/11 into a US Government Plot instead of what it was - an evil bunch of Jihadi's trying to kill as many infidels as they can.
And thanks to PM also for pointing attention at these sites and people - nothing roaches hate more than light (attention form the rational) and bug spray (truth). Especially assholes like French author Thierry Meyssan -who continues to pump garbage that the US military attempting a coup is behind the whole 9/1 thing - and is widely published in the middle east and France. (A sample quote of what France and the Arab WOrld hears in their "news" as bing the truth: "This attack, could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel.").
What the hell is wrong with the conspiracy nutbags?
Why must they contort themselves so badly, and try to delude others in their nearly insane attempts to run screaming from the facts?
Another thing to note, nearly every one of these sites was claiming it was a government conspiracy that either crashed military planes into the buildings or allowed the jet liners to hit the buildings on purpose in order to bolster Bush and allow the war to go forward in Afghanistan and eventually Iraq. And every one of those type of sitse is a "hate" site aimed at Bush and the US Military. (For example, Indymedia is one of the cited loon-fest sites).
I think the Hate-Bush crowd is mentally ill, at least this part of it. They simply cannot accept that evil people do evil things with no conspiracy required other than that of the hijackers. Its very "Old Testament" evil - in their hearts they are evil and act accordingly. Liberals and these loons have no conceptual basis forEvil in their world view - moral relativism allows for any and all actions when you push it to the extremes. And add to that the cauldron of hatred these people have for Bush and America: They cannot accept the fact that George Bush has provided solid leadership as a "War President" since 9/11 - that the office forced "W" to grow into a good president instead of a mediocre 1-termer (which was arguably where he was headed before 9/11). SO they go to extremes to produce an alternate reality in which their insanity is allowed to blossom instead of them having to face facts and live in reality where Bush is right and they are wrong.
#1
They're looking at it from the wrong angle. The results don't indicate a bias to the left or right. They indicate a growing desire for government to get out of our lives. The marijuana use, homosexual relations, and death penalty questions make it look like people trend leftward, but the diminished view on labor unions - which leftists favor - suggests otherwise. Looks like people are going more libertarian than anything.
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.
