(hat tip A Tangled Web)
SIX United States soldiers on their way home from service in Iraq were placed under citizen's arrest after an anti-war activist (Hibernian Moonbat) spotted them walking around a town in their uniforms.
Shannon-based "peace activist" Conor Cregan aka dingbat said yesterday that he briefly detained the six on Thursday afternoon after finding them walking on the Limerick Road leading out of Ennis. "I placed the soldiers under citizen's arrest because these soldiers are not supposed to be walking freely on the streets of Ireland in uniform. It is a breach of the Irish Constitution and Irish neutrality,"he said. The six were part of a group of 238 troops who were forced to stay overnight on Thursday in due to technical problems experienced by their aircraft at Shannon airport. They were staying at the West County Hotel in Ennis and met Mr Cregan near the hotel on a public footpath. He said yesterday: "I immediately called for the six to stop and said to them 'I am placing you all under citizen's arrest. Do not move'."
The men remained on the footpath as Mr Cregan contacted emergency services. "I was put through to Ennis garda station, but the garda on duty made light of the matter," Mr Cregan said.
Green party leader Trevor Sargent said yesterday that US troops walking in uniform in this country "was a flagrant breach of Irish neutrality. An army of another country can't flaunt itself in uniform and it was an important gesture by the anti-war activist to ensure that the law is being upheld," Mr Sargent said.
So, this is how Ireland treats US soldiers fighting against the Islamic killers in Iraq? Sickening. Cregan was lucky he wasn't swotted like the pesky little flea he transparently is!
#2
Ireland needs more muslim immigrants. About 4 million "Palestinians" should do it.
Posted by: ed ||
06/30/2006 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"I immediately called for the six to stop and said to them 'I am placing you all under citizen's arrest. Do not move'."
"What happens if we move? You gonna whack us with a leprechaun or something?"
"Maybe it's some kind of bizarre Irish welcoming ceremony or something."
"But he said he was arrestin' us!"
"Whadda we do now, Sarge?"
"Okay, Kowalski, get out your cell phone and . . . um . . . call in an airstrike. Yeah, airstrike, that's it, that's the ticket!"
"But we can't call in an--"
"Shhhh! Baker! Not so loud! Ixnay! Ixnay!"
"But we can't--"
"Yeah, but Mickey McMoonbat doesn't know that we can't!"
"Oh, oh! Oh! This is gonna be funny!"
"Shhh! Shhh!"
"Kowalski, call in that A-10, on the double! And tell 'im we want depleted uranium."
"Sir, yes sir! . . . Hello, operator? Can you connect me to the duty officer at Eglund Air Force Base? . . . ."
"I was put through to Ennis garda station, but the garda on duty made light of the matter."
"Can you hold just a minute, laddie? Good. . . . Hey, Cap'n O'Crahey, come here!"
"What is it, Mickey?"
"It's that damned fool Conor Cregan again."
"What's he ravin' about this time? More black helicopters? Another unicorn sighting?"
"He says he's just arrested six Yanks for violating Irish neutrality."
"Ah, faith and begorrah, he's a queer one, he is. Must've had too much o' the Guiness again."
"Well, what do I tell him?"
"Tell him you'll report it to the Foreign Minister and he should go home and sleep it off."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/30/2006 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Best free riders in the EU and have the economy to prove it.
#5
Rep. Rothman Helps Secure $10.8 Million in U.S. Aid for Ireland As a member of the House Appropriations Committee's Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Congressman Steve Rothman (D-NJ) helped secure $10.8 million for the International Fund for Ireland, a private organization that promotes economic and social growth in Ireland. This U.S. economic aid to Ireland was allocated through the Foreign Operations spending bill for Fiscal Year 2007, which the House approved Friday, June 9 on a vote of 373-34.
Since joining the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations in 2001, Rothman has helped secure $100 million in foreign aid for Ireland. As a long-time supporter of Ireland, Rothman is a member of the Friends of Ireland Caucus, a congressional organization that focuses on issues related to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland.
Posted by: ed ||
06/30/2006 19:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Yeah, but ed, that's cash money. That never, ever violates neutrality.....especially dollars. Heavens, no.
Robert Godwin just takes these two apart. This is gonna leave a mark.
The various elements that make up the perversion that drives men like Keller and boys like Pinch are too well known to dwell on at length here. In the most general terms the perversion presents as an emptiness of soul, an abiding cynicism about the good that lies at the foundation of the nation, a smug waft of amoral sanctimony, an obsessive concern with the primping and feathering of the body, an immense self-regard for one's privileged set that justifies the notion that a few men can know better than a majority of citizens what is good for all, and a kind of intellectual pouting that is unremitting when the majority ceases to respect, patronize, and admire the trappings and outer glitter of the perversion.
A more precise term for the feeling both the man Keller and the boy-man Pinch receive from their compulsive "news-making" activities is frisson, meaning "A moment of intense excitement; a shudder." A frisson has much to recommend it over an its more intense cousin. A frisson is more easily had than an orgasm and not nearly as messy. It can be shared in polite company and arrived at through writing or speech. To achieve a frisson does not absolutely require the couple disrobe, unless the two involved are also interested in frottage; which is properly described as " The act of rubbing against the body of another person, as in a crowd, to attain sexual gratification," or its secondary meaning, most interesting when applied to Keller and Pinch's means of attaining their gratification, that of " making a design by placing a piece of paper on top of an object and then rubbing over it." In any case, even a cursory examination of the actions of the Times over the past half-decade would confirm that there is a lot of rubbing of one thing against another in the highest editorial offices, even if it is limited to a frottage of sensibilities similarly malformed. Much more at the link.
#1
For such people, there is little they fear more than being made ridiculous. Especially in the eyes of their peers. I feel a positive frisson at the thought -- even before I read the rest of this delightful article.
#3
Oh. The writer was using frisson in the clinical sense. A subject on which he has considerable unorthodox expertise. As well as a delightful vocabulary and an ear for the underlying music of the language. I wasn't prepared for all that -- sheltered childhood y'see...
#4
Treason isn't the charge I'd bring against the NYT or Keller. It's too subjective and hot. Violations of the Espionage Act are far more objective and less likely to create a martyr. An investigation should be under way NOW and should get at least the resources Plamegate got. Reporters and editors need to spend time in the slammer get the identity of the leakers. Then they should all be put on trial under the Espionage Act. Leave treason to the Post's editorial page and WND.
#5
Call that editor into a grand jury.
Ask where the info comes from. If he answers, call the next person. If he doesn't answer, put him in the cooler and call another editor.
We do want the leakers, but we also want to ruff up the NYT higher ups as much as possible.
#6
Some CIA expert mentioned that historically these leaks are often political appointees and therefore the president rarely makes the leaker's name public for fear of a little embarrassment. (May or may not be the case here but it's a possibility.) Either way I hope there are going to be a few folks quietly or not so quietly fired for this at the very least.
#8
TW - quite right, if they're Clinton era folks it's a no brainer to me. I just hope if they are political appointee leakers they are not from either Bush admin.
#1
I don't know if "Time's Up" is the right title or not. After the house declined to name names in their resolution, perhaps it should be "Times is a hero for proving once and for all that Congress has forgotten about the people". :-(
Posted by: grb ||
06/30/2006 7:26 Comments ||
Top||
Crime is soaring in New Orleans and the National Guard has been activated to assist in restoring order. How can this be? The city of New Orleans has been run by Democratic mayors for more than 100 years, and the governor of the state has been a Democrat for all but three times since 1877. This should be the Garden of Eden since the Democrats have held sway for so long. Everyone should be happy and prosperous; the good guys are in charge and have been for decades.
What is the realty? The education system is terrible, crime is off the page, illegitimacy is the norm and poverty is rampant. Yet when one reads about the results of Hurricane Katrina, it was all the fault of the feds.
I am shocked. The city and state had ample warnings to prepare for the storm, yet school buses were left to be destroyed, the poor were left to fend for themselves, the police abandoned their post, and the "leaders" blamed the federal government. That occurred because most of the population had been accustomed to the government taking care of their needs.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
06/30/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
WASHINGTON, DC - Congress is considering sweeping legislation, which provides new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act (AWNAA) is being hailed as a major legislation by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.
"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they do a better job, or have some idea of what they are doing."
The President pointed to the success of the US Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. Approximately 74 percent of postal employees lack job skills, making this agency the single largest US employer of Persons of Inability.
Private sector industries with good records of nondiscrimination against the Inept include retail sales (72%), the airline industry (68%), and home improvement "warehouse" stores (65%) The DMV also has a great record of hiring Persons of Inability. (63%)
Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million "middle man" positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.
Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given, to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees.
The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations which maintain a significant level of Persons of Inability in middle positions, and gives a tax credit to small and medium businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.
Finally, the AWNA ACT contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the Nonabled, banning discriminatory interview questions such as "Do you have any goals for the future?" or "Do you have any skills or experience which relate to this job?"
"As a Nonabled person, I can't be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, MI due to her lack of notable job skills. "This new law should really help people like me." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens can finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.
Said Senator Ted Kennedy, "It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her adequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation."
#5
TW, this post is by a resident of NOLA who has been pretty astute about the place in the time I've been reading him. For those who don't want to read it, the bottom line is that Landrieu, Nagin's opponent, would have made his top priority rebuilding NO slums to attract back reliable donk voters to assure his sister's re-election to the senate. So Nagin got the white vote to prevent this. Amazing Place.
Sodom & Gomorrah is what it already IS. The Garden of Eden is what the Donks promise it'll be, even though they haven't delivered in 100 years. BTW, the beat goes on. Here in Atlanta, a local cop was shot and killed last night by a Katrina Evacuee (assumed N.O. resident). Fortunately, the cop got off a shot too, and killed the punk DRT (Dead Right There).
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2006 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
BA: Thanks for the warning, 9mm by my side. Headed to Peachtree City in 20 minutes.
#8
Goodness, Nimble Spemble, they can't win for losing! And just when I've been seeing a bunch of ads saying, "Thank you, America! Come down and visit us," ads for the rejuvinated NOLA, too.
Besoeker, report back on your impressions, if you would be so kind -- somehow I suspect you have detailed "before" memories...
#9
TW: Peachtree City is a conservative enclave south of Atlanta. Basically, it's one of the first "planned communities" (read: expensive) and basically where all the Delta Airlines pilots live (Delta's HQ here). Sadly, I imagine it's gonna be sparse soon, if Delta goes under. Amazing little piece of sanity (lots of greenspace, golf courses, and everyone rides around on golfcarts on the paths around town) just south of a town rivaling NOLA's corruption. I think it had the highest per capita income in the state and rivals many FL communities in retirees.
And, Besoker: Cop was in DeKalb County, so I can't imagine any issues in P'tree City, although you never know in "da ATL." In fact, I was listening on WSB (750 AM channel in ATL) last night and the Crock show guy said he had a funny (not so funny) story on the whole recent GA law for registered sex offenders in the State. Long story short, a woman had an overnight layover in ATL and decided to spend the night with her sister (in Forest Park area). She decided to look up her sister's zip code on the Sex-offenders website and found 70-something sex-offenders in her sis's ZIP CODE ALONE! Then, she noticed there were 18 of them listed at 1 address, so she hopped in car, and drove over to that address to find out it was a HOTEL! Now, either there's actually 18 sex offenders "living" at this hotel, or they all gave a fake address to skirt the laws (no pun intended). And, according to the radio show, this was NOT a run-down by the hour type hotel, it was one any of us RB'ers would stay at (not that some of you wouldn't stay at a by the hour hotel, mind you, lol!).
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2006 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
TW if you want before/after commentary you wanna talk to RBs Matt. He's a lawyer, but also a Tulane grad. :>
#12
It was held longer by Spain I think. I blame the easy availablity of shellfish, rum and wymen. Which of course is just another reason to retire there.
#17
Besoeker, get rid of that pansy 9mm while you've got the chance. Get something with real punch, like a .45 or .40 S&W. I read one of Massad Ayoob's comments once in which he said, "Never go into a fight with a handgun whose caliber doesn't start with .4." That was good enough for me.
Posted by: mac ||
06/30/2006 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Places and events like these makes one sigh that maybe the whole place should have been put under martial law and kept there until the whole place was sorted out. It appears our uniform military in Iraq are putting things back together faster than the possers in LA can or will deliver.
#19
I took part in a "pin shoot" one time with a 9 mm. I hit all the pins but could not knock them off the table. I had a friend try to put down a sick cow with a 9 mm. 9 mm didn't much faze the cow. Better go with advice of advice of #17.
by Burt Prelutsky
It was inevitable that while most of the civilized people of the world, including millions of Iraqis, celebrated the death of Zarqawi, there was one significant group that pooh-poohed the happy occasion. I refer to those notorious party-poopers, American liberals.
Most of their consternation centered on two things. The first of these was that America had turned him into a martyr. Leftists insisted that his death was meaningless because dozens of Muslims would rise up to take his place, while millions of others would now be provoked into joining the ranks of the extremists. That is what the pinheads always say, but the fact is that by this time, after all the suicide bombings and after the killing of so many so-called insurgents and after the capturing of Saddam Hussein, if theres one thing thats a glut on the market, its Islamic martyrs. By this late date, surely they must have run out of virgins in Paradise, and be making do with divorcees, the recently widowed, and elderly spinsters.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/30/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Good points, but remember that Osama is the GWOT's equivalent of WW2's Yamamoto or Rommel, etc. Admiral Bull Halsey got Yamamoto, in part, becuz of his name recognition = myth among the Amer public as derived from Pearl Harbor - ditto now for Osama. Every known ship on the IJN Pearl Harbor strike force was targeted by the US Navy for destruction. As long as Osama and every other planner for 9-11 is left out there, Osama can attack again, and revenge for 9-11 and 3000 dead Amers, etal any new 9-11's, will be incomplete.
#2
JM:
"I really dont care if we never capture him."
I don't want him captured. The Yamamoto treatment is preferred to a long BS trial to be overturned by SCOTUS.
#3
By this late date, surely they must have run out of virgins in Paradise, and be making do with divorcees, the recently widowed, and elderly spinsters.
EEEEEEWWWWWW! What a mental image that brings up. Funny as he!! though, one to keep.
Posted by: BA ||
06/30/2006 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I don't know--how difficult is to not have any principles or anything for which you stand? Except the god of political correctness and the support any enemy of the United States?
#5
Actually, it's when you indiscriminately harass a foreign country's populace that their will for war hardens (usually). Killing the military head of a unit usually demorlarizes the troops. W/today's 24 hr news cycle I'd prefer their death to a circus trial. Trials are for criminals, known terrorists deserve the sword and no quarter. You shoot them like you would a rabid dog and without fanfare.
#6
Osama is the GWOT's equivalent of WW2's Yamamoto or Rommel, etc. Admiral Bull Halsey got Yamamoto, in part, becuz of his name recognition = myth among the Amer public
Go read the whole article, as you should for everything VDH writes. I'm excerpting just one key point here:
Americans know exactly the creed of the Islamists and what they have in store for us nonbelievers. Yet if we are not infidels, can we at least be fideles? That is, can we any longer articulate what we believe in, and whether it is worth defending?
The problem is not that the majority of Americans have voiced doubts about the future of Iraq arguments over self-interest and values happen in every long war when the battlefield does not daily bring back good news. Instead, the worry is that too many have misdirected their anger at the very culture that produced and nourished them.
Sen. Kennedy could have objected to Abu Ghraib so far the subject of nine government inquiries without comparing the incident to the mass murdering of Saddam Hussein.
Sen. Durbin might have had doubts about Guantanamo the constant site of Red Cross and congressional visits but there was no need to tie it to the fiendish regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.
Cindy Sheehan could have recanted her initial favorable remarks after meeting George Bush without later labeling him the worlds greatest terrorist.
The New York Times might have editorialized about the dangers of stealthy government security measures without publishing sensitive, leaked material in a time of war. It is precisely this escalation from criticism of the war to furor at our elected government and civilian-controlled military that is so worrisome and so welcomed by the enemy, as we see when it cleverly regurgitates our own self criticism as its own.
The military is doing its part. It defeated Saddam Hussein, and prevented a plethora of terrorists from destroying a fragile democracy abroad and the contemporary worlds oldest here at home. Despite the caricature and venom, the original belief of the 2002 Congress that there were at least 23 reasons to topple Saddam remains valid and is reaffirmed daily, especially as we learn more of the ties between al Qaeda and Iraqi Baathist intelligence and slowly trace down the footprints of a once vast WMDs arsenal. And the effort to ensure a democratic denouement to the war, both in and beyond Iraq, is the only solution to wider Middle East pathology.
No, our problem lies in two more abstract but just as important struggles over Iraq. Either we did not communicate well the noble purposes of sacrifices abroad, or, after Vietnam, an influential elite has made it impossible for any president to do so.
We can correct that first lapse, but I am not so sure about the second.
I think he overstates the influence of the "opinion elite," but it's still an issue well worth our concern.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/30/2006 12:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
I don't know if this guy's right or wrong, but it's an interesting take either way.
Today's Supreme Court ruling seems to me a remarkable point in the development of a kind of quasi-sovereignty for non-state organizations.
Were there to develop an Anti-Qaeda force, a private military to pursue Al Qaeda and win the war on its own terms, then their members would also have the Geneva Conventions apply to them, were they ever to be apprehended or detained by the US, yes? In other words, if the Geneva Convention now applies to a non-state that is a non-signatory in the eyes of the US, does it not then apply to ALL non-states that are non-signatories?
This is quite a large new degree of sovereignty that has been granted to non-state organizations. How will the concept of citizenship evolve with decisions like these?
If protections that normally accrue to states after debate and ratification can now be given over to non-states which have no mechanism for ratification, let alone debate, one can easily imagine a scenario in which non-state organizations form themselves and immediately possess the rights of a state, with no corresponding need to adhere to any laws in their own activities.
If this is the case, then we have the answer to the war: it will be privatized, and its ultimate victories won by uninhibited private military actors, not the hamstrung citizen militaries of nation-states.
Any legal minds out there are welcome to comment.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/30/2006 12:48 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...quasi-sovereignty for non-state organizations... Does this translate to thugs?
#3
World Intel + information collection assets for Radical Islam will be watching, listening, and reading HAMDAN and every other source of data - you just gotta know Radical Islam will interprete HAMDAN and related as evidence 9-11, and possibly elements within Radical Islam itself, were part of a US-led/originated Global PYOP/PYWAR Oper, else why would America = Amerikkka protect the rights of so-called "enemies"!? Rest assured the flip-floppy US Left will be for all sides, any side, and no side.
by Ronald Cass (Professor Cass co-authored some of the standard textbooks and reference works on constitutional law.)
Liberty may have been the traditional casualty of war, but common sense is its new colleague. The Supreme Court, trying hard on the anniversary of last term's Kelo decision to find a suitable sequel, performed a rare triple loop in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. It found jurisdiction in the face of a statute directly taking jurisdiction away from the Court. It second-guessed the President on the need for particular security features in trials of suspected al Qaeda terrorists. And it gave hope to One-World-ers by leaning on international common law to interpret U.S. federal law. If that weren't enough, the (left, lefter, and far left) turns were executed in the course of giving a court victory to Osama bin Laden's driver. What a perfect way to end the term! . . .
Go read it all.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/30/2006 12:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Protest the New York Times Revealing of U.S. Secrets, Monday, July 10, 5 p.m.
We have a sound permit, and we will be across the street from the New York Times. They are at 229 West 43rd Street.
The groups on board so far are Free Republic, Caucus for America, the Congress for Racial Equality, and Protest Warrior, NYC Chapter. We have reached out to several other groups as well, and are waiting to hear back from them.
Some high-visibility media people are interested in speaking at the protest. More information will be coming on this as we gather groups and speakers.
So hold the date! If you have been as sick about the Times's unconscionable blabbing of our classified information as the rest of those who care about the nation, now is your chance to do something to make your outrage heard.
It's damn sure I'll be there!
Posted by: DanNY ||
06/30/2006 11:28 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I can't be there, but I did my part by cancelling my 'scrip to my local rag which is owned by the NYT - making sure they know exactly why I'm doing it. I never read the paper (except funnies), but it will cost me quite a bit in lost grocery coupons.
#2
Going after members of Congress and demanding the prosecution of these acts - bothe the leakers and the publishers, with every means at your disposal - especially letting them know your financial support is in the balance, would be far more effective.
#3
I can't go, but I sent an e-mail of protest. The response demanded address from which the note was sent, home address, work and home phone numbers before it would be considered for publication. Imagine the consternation if the security precautions of my neighborhood were made a photo essay in the NYTs as a result -- which was my response.
How long ago would dear, dear Pinch have been on the street if the paper weren't a family business?
Let's just hang those Marines accused in the Haditha incident. Get it over with. They don't need a court martial. They're guilty. The media already decided the case.
A few other Marines and soldiers are also accused of murder in Iraq. Save our tax dollars. Just hang them, too.
Forget the stresses of combat. Forget that war really is hell. Whatever you do, don't mention the atrocities committed by the terrorists or insurgents.
Those two young American soldiers tortured to death a few weeks ago? Bury that story fast. The terrorists are the good guys. We're the only torturers.
Don't close Guantanamo. Put our troops in the cells. There's no surer way to quell the media's outrage over Gitmo than freeing the terrorists held there and filling it with our soldiers. Don't worry about individual charges. Collective guilt applies.
Ignore history. Let's pretend that warfare can be waged with absolute sterility, without so much as giving the enemy a broken fingernail. War isn't about fighting. It's about making people happy.
Civilian casualties? The thousands of Iraqis slain by terrorists were legitimate targets. Iraqi civilians are only innocent victims when Americans kill them.
And avoid the true potential parallel with the Vietnam War--after we cut and ran those peace-loving Communists killed at least ten million civilians in cold blood in Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam.
Let's all get on-message: America is the real evil empire, American troops are homicidal maniacs, and the world would be a better place if we just surrendered and let a non-partisan committee of Islamists, Chinese, Russians and Europeans run it.
Think of how much better off the world would be without us: If American-imperialist thugs had stayed out of World War II, we wouldn't have that nasty Israel problem. The European Union would've come into being decades earlier (speaking German, but what's not to like?). The Japanese would've solved China's over-population dilemma. And the Soviet Union would still be building the workers' paradise.
As for Iraq, not only should we get out now and let all those flower-child terrorists, insurgents and militias inaugurate the Age of Aquarius, we must get our barbaric troops under control.
That means punishing a young Marine if he so much as writes a playful song about the war that turns into an internet hit. Forget the real lyrics to "Mademoiselle From Armentieres," or that old marching song from the Philippines, "The Monkeys Have No Tails in Zamboanga." Forget all those hilarious "Jody" calls and cadences. Just punish that guy with the guitar and the sense of humor (the WWII cartoonist Bill Mauldin should've stood trial at Nuremberg).
Thank god we have the media to tell the world how rabid we are. And we won't mention what would happen to every journalist in Iraq tomorrow if our troops disappeared overnight. Bad taste to hint that our enemies might not be champions of free speech. And let's not pile on while the press is still mourning Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Okay, now let's be serious: I do not condone criminal acts in wartime. If any of our soldiers or Marines charged with murder or other serious crimes are found guilty, they should be sentenced accordingly under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
But let's give them a fair trial first. And let's remember that an act committed in the heat of battle is different from walking into a McDonald's and killing a half-dozen people for meth money.
Isn't it remarkable that, to the media, our troops are guilty until proven innocent, while our enemies are innocent even after they're proven guilty? Compare the media feeding frenzy over Haditha with the utter lack of detailed human-interest reporting on the thousands of victims of terrorist atrocities. And just wait: In no time, we'll hear that those terrorists arrested last Thursday in Miami were unfairly entrapped by the feds.
There is no question: Discipline must be maintained within our military. And discipline is maintained. Anyone who knows anything about wars throughout history has to be astonished at how few criminal incidents our troops have been involved in during their time in Iraq. We have a humane, magnificent military. Given the nature of counter-insurgency operations, we've set a statistical record for good behavior.
Our troops will never be given credit, though. To get the media's attention, an American soldier must die, suffer a crippling wound, or commit a crime.
But the media aren't the worst of it, in the end. Who expects responsible, moral behavior from our media any more? No, the worst of it is the cowardice of our political and even military leaders. Four-star generals may be lions on the battlefield, but turn a camera on them and they're jellyfish. Want to send President Bush into a defensive crouch? Mention Guantanamo.
Our leaders need to stand up for those in uniform. While criminal actions must be investigated, when challenged with media exaggerations or outright lies our leaders need to fight back - and to hammer home that there is no such thing as an immaculate war.
Instead of blubbering that he, too, wants to close Guantanamo, our president should state manfully that, if necessary, we'll keep Gitmo open for the next hundred years.
The United States is history's most virtuous power. Our soldiers are valorous and decent. Our cause is just. Why don't our leaders have the guts to say that? How can they cower while our troops are crucified? Instead of Joshua's trumpets, we get Peter's fretful denials.
At this point, I doubt that any of our accused Marines and soldiers can get a fair trial. I don't want the guilty to go free. But I do think that, if Bill Clinton could pardon his criminal friends, President Bush should consider pardoning any soldiers or Marines convicted of violent crimes under combat conditions.
The hate-America bigots in the media shouldn't get away with lynching our troops.
#1
If they did it to blacks, they'd be racists. If they did it to females, they'd be sexists. Just don't have a 'ist word in the language for such bigotry. Caught doing the first two would usually result in some 'reeducation' training in most institutions. Being an elitist means never having to say you're sorry.
#2
Right on target LTC Peters. The MSM is not about journalism--they are about pushing a leftish agenda which says that America is wrong in its policies, that America gets what it deserves, an agenda that courts defeat. The tripe put out by the MSM media isn't fit to line the kitty litter box--an insult to cats everywhere. The MSM and fellow travelers hate GWB and would do anything--anything to oppose him even though it results in the destruction of America. The First Amendment is over-rated. I prefer the Second Amendment.
#3
I do think that, if Bill Clinton could pardon his criminal friends, President Bush should consider pardoning any soldiers or Marines convicted of violent crimes under combat conditions.
Let's see that these Marines get a full and fair trial. I think they can and will. And I'm beginning to think they're about as guilty as the Duke Lacrosse Team. Ain't gonna be no pardons needed. Backlash coming for the treasonous MSM.
#7
The article's "non-partisan committee" may, at least formally, start out as non-partisan as to the governance of future, post-WOT, defeated or suborned anti-sovereign America under OWG, but eventually will end up being dominated by the large states with massive militaries and nuclear weapons, i.e. Russia-China, aka [post-SCO?] Communist Asia. Iff the US Lefties truly wanted or cared about America or the West dominating or leading their hoped-for OWG, into deep space and beyond, they wouldn't be so hyper-correct, where misinformation disinformation and PDeniability, etc. are not dirty words. THE LEFTIES ARE SO MUCH INTO FINDING "TRUTH" THEY CAN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO SAY IT.
"Not everything is fit to print. There is to be regard for at least probable factual accuracy, for danger to innocent lives, for human decencies, and even, if cautiously, for nonpartisan considerations of the national interest."
So wrote the great legal scholar, Alexander Bickel, about the duties of the press in his 1975 collection of essays "The Morality of Consent." We like to re-read Bickel to get our Constitutional bearings, and he's been especially useful since the New York Times decided last week to expose a major weapon in the U.S. arsenal against terror financing.
President Bush, among others, has since assailed the press for revealing the program, and the Times has responded by wrapping itself in the First Amendment, the public's right to know and even The Wall Street Journal. We published a story on the same subject on the same day, and the Times has since claimed us as its ideological wingman. So allow us to explain what actually happened, putting this episode within the larger context of a newspaper's obligations during wartime. . . .
Short summary: once the government knew that the NYT would be publishing the story, it declassified some "talking points" and gave those to the WSJ in order to combat some inaccuracies in the NYT story.
Which brings us back to the New York Times. We suspect that the Times has tried to use the Journal as its political heatshield precisely because it knows our editors have more credibility on these matters.
As Alexander Bickel wrote, the relationship between government and the press in the free society is an inevitable and essential contest. The government needs a certain amount of secrecy to function, especially on national security, and the press in its watchdog role tries to discover what it can. The government can't expect total secrecy, Bickel writes, "but the game similarly calls on the press to consider the responsibilities that its position implies. Not everything is fit to print." The obligation of the press is to take the government seriously when it makes a request not to publish. Is the motive mainly political? How important are the national security concerns? And how do those concerns balance against the public's right to know?
The problem with the Times is that millions of Americans no longer believe that its editors would make those calculations in anything close to good faith. We certainly don't. On issue after issue, it has become clear that the Times believes the U.S. is not really at war, and in any case the Bush Administration lacks the legitimacy to wage it.
So, for example, it promulgates a double standard on "leaks," deploring them in the case of Valerie Plame and demanding a special counsel when the leaker was presumably someone in the White House and the journalist a conservative columnist. But then it hails as heroic and public-spirited the leak to the Times itself that revealed the National Security Agency's al Qaeda wiretaps.
Mr. Keller's open letter explaining his decision to expose the Treasury program all but admits that he did so because he doesn't agree with, or believe, the Bush Administration. "Since September 11, 2001, our government has launched broad and secret anti-terror monitoring programs without seeking authorizing legislation and without fully briefing the Congress," he writes, and "some officials who have been involved in these programs have spoken to the Times about their discomfort over the legality of the government's actions and over the adequacy of oversight." Since the Treasury story broke, as it happens, no one but Congressman Ed Markey and a few cranks have even objected to the program, much less claimed illegality.
Perhaps Mr. Keller has been listening to his boss, Times Publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr., who in a recent commencement address apologized to the graduates because his generation "had seen the horrors and futility of war and smelled the stench of corruption in government.
"Our children, we vowed, would never know that. So, well, sorry. It wasn't supposed to be this way," the publisher continued. "You weren't supposed to be graduating into an America fighting a misbegotten war in a foreign land. You weren't supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights," and so on. Forgive us if we conclude that a newspaper led by someone who speaks this way to college seniors has as a major goal not winning the war on terror but obstructing it.
In all of this, Mr. Sulzberger and the Times are reminiscent of a publisher from an earlier era, Colonel Robert McCormick of the Chicago Tribune. In the 1930s and into World War II, the Tribune was implacable in its opposition to FDR and his conduct of the war. During the war itself, his newspaper also exposed secrets, including one story after the victory at Midway in 1942 that essentially disclosed that the U.S. had broken Japanese codes. The government considered, but decided against, prosecuting McCormick's paper under the Espionage Act of 1917.
That was a wise decision, and not only because it would have drawn more attention to the Tribune "scoop." IIRC, one reason why the government declined to prosecute the Tribune was that it was the only paper that ran the story--and in those pre-Internet days, the meme could not so easily spread. The Japanese continued using the same basic code system (the JN-25 series), indicating that they hadn't picked up on the story. Had the Tribune been prosecuted, there would have been more news articles on the subject, essentially insuring the Japanese would get the news about the codebreakers.
Once a government starts indicting reporters for publishing stories, there will be no drawing any lines against such prosecutions, and we will be well down the road to an Official Secrets Act that will let government dictate coverage.
The current political clamor is nonetheless a warning to the press about the path the Times is walking. Already, its partisan demand for a special counsel in the Plame case has led to a reporter going to jail and to defeats in court over protecting sources. Now the politicians are talking about Espionage Act prosecutions. All of which is cause for the rest of us in the media to recognize, heeding Alexander Bickel, that sometimes all the news is not fit to print.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/30/2006 07:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Japanese continued using the same basic code system (the JN-25 series), indicating that they hadn't picked up on the story. Had the Tribune been prosecuted, there would have been more news articles on the subject, essentially insuring the Japanese would get the news about the codebreakers.
That's true, but only from our side of the story. The Japanese DID see the Tribune story, but their cryptographers told the high command that JN25 was absolutely unbreakable and that this had to be some fiendish American propaganda trick - after all, they believed that we had suffered almost as badly at Midway as they had.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/30/2006 7:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There was also a Congressman in WWII who announced to the press that our submarines were safe from attack because the Japanese depth charges were exploding at the wrong depth. Adm. Lockwood later told Adm. King that the Congressman should be pleased to hear that the Japanese were no longer having that problem. Neither Congressman nor reporting paper, also the Tribune, I think, were prosecuted.
#3
Just use the method that MSM has pushed for years to punish 'businessmen' and 'corporations' who abuse the people, make them more vulnerable to torte. If there is a successful terrorist attack in the future, make the offending element of MSM subject to the general standard like asbestos manufacturers. There are numerous cases where no direct link and even no current cancer exists, but courts have found manufactures libel for big damages. Time to remove the MSM elite standards they believe they are entitled to. Level the playing field. Whats go for any other business as far as standards of proof in civil damages trials should be the same for MSM. Lets play the MSM game of hitting them hard in the pocket.
For 25 continuous years, India has been seeking to settle by negotiation with China the disputed Indo-Tibetan frontier. These border talks are the longest between any two nations in modern world history. Yet, not only have the negotiations yielded no concrete progress on a settlement, but they also have failed so far to remove even the ambiguities plaguing the long line of control.
Beijing has been so loath to clearly define the 4,057-kilometre frontline, that it suspended the exchange of maps with India several years ago. Consequently, India and China remain the only countries in the world not separated by a mutually defined frontline. In contrast, the Indo-Pakistan frontier is an international border, excepting in Jammu and Kashmir, where there is a line of control that has been both clearly defined and delineated. Only in the 110-kilometre northernmost tip of the Indo-Pakistan frontier at Saltoro Ridge, encompassing the disputed Siachen Glacier, is the frontline ill-defined.
The latest round of Sino-Indian border negotiations ended in Xian this week in predictable fashion with warm handshakes and a promise to meet again. But after a quarter century of unrewarding negotiations with Beijing, India ought to face up to the reality that it is being taken round and round the mulberry bush by an adversarial state that has little stake in an early border resolution.
An Indian reappraisal of the present process has to begin with greater transparency at home in order to promote a meaningful public debate. Official candour on the background and present focus of the talks can help build a public opinion that is more informed and alert about the intentions and tactics of China.
Conversely, a domestic public opinion lulled into a false sense of complacency through official obfuscation and a speciously positive pitch can hardly be conducive to Indias own interest, particularly at a time when Chinas accumulating power and growing assertiveness are beginning to constrict Indian strategic space.
In that light, why misinform the Indian public by stating that this was the eighth round of talks, as if the border negotiations began with the 2003 appointment of special representatives? In 2003, merely a new label was put on the talks, but nothing else changed.
Why bury the fact that the border talks have been going on ever since they were initiated by Indira Gandhi in 1981? The number of rounds of talks should be counted from 1981, not from a label change. For the first seven years, the negotiations were labelled senior-level talks. In order to contrive a breakthrough when two different Indian Prime Ministers visited Beijing, the tag was changed in 1988 to joint working group and then to special representatives talks in 2003.
What was touted at the last label change as an upgraded dialogue at the political level has turned out to be an exercise merely in window dressing: while the Chinese team has been led since 1981 by a career diplomat with the title of a vice foreign minister, India switched in 2003 from a serving bureaucrat (the foreign secretary) to an ex-bureaucrat serving as the national security adviser. This despite the fact that the national security adviser is senior in protocol to Chinas special representative, Dai Bingguo, the first of eight vice foreign ministers. In fact, India has had a new special representative every year since 2003. The 2005 appointee, M.K. Narayanan, has to last out 2006 to break away from that spell.
The more the talks have dragged on, the less Beijing has appeared interested in resolving the border disputes other than on its terms. In the period since 1981, China has realised a tectonic shift in its favour by rapidly building up its economic and military power. While keeping India engaged in sterile border talks, China has strengthened its negotiating leverage through its illicit nuclear and missile transfers to Pakistan and strategic penetration of Burma.
Today, Beijing gives the impression that an unresolved, partially indistinct border fits well with its interests. Indeed, it sees a strategic benefit in keeping hundreds of thousands of Indian troops pinned down along the Himalayas, ensuring in the process that they would not be available against Chinas all-weather ally, Pakistan. This is the third party whose interests China cannot disregard, as a Chinese official divulged at a Track II dialogue in Beijing that this writer had co-organised a few years ago. An unsettled border also endows China with the option to activate military heat along the now-quiet frontier if India played the Tibet card or entered into a military alliance with the United States.
More importantly, China is sitting pretty on the upper Himalayan heights, having got what it wanted by furtive encroachment or by conquest. It definitely sees no reason to strategically assist a potential peer competitor by lifting pressure on the borders through an amicable settlement.
Given these realities, Indias top priority from 1981 to 2002 was to get the line of control fully clarified while remaining open to any Chinese proposal for a complete border settlement. The accompanying confidence-building measures were premised on the elimination of frontline ambiguities to help stabilise the military situation on the ground. But the process of adopting CBMs has advanced much faster than the parallel process of defining and delineating the frontline, farcically called the line of actual control.
In 1996, the two countries, for example, signed a CBM prohibiting specific military activities at precise distances from a still-blurry frontline. That accord requires the two countries, among other things, not to fly combat aircraft within 10 kilometres of the line of actual control (Article V.2) and not to conduct blast operations within two kilometres of the line (Article VI), when the reality is that there is no agreed frontline on maps, let alone on the ground.
It took two full decades of border talks before China agreed to exchange maps with India of even one border sector. In 2001, the Chinese and Indian sides exchanged maps showing each others military positions in the least-controversial middle sector. China then committed itself to an exchange of maps of the western sector in 2002 and the eastern sector in early 2003. The completion of an exchange of maps showing each others presently held military positions was intended, without prejudice to rival territorial claims, to define where actual control lay. Through such clarification of the frontline, the two sides intended to proceed towards mutual delineation on maps and perhaps even demarcation on the ground, pending a final settlement.
After the first exchange in 2001, however, China went back on its commitment, creating an impasse in the talks. Having broken its word, Beijing insisted that the two sides abandon years of laborious efforts to define the frontline and focus instead on finding an overall border settlement. That move clearly appeared to be a dilatory tactic intended to disguise its breach of promise.
Ask yourself: if Beijing is not willing to take an elementary step clarifying the frontline why would it be willing to take far-bigger action to resolve the festering border problem through a package settlement? A final border settlement would be a complex process involving not only a full resolution of the claims that involve large chunks of territory but also the drawing of a clear-cut frontier.
The idea of a package settlement is not new. China began peddling that even before its 1962 invasion, as a red herring to divert attention from its aggressive designs. Since 1981, it has raised the same idea from time to time. But till date it has not once put forward a concrete proposal for consideration. If anything, the border talks have revealed that Beijing is not willing to settle on the basis of the status quo. This is manifest from its laughable claim to Indias Tawang region as an extension of its annexation of Tibet.
Yet, as Prime Minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee sought to propitiate China during his 2003 Beijing visit on two separate fronts: he formally recognised Tibet as part of the territory of the Peoples Republic of China, completing the process begun by Jawaharlal Nehru of India sacrificing its northern buffer; and he gave in to the Chinese demand to switch the focus of the border talks from frontline clarification to the elusive search for a package settlement. His concession to the hosts not only stalled the process of clarifying the frontline, but it also has taken India back to square one to discussing the principles and basic framework of a potential settlement.
The two negotiating teams are now engaged in giving meaning to and implementing the six abstract principles that were trumpeted as yet another breakthrough in April 2005 during the New Delhi visit of Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. The focus of the talks now, as admitted by both sides, is on applying the principles to devise a basic framework for negotiations. In other words, the two sides are still not close to actually discussing any package-settlement idea.
India needs to reflect on the wisdom of the course it has pursued. It not only rewarded Beijing in 2003 for an act of bad faith, but also has played into its hands by switching from the practical task of clarifying the frontline to a conceptual enunciation of vacuous principles and a new framework for talks. A well-known strength of Chinese diplomacy is to discuss and lay out principles, and then interpret them to suit Beijings convenience, as India found out bitterly after signing the 1954 Panchsheel agreement.
It is inexplicable why India should join hands with China to camouflage the lack of progress in the border talks. Re-labelling ingenuity and a number of high-level visits and joint statements cannot epitomise progress. Is it in Indias interest to cover up Chinas evident lack of sincerity? There is little new that the so-called special representatives are discussing. After 25 years of talks, any two sides will run out of new ideas, principles or proposals to discuss. Indeed, the way the talks are continuing, China and India can only consolidate the record they hold for the longest, most-barren negotiations.
If New Delhi really believes in the maxim that good fences make good neighbours, it is time for it to draw the line, at least in the negotiations. But first it needs to re-evaluate the very utility of staying absorbed in a never-ending process that jibes well with Beijings India policy of engagement with containment.
Posted by: john ||
06/30/2006 19:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I ponder the possibility of an India-China border war, a low-level but murderous conflict of infantry and artillery. Both sides throwing endless conscript manpower at each other while keeping their conventional professional armies in the rear.
#2
Don't bet on it, at least in 5 years. They've both been paying attention to the performance of the U. S. military. Not that they're at theat level, but they know what the goal is.
The Israelis are a plain-speaking, unsentimental people. The conversation, when an Israeli explains why his people do what they do, usually begins with the words "Look, let me tell you, spoken with that rough-edged Hebrew accent. Now, lets listen to the Israelis:
On Sunday, Israels enemy, the Palestinians, having dug an 800-yard tunnel from Gaza, burst out and attacked an Israeli border outpost from behind. They killed two soldiers and abducted a third, Cpl. Gilad Shalit.
The Israelis quickly massed their forces on the border with Gaza, the Palestinian territory from which they had recently, in a magnanimous unilateral gesture, decamped. The terrorist organization Hamas, which is also the elected Palestinian government, acknowledged they had sanctioned this tunnel incursion. But they apparently thought better of it after the fact and called on the Israelis to exercise restraint. They did not offer up Cpl. Shalit. They suggested a prisoner swap. The usual formula is several hundred bomb-making terrorists for one soldier. The Israelis declined.
By Tuesday, an increasingly alarmed Hamas -- the terrorist organization sworn to the destruction of Israel -- announced they had accepted a document implicitly recognizing Israel. Israel has shown that it is willing to overly a groups terrorist past and move forward toward peace. But what Israel wanted at this time was not another worthless piece of paper. Israel wanted Cpl. Shalit.
Israeli tanks, helicopter gunships and artillery began dismantling the infrastructure of Gaza, to shut Gaza down while they searched for Cpl. Shalit. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called on the Israelis to pursue diplomatic options. So they did. They sent four of their fighter jets to buzz a seaside home belonging to President Bashar Assad, to encourage him to tell his Hamas pals it was time to let the Israeli go. The Israelis also seized about 30 Hamas members of parliament, indicating they might consider trading them for the 19-year-old soldier.
It is quite possible Shalits abduction is the result of Hamas infighting -- that the most extreme of the extremists wanted to squelch any signs of weakness in other factions, and figured abducting an Israeli solder was a good way to do that. The most extreme terrorist elements of Hamas were dictating foreign policy, and those elements of Hamas interested in putting forward a slightly more moderate image failed to either control them or present a convincing demonstration that they cared to.
The Palestinians elected Hamas in part because, aside from its long track record of purposefully blowing up civilians with suicide bombs, it has a long history of providing social services to them.Now the Palestinians are facing a humanitarian water and power crisis. There will be people who blame the Israelis for this.It was, however, the predictable result of Hamas policy decisions that compelled the Israelis to shut down Gaza while conducting combat operations in a time-sensitive search for their abducted soldier. So much for the elected Hamas governments concern for the well-being of its own people. Now the Palestinians, who have very little experience with democracy, are learning something about its complexities.
The Israelis, who live in an extremely bad neighborhood, dont mess around. They make it very clear where they stand and what the consequences of any action against them will be. When people plot to kill their people, the Israelis kill them. When Israel is attacked, they fight back. Thats why they are still able to live there.
The Israelis have again spoken very clearly to Hamas and the Palestinian people. If Hamas wants to convince the world, and more importantly the Israelis, that it is a government and not a terrorist organization, it has to behave like a government, in matters of both foreign and domestic policy.It must recognize that as a state, it is accountable for its actions. The Palestinian people, likewise, need to understand that an election is something that gives the people a voice, and choices, with consequences.
#1
Don't look for there to be a long line of Western donors eager to rebuild the damaged infrastructure either. If the Paleos have the money and skill to build tunnels, they can fix their own mess.
#2
RWV,
I am willing to bet you $50 that within six months the EuroImpotents are going to pay the bills for restoring everything back in mint condition.
"Humanitarian crisis" or not ?
Some people dont learn.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
06/30/2006 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Israelis are a plain-speaking, unsentimental people
#5
EOZ, unfortunately I don't think I will take your bet. To paraphrase H. L. Mencken, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the Europeans."
#6
I might take that bet.... the EU has it's idiots and fools, but overall, via force of public opinion, they seem to be more malleable re: Islamist terror. Perhaps a typical Islamist strike to blackmail the Danegeld will be necessary to convince the majority, but.....
of course, I could be drunk from the O-Club....
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/30/2006 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I might take that bet.... the EU has it's idiots and fools, but overall, via force of public opinion, they seem to be more malleable re: Islamist terror. Perhaps a typical Islamist strike to blackmail the Danegeld will be necessary to convince the majority, but.....
of course, I could be drunk from the O-Club....
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/30/2006 20:51 Comments ||
Top||
We've warned you for a decade. Now the monster has finally arrived: attacks against Open Source developers by patent holders, big and small. One is a lawsuit against Red Hat for the use of the principle of Object Relational Mapping used in Hibernate, a popular component of enterprise Java applications everywhere. The other attack is on an individual Open Source developer for his model railroad software.
These two attacks are the tip of the iceberg, thousands more are possible as software patent holders turn to enforcement as an income producer and away from the patent cross-licensing détente exercised by large companies until the mid-1990s. Open Source will not be the only victim: small and medium-sized companies make up 80% of our economy and any of those companies that develops software, either proprietary or Open Source, will be vulnerable. The American IP Law Association estimates that defense against a single software patent lawsuit will cost between 2 and 5 million dollars. Under US law, even a company that only uses software can be sued.
The suit against Red Hat's concerns the use of software "objects" to encapsulate a database record and make it easier to access, a technology called Object Relational Mapping or The ActiveRecord Pattern. That technology is used in the Hibernate software developed by jBoss, which Red Hat recently purchased. FireStar Software claims that it invented the technology, and that it is covered by its U.S. patent number 6,101,502. However, over the past two decades there has been much prior art for object-oriented databases, including TopLink, an object relational system developed in the early 90's and now owned by Oracle, so it may be that the filers of FireStar's patent made no invention.
Continued on Page 49
#2
But lots of veterans will return with a love of open source software. Some as NRA memebers. It would be incumbant on these scum lawyers to consider that.
#3
How about we 'nationalize' every single bit of code and designed constructed under contract and by grant issued by the US Government [re:DoD] for the past four decades? It's already been paid for by the people. It's time for the people to reclaim their property. Wonder how much is going to be left over for these asshats?
His motto (even mantra) is that "Radical Islam is the problem; moderate Islam is the solution"
and yet, Dr. Pipes has debunked numerous 'moderate moslems'; documented numerous instances of kitman and tayyika; exposed jihad masquarading as charity, etc.
In a post at the end of 2005
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/563
he had someone challenge his mantra.
He only briefly answered this challenge and he ends with this statement, "...The challenge lies in Islam being modernized, dealing with issues like jihad, the status of women, and the role of Sharia."
I think he half realizes that Islam without jihad and sharia isn't Islam at all but just can't admit it to himself.
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.
Crime is soaring in New Orleans and the National Guard has been activated to assist in restoring order. How can this be? The city of New Orleans has been run by Democratic mayors for more than 100 years, and the governor of the state has been a Democrat for all but three times since 1877. This should be the Garden of Eden since the Democrats have held sway for so long. Everyone should be happy and prosperous; the good guys are in charge and have been for decades.
