I just got my Lexus RX400, and returned to the dealer the next day, complaining that I couldn't figure out how the radio worked. The salesman explained that the radio was voice activated. "Watch this!" he said. "Nelson!" The radio replied, Ricky or Willie?
"Willie!" he continued...... and On The Road Again came from the speakers.
I drove away happy, and for the next few days, every time I'd say, "Beethoven!" I'd get beautiful classical music, and if I said "Beatles!" I'd get one of their awesome songs. One day, a couple ran a red light and nearly creamed my new car, but I swerved in time to avoid them.
"A##HOLES!" I yelled......
The French National Anthem began to play, sung by Jane Fonda and Michael Moore, backed up by John Kerry on guitar, Al Gore on drums and Bill Clinton on sax.......
I LOVE this car! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/14/2005 14:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The case of Omar Bakri is a damning case-study of the apparent inability of Britain's politicians to deal with the danger posed by Islamic terrorism. Bakri arrived here in 1985 claiming asylum. He has lived on benefits ever since, fathering seven children, preaching hatred of Britain, and reportedly applauding terrorism and mass murder. Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, now says that his presence is "not conducive to the public good" - a statement of the obvious, if ever there was one - but it is still not clear that the Home Secretary can stop Bakri returning here from his "holiday" in Lebanon. Human rights lawyers insist that Bakri has the entitlement, under the Human Rights Act, both to continued asylum in the UK, and to "reunion" with his family here. The case has descended into farce. But the issues at stake are deadly serious.
That the Government may be forced to take back a man known to foment hatred and violence is a depressing testament to the extent to which it is unable to discharge its most fundamental duty - which is not to enforce the European Convention on Human Rights, but to protect British citizens from threats to their lives and liberty. The Government insists that the judges are responsible for that situation. But while some senior judges have indeed interpreted legislation perversely, the Government itself has consistently failed to enforce the laws which already give it the power to deal effectively with men such as Bakri.
The fundamental problem is actually one of political will, rather than law. Abu Qatada, who has an even worse record than Bakri, is now known to be among the 10 foreign nationals Mr Clarke proposes to deport. But the fact that he has been here for so long is hugely embarrasing evidence of the extent to which ministers have dragged their heels. For years, the Jordanian government has been patiently requesting the extradition of Abu Qatada. Although the evidence that he was involved in terrorism was well-known, the Government's response was a contemptuous dismissal of all those requests.
Vicious and callous apologists for terrorism such as Abu Qatada have in practice been granted protected status in Britain - to the consternation not only of Middle Eastern states such as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but also of our European allies, such as France and Germany. Contrary to the legal myth nurtured by ministers, there is no insuperable barrier to deportation formed by human rights legislation. France, Italy and Spain are all signatories to the Human Rights Convention, with judges as eager to demonstrate their independence from the elected government as ours. Yet they have all sent men they believed to be terrorists back to countries such as Algeria, Egypt, Jordan and Morocco. They have not been intimidated by fear of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. There is no reason why we should not be similarly robust. In this case, at least, there is much we can learn from our EU partners.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/14/2005 00:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
I found this over at "IRAQ THE MODEL",it is fantastic.This"message"answers all of Sheehan's questions and I can't see any better way.It's pretty long so I'll just post the link.
Okay kids, let's review how to post: put the link in the SOURCE line, and do NOT embed it in the text. An improperly embedded link can hose the whole site.
Repeat: put the link in the SOURCE line, where it belongs. I fixed it this time. AoS
#10
Yeah,awhile back I got a Manx kitten,and was letting him use my foot for hunting practice.Several badly infected scratches later I ended up on I.V. antibiotics.I have Beurger's disease,it's an allergic reaction to nicotine(and only caused by nicotine).What Beurger's does is cause perminate,progressive constriction of the blood vessels.The good news is the infection is gone,it will take awhile for the wounds to heal.And most important of all I quit smoking(thus halting bthe progression of the disease).
#13
Rapter, I don't know you, but glad to hear that you stopped smoking, that's one of the hardest things to do. Continue to get well and stay strong.
Posted by: Jan ||
08/14/2005 16:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
No prob Rapter. Sorry to hear about your hospital stay. (3 weeks? Hell I'll be stark raving mad at 3 days...).
Glad to hear you quit smoking. I did a couple of years ago after about 20-25 years (thanks to my girlfriend/now wonderful wife :). Don't miss it much now but sometimes get a craving. Dont give in.
#15
Good deal Raptor! Glad to hear you're better. I assume this was related to the finger problem of several months past? Hang tight, I quit smoking involuntarily too.... :>
#17
Yeah it is,Ship.Most of you know I'm a recovered alcholic,dropping booze weren't nothing compared to stopping smokeing.3 weeks and the cravings are still kicking my skinny,white ass.
All your well wishis and encourgment are most deeply appreciated.
#18
Raptor - My Dad quit several times, including before the Surgeons General's report (1962). He told me, "You think you're over it, and then you paint the house for the first time in five years, and you climb up the ladder and reach for the cigarette..."
Hang in there Bud. He made it, and so did I!
Posted by: Bobby ||
08/14/2005 21:03 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Raptor. I've been of a year and a month. I don't expect the cravings to ever stop. But the frist three weeks ar4e the hardest. Each day will get better. Tell yourself that often.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/14/2005 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
#20
goddamer. glad yoo okay. ima wus spose kwit xmokerin thes wekend but ima bak owt. :(
Yet another look into the murky thought processes of an Islamic apologist. He's the editor in chief of Palestine Chronicle, writing in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer...
By RAMZY BAROUD
The deadly terrorist attacks in Egypt's Sharm el-Sheik Red Sea resort in July and the earlier October bombings at two other Red Sea resorts seem to have disrupted the consistency of the rationale that links the current terrorism upsurge in the Middle East to the U.S. war effort in Iraq.
Good thinking, since the current upsurge was under way before the war in Iraq...
The Christian Science Monitor attempted to neatly package the ongoing debate in the West on the root causes of political and ideological terrorism within two primary schools of thought: one that links terror directly to the war on Iraq, and another that believes that terror groups are ideologically rather than politically motivated, thus reinforcing the "clash of civilizations" argument.
I think they're trying to discuss apples and oranges. Or maybe motive and opportunity.
The civilization argument contends that the Sharm el-Sheik terror -- directed at Westerners regardless of the role played by their governments to aid the Iraq war effort -- is a perfect case in point. Westernized Egyptian and European tourists were targeted for the "sin of being a beachhead of a globalized, tolerant culture in Arab Muslim territory," goes the logic of that argument.
It's part of Arab culture to feel revulsion at the thought, much less the sight, of people indulging in individual freedom, even doing what they damn well please. The very thought induces uncontrollable seething that can be alleviated only by blood. The other factor in the Sharm bombings is that there were a hell of a lot more furriners to be found there, and in much higher concentration, than in the boomers' home towns. So it's a matter of culture and convenience.
In Egypt itself, the debate is taking on another distinctive, yet equally flawed, approach.
You haven't actually pointed out where the flaws are...
The Associated Press, for example, reported that some Egyptians are now openly examining the link between culture and extremism, highlighting the assertion that mosques and schools should be blamed for promoting Islamic extremism. The Egyptian debate, while unique in some ways to that country, is a re-creation of the ongoing and honestly dubious intellectual scuffle over the role of the madrassas in Pakistan in molding and forging terrorists from an early age.
I don't see where the argument is intellectually dubious. Specific mosques and madrassas are connected with terrorism. Period. There's no rational argument. Binori Town is a center of extremism. Muridke is a center of extremism. Jamia Haqqania is a center of extremism. I'm too fat and I don't get enough exercise and most of my hair's fallen out. The fact that I'm unhappy with the fact doesn't make it dubious.
Not only do these arguments fail to candidly inspect a variety of other factors that might have contributed to the spread of terrorism, but they imprudently encourage measures that will most probably give terrorists more fuel to carry on with their mission of violence, cajoling additional recruits and resources.
It's the "if you try to do anything about the mortal threat you'll just make things worse" argument. That one I would tag as "dubious."
Cultural and religious intolerance is certainly not unique to the Middle East, nor is terrorism itself.
Yet both have become cultural characteristics of the tribal Muslim world.
If madrassas supposedly elucidate the motives behind the militancy of al-Qaida and the Taliban, what will one make of terrorism in India, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Spain (before the train bombing) and Northern Ireland? It is not as if the list ends there. To the contrary, it barely begins.
That's because terrorism is a tactic. Its use is available to anyone. A knife is a tool, also available to anyone, but it's part of Yemenis' national dress. A gun is a tool, available to anyone, but it's part of the well-dressed young Pashtun's ensemble, just like his turban. India's afflicted with a number of non-Muslim "liberation movements" who take their inspiration from the Commies. The Nepal rebels are Maoists as well. Curiously, Spain's ETA and the IRA also have Marxist roots. The Tamil Tigers are rooted in Leninism. So we have two schools of thought, neither of which regards the individual as anything more than a tool of state power.
The truth is that Middle East terrorism became a globalized phenomenon after many regions around the world -- that are neither Arab nor Muslim -- experienced their share of deadly terror.
Most of them at the hands of Marxists. There were a fair number of successes, which meant that the tool was usable, hence its adoption by the Islamists. I believe it was Qutb who combined the tactics of Soviet-sponsored terrorism with Islamist thought.
It goes without saying that the rise of al-Qaida and its support networks worldwide has not in any way contributed to the decline of terrorism elsewhere. In fact, many innocent people continue to fall victim to terrorism in many other regions and in large numbers. The quandary is that the victims are often not Westerners, thus their plight is either entirely neglected or hastily stated by the world media and then quickly forgotten.
Actually, some of us watch the agony on a daily basis. There are entire organizations within the U.S. and British and French government whose purpose in life is to follow the details of the agony and attempt to come up with ways of curtailing it. The method the U.S. and the Brits have come up with is to declare war on the people who kill not only Westerners, but also their Muslim and non-Muslim brethren. The author, of course, disapproves of this approach. The Frenchies, on the other hand, have decided to pursue action primarily against only their own domestic fifth column by civil means, but the author also will be found to disapprove of that.
Using the same logic, if the root cause of terrorism is indeed cultural and religious intolerance -- advocated in some Islamic schools and mosques -- why aren't young American neo-conservatives and fundamentalist evangelicals blowing themselves up in crowded Libyan or Sudanese streets? Or why are suicide bombings a prevalent practice employed by Palestinians against Israelis, and not the other way around?
That's a point we've made here before, though the author's phrasing it differently and indulging in a bit of fallacious argument — I believe the fallacy's known as "framing the argument." Fundamentalist evangelicals and American neo-conservatives aren't taught in their schools to hate the members of other religions and cultures. Evangelicals are Christians and they believe in persuasion and example. Now, their attempts at persuasion can be pretty tedious, but I've yet to have one point a gun at me or try to blow up my house because I don't agree with him. Neo-conservatism is as much a style of argument as a philosophy. I've never had to worry about starting my car after meeting with a neo-conservative and failing to reach concensus.
While unofficial terrorism -- as opposed to official, state-sponsored terror -- can inflict untold hurt,
That "state-sponsored terrorism" thing keeps making its way into these polemix. Yet the guys pushing the concept never seem to mention Sudan. I wonder why that is?
it is often a frantic retort to political, cultural, religious, ideological and even physical oppression and violence.
By whom? And notice the differentiation there: "terrorism is a response to political, cultural, religious, ideological and even physical oppression and violence." In my occasional discussions with Evangelicals and neo-conservatives, no one has hollered for someone's blood in response to actions that haven't produced blood, and precious few times when they have. The tribal Muslim approach is always to demand blood to avenge perceived insults, whether one's sister getting knocked up by the guy down the street or the guy down the street deciding to become a Unitarian because he's tired of wearing a turban. Salman Rushdie writes a book you don't like? He must be killed. The typist transposes two verses from the Koran? He must be killed. Pick an offense, and the offender must be killed. Only blood will wipe out the action.
Unprovoked terror, at least in much of the Middle East is, if considered objectively, unheard of.
Maybe if considered objectively from Alpha Centauri...
Thus, violence in most instances trails behind often greater acts of violence; the Iraqi "insurgent" (a terrorist according to the prevailing Western media interpretation and a resistance fighter as considered by many Arabs) was, in some ironic way, a U.S. discovery: Without a violent invasion and occupation, Iraqis would've had no reason to fight back.
Except that prior to the invasion and occupation the same guys were busy polishing their guns and fiddling with their detonators in their home countries. The natives who're up in arms against us were busy bumping off Kurds and Shiites and rounding up young girls to pleasure Uday. Seems to me that one flavor of violence has been replaced by another flavor, in a culture where violence is a part of the warp and woof.
On the same token, without an Israeli occupation of Palestinian land and the subsequent violence wrought upon the Palestinians, Palestinians would've had no particular interest in blowing themselves up.
If he's talking about the West Bank and Gaza, then there would have been no occupation had there not been a 1967 war, initiated by the Arab states. If he's discussing the existence of the state of Israel, then he's got a problem, though it's a common enough problem among his intellectual set.
If Islamic religious extremism truly produced terror in a complete vacuum, it would make little sense for an Iraqi woman to be the first suicide bomber after the invasion in March 2003, considering that most extremists forbid women from taking part in physical jihad.
I thought the first boomer was a lietenant from the Palestine Liberation Army? That's what Sammy said, anyway...
It would be equally baffling if one recalls that communist Palestinian revolutionaries are the ones who indeed spearheaded Palestinian terrorism in the 1970s, decades before Hamas was even conceptualized.
I think I previously made the point of terrorism being a tool used with equal enthusiasm by Marxists and Islamists...
Needless to say, a Jewish settler need not blow himself up, nor does a neo-con enthusiast, for they simply don't have to, as their religious and cultural ideals of intolerance are carried out on a much greater scale through the official policies and practices of their respective governments.
That's a pretty neat little libel right there. The neo-con pushes the idea of individual freedom for The Masses™ and that's intolerance. The Jewish settler defends himself against krazed killers and that's intolerance.
Hence, the war in Iraq, which has killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, is arguably by far the greatest act of terrorism experienced in many years.
No, it's not. It's a military action. Twist words and twist concepts all you want, it's still a military action, taken against military and then paramilitary forces.
As for the case of Egypt, veteran Egyptian journalist Ayman El-Amir, writing for Al-Ahram Weekly articulated it best: Terrorism (as a consequence of political ostracism, not religious fanaticism) is "fermented not in the mosque or the madrassas but in solidarity confinement cells, torture chambers and the environment of fear wielded by dictatorial regimes as instruments of legitimate governments." It's here where any genuine inquiry into the root causes of terrorism should begin, and most likely, conclude.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/14/2005 08:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Using the same logic, if the root cause of terrorism is indeed cultural and religious intolerance -- advocated in some Islamic schools and mosques -- why aren't young American neo-conservatives and fundamentalist evangelicals blowing themselves up in crowded Libyan or Sudanese streets? Or why are suicide bombings a prevalent practice employed by Palestinians against Israelis, and not the other way around?
Because evangelical Christians and Jews aren't taught that holy war is the quickest way to paradise? Because they're taught that murdering the innocent is a sin?
Unlike Muslims, who are taught the exact opposite.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/14/2005 9:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It's here where any genuine inquiry into the root causes of terrorism should begin, and most likely, conclude.
Nope. It should start by carrying out extensive psychological/neurological studies on Muslims---to catalog their deviations from the human norm.
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.
