CALLING ON ALL UK RANTBURGERS...
Whether you be members of the Judaean Peoples Front (ptui - splitters) or the Peoples Front of Judaea (ptui - splitters), now is the time for ACTION - yes, its actually happening, Reg!!!
We've had demonstrations almost every week with the "freedom go to hill" crowd, then the Ayatollahs anti (Joooo) terrorism march.
This Saturday, is THE MARCH FOR FREE EXPRESSION
....yeah right. Sean Gabb of the Libertarian Alliance, Maryam Namazie, Sayyida Rend Shakir al-Hadithi, Peter Tatchell, national secular society, the freedom association, etc, etc. Well I have been to every stinking one of these Hate-fests - Didnt see too much opposition back then.
I'm hoping to be proved wrong, but I'm worried that this will be more of a march for freedom to self-censor, or that it will be hijacked by Allans "Dont worry about Fundamentalists - leave them to us, and by the way, dont be criticizin no koran" Troop. Our friend at muttawablogspot - "The Religious Policeman" has said he will be attending (incognito, obviously)
Come on you UK Bloggers, Blurkers, Trolls, Whatever - its time for some "Civil, Well Reasoned Discourse".
Posted by: Admiral Allan Ackbar ||
03/24/2006 04:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Admiral, don't forget to play nicely with your little friends, and report back to us afterwards. Thanks!
It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. It is quite another, however, to base the policies of the world's most powerful nation upon that fiction. The administration's penchant for painting its perceived adversaries with the same sweeping brush has led to a series of unintended consequences.
For years, the president has acted as if Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein's followers and Iran's mullahs were parts of the same problem. Yet, in the 1980s, Hussein's Iraq and Iran fought a brutal war. In the 1990s, Al Qaeda's allies murdered a group of Iranian diplomats. For years, Osama bin Laden ridiculed Hussein, who persecuted Sunni and Shiite religious leaders alike. When Al Qaeda struck the U.S. on 9/11, Iran condemned the attacks and later participated constructively in talks on Afghanistan. The top leaders in the new Iraq chosen in elections that George W. Bush called "a magic moment in the history of liberty" are friends of Iran. When the U.S. invaded Iraq, Bush may have thought he was striking a blow for good over evil, but the forces unleashed were considerably more complex. And the Third Reich was never united, the SA vs the SS. The SS vs. the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo vs SD. Never a threat, never evil. And Gehlen never helped us.
The administration is now divided between those who understand this complexity and those who do not. On one side, there are ideologues, such as the vice president, who apparently see Iraq as a useful precedent for Iran. I doubt he wants to invade
Meanwhile, officials on the front lines in Iraq know they cannot succeed in assembling a workable government in that country without the tacit blessing of Iran; They do?
... hence, last week's long-overdue announcement of plans for a U.S.-Iranian dialogue on Iraq a dialogue that if properly executed might also lead to progress on other issues. And a chance for you Rice to dance with Imadinnerjacket? I don't think so.
Although this is not an administration known for taking advice from idiots, I offer three suggestions. The first is to understand that although we all want to "end tyranny in this world," that is a fantasy unless we begin to solve hard problems. Iraq is increasingly a gang war that can be solved in one of two ways: by one side imposing its will or by all the legitimate players having a piece of the power. fade in Kumbaya
The U.S. is no longer able to control events in Iraq, but it can be useful as a referee.
Second, the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran not because the regime should not be changed but because U.S. endorsement of that goal only makes it less likely. In today's warped political environment, nothing strengthens a radical government more than Washington's overt antagonism. It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction. At least that's what passed for common sense when I was in charge of State.
As for Iran's choleric and anti-Semitic new president, he will be swallowed up by internal rivals if he is not unwittingly propped up by external foes. That's what always happens to choleric anti-Semites. Look at Paleostine.
Third, the administration must stop playing solitaire while Middle East and Persian Gulf leaders play poker. Bush's "march of freedom" is not the big story in the Muslim world, where Shiite Muslims suddenly have more power than they have had in 1,000 years; it is not the big story in Lebanon, where Iran is filling the vacuum left by Syria; it is not the story among Palestinians, who voted in Western eyes freely, and wrongly; it is not even the big story in Iraq, where the top three factions in the recent elections were all supported by decidedly undemocratic militias.
In the long term, the future of the Middle East may well be determined by those in the region dedicated to the hard work of building democracy. I certainly hope so. But hope is not a policy. In the short term, we must recognize that the region will be shaped primarily by fairly ruthless power politics in which the clash between good and evil will be swamped by differences between Sunni and Shiite, Arab and Persian, Arab and Kurd, Kurd and Turk, Hashemite and Saudi, secular and religious and, of course, Arab and Jew. This is the world, the president pledges in his National Security Strategy, that "America must continue to lead." Actually, it is the world he must begin to address before it is too late. Did she work in the Carter administration also?
#2
God have mercy on us if we ever let these fucking idiots back in power.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/24/2006 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And the Third Reich was never united, the SA vs the SS. The SS vs. the Wehrmacht, the Gestapo vs SD. Never a threat, never evil. And Gehlen never helped us.
A better counter to her argument: the Nazis and the Soviet Union fought each other tooth-and-nail, yet both were inarguably evil, and both had, up until Hitler decided to turn east, cooperated to the point they were each other's greatest trading partners.
I have to agree with Dave -- God help us if these morons are ever given power again.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
03/24/2006 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
No real solutions, as usual.
...the future of the Middle East may well be determined by those in the region dedicated to the hard work of building democracy.
Queueing up for an all hail job.
"It is sometimes convenient, for purposes of rhetorical effect, for national leaders to talk of a globe neatly divided into good and bad. "
It is sometimes necessary, for purposes of proving they have measurable brain activity, for national leaders to acknowledge evil on the globe where it exists.
"...the Bush administration should disavow any plan for regime change in Iran not because the regime should not be changed but..."
This is the kind of Clintonesque word play that got us a nuclear-armed North Korea. She honestly believes that she can say one thing, mean quite another, and somehow triumph with a wink and a nod. Clinton "did not sex with that woman" and Bush "should not call for regime change with that Iran". Nonetheless, the blue dress is stained and the Iranian leadership is rightfully doomed.
Yes, indeed, God have mercy on us if we ever let these fucking idiots back in power.
#7
...we must recognize that the region will be shaped primarily by fairly ruthless power politics...
What a beacon of hope she is to women in the Muslim world! "You got gang-raped and now Daddy's going to shoot you for dishonoring the family? Tough shitski, hon. Guy threw acid on your face? That's the way power politics works, doll."
We may not always be able to stop it but God help us if we "recognize" it.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/24/2006 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Good versus evil isn't a strategy"
Especially when you don't believe in evil (except for your political opponents).
Good ol' Maddie "never-met-a-dictator-she-didn't-suck-up-to" Halfbright. In a way, it's comforting to know some things never change.
Sorta like a permanent rash.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/24/2006 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#9
NS - Thanks for not splashing halfbright's pic. Don't wanna get nightmares.
Reno, halfbright, etc. boy Billary sure could pick em.
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/24/2006 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Burgess Meredith in drag: "I indicate our diplomacy by the brooch I choose to wear that day"
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/24/2006 18:47 Comments ||
Top||
#13
It also is common sense to presume that Iran will be less willing to cooperate in Iraq and to compromise on nuclear issues if it is being threatened with destruction.
EFL'd from a very long piece which you should go and read in its entirety 'cause, like everything this man writes, it's incisive as all get out.
We judge figures by their actions under stress; note their choices; form some estimate of their capacity for truth; their ability to recognize quality even in their enemies. In the statement following their release Christian Peacemaker Teams have shown their quality by completely airbrushing out of the account of their rescue the fact it was performed by multinational forces. In terms of truthfulness, the statement of the CPT is in a class with that of Maurice Thorez, head of the French Communist Party, who described the Liberation of Paris without once naming LeClerc, Patton, Eisenhower or even de Gaulle. . . .
. . . Now I can see that the Christian Peacemaker Teams were right to admire such as those who even one of their own described as criminal gangs. For I would much rather throw in with ruffians who still had a perverse sense of criminal honor and were willing to come to the aid of their fellows than entrust myself to people paralyzed with their own sense of sanctity, full of their own sense of righteousness. They have forbidden any attempts to visit retribution and justice upon their captors. And if they know anything more about this criminal gang they are unlikely to share it with the Coalition. The Washington Post reported shortly after CPT hostage Tom Fox was killed:
Members of the Langley Hill Friends Meeting, a peace group in northern Virginia to which Fox belonged, read a statement he co-wrote in October 2004 in which he shunned violence, even to rescue him should he ever be kidnapped. Members of the Langley Hill Friends Meeting, a peace group in northern Virginia to which Fox belonged, read a statement he co-wrote in October 2004 in which he shunned violence, even to rescue him should he ever be kidnapped. "We reject violence to punish anyone who harms us," said Doug Smith, quoting Fox, in a statement read to reporters at the group's headquarters in McLean, Virginia.
If I have it aright, the CPT would not on principle -- if the word can be perverted thus -- have placed a call, if they could, to save Tom Fox as he was being tortured to death because it might bring Multinational Forces rushing to violent rescue, an act they would have no part of. Yet they saw no contradiction in precipitating this absurd situation by their intentional presence in Iraq and by trailing their coat in the most dangerous neighborhoods; nor did they think it ethically consistent to refrain from telling the Press of the kidnapping though they must have known efforts to rescue them would be made, despite their well-publicized refusals. There is nothing more suspicious than false modesty performed conspicuously upon a stage.
As for myself, the Christian Peacemaker Teams remind me of nothing so much as Fred Phelps. I think that if ever there were an instance of latter-day blasphemy it must be in the CPT's hideous claim that their "only protection was in the power of the love of God and of their Iraqi and international co-workers". Nothing seems further than the truth. They've endangered themselves, the lives of innocent Iraqis and those who hazarded themselves to find and rescue them for the sake of their own self-righteous theater. Vanity, not love is their watchword. Fortune and men's eyes and not God is who they worship.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/24/2006 13:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fuck these idiots and those like them. The next time they get plucked off the streets by their Jihadi heroes, just send word on where their bodies will be dumped so we can bag em and tag em. There are more important things to spend time on over there then wasting time on bailing out the sanctimonius relics of the sixties and their wannabe desciples when their little Kumbaya games blow up in their faces.
#2
It's of little help at the moment, but I have no doubt all these clowns are going to be in for a VERY rude (and hot) awakening when they die.
(And I'm not even Christian.)
I'd prefer a reckoning for them in this life, but I'll take what I can get....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/24/2006 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If I have it aright, the CPT would not on principle -- if the word can be perverted thus -- have placed a call, if they could, to save Tom Fox as he was being tortured to death because it might bring Multinational Forces rushing to violent rescue, an act they would have no part of.
That's one klaxon beginning to sound.
Yet they saw no contradiction in precipitating this absurd situation by their intentional presence in Iraq and by trailing their coat in the most dangerous neighborhoods;
That's two klaxons blaring away.
nor did they think it ethically consistent to refrain from telling the Press of the kidnapping though they must have known efforts to rescue them would be made, despite their well-publicized refusals.
They've endangered themselves, the lives of innocent Iraqis and those who hazarded themselves to find and rescue them for the sake of their own self-righteous theater.
You'll have to speak up, you see, there's all these klaxons going off.
This sort of vile sanctimonious holier-than-thou crap goes beyond evil. It is the very face of satan himself. Wretchard does well to summon up the name of Fred Phelps when discussing these twisted puppies.
I agree, tu3031, next time we don't lift a finger and just let these idiots make love to their captors. The Stokholm Syndrome looks rational by comparison.
#4
It was like this, as reported in the Telegraph:
A deal had been struck with a man detained the previous night who was one of the leaders of the kidnappers. He was allowed a telephone call to warn his henchmen to leave the kidnap house. When the troops moved in and found the prisoners alive, they also let him go as promised.
Sorry if this was posted earlier but if not, I thought it was worthwhile reading. This guy pimp slaps the media by exposing every myth they perpetuate about Iraq for what it is: a myth. EFL
The debate about American policy and strategy in Iraq has veered off course. A number of myths have crept into the discussion over the past two years that distort understanding and confuse discussion. It is possible and appropriate to question the wisdom of any particular strategy proposed for Iraq, including the Bush administrations strategy, and there is reason to be both concerned and encouraged by recent events there. But constructive dialogue about how to choose the best way forward is hampered by the distortions caused by certain myths. Until these myths recede from discussions about Iraq strategy, progress in those discussions is extremely unlikely.
Myth 1: The Bush administration intends to keep substantial U.S. forces in Iraq for a long time and must be pressured to bring them home quickly.
This assertion is false. The American strategy in Iraq from the very beginning of hostilities in March 2003 has been to remove all U.S. forces from the country as rapidly as possible. That was the basis of the small footprint idea under which the military fought the war with too few troops to prevent the rise of the insurgency. As the insurgency began, the military consistently underreacted in the deployment of troops and pursued a series of strategies to avoid increasing the number of troops in the country. Since mid-2004, the administration has stuck to a single determined strategy to train a large Iraqi army to wage the counterinsurgency and to withdraw American forces as that army becomes able to take over responsibilities in Iraq.[2]
Myth 2: The presence of U.S. forces in Iraq is the major source of the conflict there. Peace will return to Iraq as Americans leave.
There is a certain amount of truth here, of course: a significant portion of the Sunni Arab insurgency is devoted to attacking Americans and driving them from Iraq, and a few elements of the Shiite community have joined in such attacks for their own reasons. The logical leap from that fact to the assertion that if only the Americans would leave, the insurgency would die down and peace would ensue, however, is baseless and indefensible.
The results of such a rapid withdrawal will be primarily negative. Insurgent groups may initially begin to struggle with one another, both arguing and fighting over their future visions of the country. All will almost certainly attack the Iraqi government and security forces with renewed vigor. The absence of coalition forces will embolden some to increase sectarian violence in the hope of igniting a civil war. The likely result will be either chaos or the further weeding-out and merging of insurgent groups into larger organizations capable of posing a significant challenge to a very weak central regime. The prospects for the success of that regime in such a scenario are very dim.
Myth 3: The war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terrorism.
Claims of Saddams prewar involvement with al Qaeda certainly seem to have been exaggerated--although it is known that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi trained soldiers under the aegis of the Taliban alongside al Qaeda fighters and then moved into Iraq before the U.S. attack.[10] This question, however, is no longer relevant to the problem of determining U.S. strategy in the war on terror. Al Qaedas second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, has repeatedly said that he now sees Iraq as the central front in the struggle with the West.[11] Zarqawi has linked his ideological program with that of Zawahiri and bin Laden to make plain that he has no intention of stopping with success in Iraq, should he attain it. Above all, the key question is: will chaos in Iraq help or hinder al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in their struggle with the United States and the West? The answer is, of course, that it will help them.
Myth 4: The wisdom of invading Iraq in 2003 should be an important part of the discussion about what to do in Iraq today.
When John Kerry made criticism of Bushs decision to go to war--rather than of current administration strategy in Iraq--the centerpiece of his campaign, he helped ensure that future debates over policy there would be fruitless. From the standpoint of American policy today, it simply does not matter whether attacking Saddam in 2003 was the right decision or not. The question must be: where do we go from here?
From the standpoint of American domestic politics, criticizing the decision to go to war is, of course, perfectly valid and may even have been essential. The American public was certainly entitled to make up its mind whether or not Bush had made a mistake and to fire him if it felt that he had done so. The electorate chose not to do so, implicitly accepting either the administrations rationale for invading or the irrelevance of the discussion to the matter at hand. Either way, the wisdom of the invasion is now purely a matter for historians.
Myth 5: Most Iraqis want us out, and we have lost the battle for hearts and minds. Therefore, we cannot succeed.[12]
The real issue about the popularity of American forces is the degree to which their presence fuels the fighting or contains sectarian conflict. As we have already seen, the evidence that the U.S. presence is the key driving force in the insurgency is thin, and the evidence that that presence is an essential precondition for avoiding civil war is strong. Iraqi attitudes about that presence only really matter if they change this calculation in some important way. These attitudes are therefore worth monitoring, but should not be allowed to drive coalition strategy by themselves.
Above all, it is essential to keep in mind that it is not the United States that has the task of winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqis, but the Iraqi government. The current Iraqi government has by no means yet succeeded in that task, and it may fail to do so. But we can judge the progress of the counterinsurgency only on the basis of the Iraqi governments success or failure in this regard, not our own.
Myth 6: Setting a timetable for withdrawal will incentivize the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own country.
Both of these assumptions are contradicted by the facts on the ground. The Iraqi government is demonstrably unable to control its state, and the Iraqi Security Forces and, still more, the Iraqi police are inadequate to fight the insurgency. Recent estimates suggest that as many as 60,000 Iraqi Security Forces troops may be fit to undertake operations entirely on their own.[14]Counter-insurgency operations to date have required between 130,000 and 160,000 American troops in addition to those 60,000 Iraqis to maintain the current unacceptably low level of security and stability in the country. Training soldiers takes time. Gaining experience in combat and in command takes time. However hard we push, the Iraqis can only go so fast. It is unlikely in the extreme that 2006 will see the deployment of enough Iraqi troops to relieve all of the coalition forces and maintain security even at the current level. The Iraqi police are, by all accounts, lagging even further behind.
American Muslims gaining a foothold in politics
By Jill Lawrence,
USA TODAY
3/23/2006 Moderators: Is this a "Culture War" or Real War issue?
...The 9/11 attacks have had a curious double-edged impact on the political emergence of American Muslims. They are up against more stereotyping and backlash, which they perceived recently in the furor over a Dubai company's thwarted plan to take over port operations in several U.S. cities. First: they are humble immigrants; then their big families and prohibitions against working women place strains on our social services; then their lawyers force expensive civil rights protections; then they infiltrate political parties; then these use high office in hated dar-Harb to spy for their beloved homelands; then they use Free World wealth to finance overseas terror; then they accept huge donations from Saudi and Iranian dawah (indoctrination) agencies; then they force giant mosques on cities; then they seek Shariah in the guise of Muslim Family Law; then terror incitement issues from some mosques, but is secretly seconded by all; then they force Islam friendly indoctrination disquised as public education; then their PACs condemn only "stereotyping" but not terror; then their violent protests cause our spineless leaders to give them effective veto power over foreign policy; then they demand jihad-base subsidies for their homeland cesspools, in the name of nation-building; then members of Muslim terrorist organizations receive refugee status, while they continue to promote terror; then they begin pushing non-Muslims out of dar-Islam enclaves; then they get prayer rooms in every school, government office and private industrial plant; then non-garbed Muslim women, Jews, Christians, gays, etc begin to live in fear; then they refuse obedience to loyalty oaths; then they get State subsidized Hajj trips to Mecca; then they force Islamic censorship on our media; then they force open-door immigration for Muslims; then they order jury nullification where a Muslim is affected; then they force de facto legalization of jihad Murder, Kidnapping, Torture, Hostage Taking, Bomb Making, etc; then we suffer the high unemployment and stagnation inherent to Muslim economies; then they force jizya on non-Muslims, while exterminating anyone who in Muhammad's words, "lives as a kaffir"; then they adopt either a Sunni or Shiite identity, and make war against the alleged "apostate"; then sacred Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Shinto, Spiritualist, etc texts are banned as products of Satanic influence; then thieves are de-limbed, rape victims charged for false testimony, blasphemers are burned alive, spousal and child abandonment after easy male divorce(talaq, talaq, talaq) is legalized, marital-rape and wife-beating are compulsory, adulters are stoned to death, abandoners of Islam are beheaded, terror tax (zakat) is imposed on all, etc; then the Organization of the Islamic Conference occupies the UN building; then we all bow to Mecca five times a day after carrying out innocuous cleansing rituals. And we remember that our leaders said that "Islam is a religion of peace," and that indulging political Islam was an "advancement of freedom."
At the same time, the 9/11 attacks jolted Muslims into realizing that they needed to make themselves known to their neighbors and heard by their government. They are voting, running for office and getting more involved in civic and political life at every level, from PTAs and school boards to town councils and state legislatures. At least two Texas Republicans Amir Omar and Ahmad Hassan are running for U.S. Congress.
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which promotes Muslim political activity, has opened 23 of its 31 U.S. chapters since 9/11. In the 2004 election, two studies found, one in five Muslim voters were first-time voters. What if Hitler demanded Nazi Party centers on Allied soil, during WW2?
"There was a silver lining. We became more public," says Aref Assaf, president of the New Jersey-based American Arab Forum.
This large-scale entry of Muslims into public life is not only testing the courage of Muslim candidates and the tolerance of voters. It's also prompting politicians to take notice of a community that has growing clout and is open to appeals from both parties... Immigrants from 100% of non-Muslim classes can be loyal to a non-Muslim State. 0% of Muslims can under post-ummah conditions, where Muslim indoctrination and law is either influential or powerful. Ergo: treat them differently, keep them out and repress those who are here.
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.
CALLING ON ALL UK RANTBURGERS...
