#1
This is the single most encouraging article I have read in a long time. I am especially impressed by the group charges laid against families committing an "honor killing". We need to do the same thing in Canada.
Posted by: ed ||
02/07/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OTOH, HIRSI ALI on FOX > Islam espec Radical Islam is wholly and absolutely incompatible wid democracy or personal-civil rights, espec for women. ALI [paraphrased]> MOST [but not all] Muslim women pragmatically/realistically don't own = have any rights over their own bodies or even their own minds, or much of anything. Becuz Islam is "from God", Ali believes the West would be foolish = recklessly endangering itself to believe that Islam will [long] tolerate parity or peaceful co-existence wid Non-Islam. ISLAM = RADICAL ISLAM WANT SURRENDER = CONCESSION, NOT CO-EXISTENCE.
#2
The Europeans are free to hate us, but they must remember they can't even defend themselves let alone protect their own vital interests such as energy and raw material, almost 100% imported.
Why and teh hell do most of teh people in this country feel we need to be "liked" by those in other countries? It not something we need really. I don't want frends Like the German and French> As far as I am concernd the BBC deserves a cruise missle or four. It's better we are feared. Perhaps then these fopish Europeans will mamage to pull their own weight internationally and in defense matters.
#3
Unfortunately for those many who have business dealings with the rest of the world, this hatred of America has actual dollar costs. It is interesting though, how many of those who do interact with Americans end up saying, "... but not you. One would hardly know you were American, except for the accent." I used to hear that a lot when we lived over there (except about the accent, because somehow I ended up with the same accent as the person I was talking with at the time).
#4
I ran into that also, TW... I think in part it may because the "America" that they spend so much time ostentatiously disliking is really more of an artificial construct and caraciture, put together from snippits of movies, and tabloids, leftover Soviet-era disinformation... and projection. It actually bears very little resemblance to the "America-that-is".
It is sometimes very amusing when Europeans, or South Americans actually encounter "America-that-is" and realise that everything they thought they knew, everything they had been told about the "America-as-construct" was actually a very bizarre fun-house hall of mirrors.
#6
Teens often hate their parents because they are financial supported and thus have to listen. Since WW2 the US has taken over the bulk of European defense leaving the Europeans in much the same psychological position.
I've long felt that the US should have pulled the bulk of our forces out of Europe, planned for the End of Nato, and left the Europeans to stand up on their own. They would have bitched and moaned but the European nation(s) would have returned to Great Power status faster.
#7
"For the time being, there seem to be no visible incentives for Europeans to desist from anti-Americanism."
For the time being. There also seems to be, for the time being, no inclination on the part of Europeans to re-learn that humans sometimes have to use armies and military weapons to survive. Someone else, Mom and Pop America, has been their "back" and continue to be their back, so Europeans have become lazy, soft and petulant about America. For the time being.
Islam grows and grows within Europe while Europeans bow and scrape to beg forgiveness of their growing cadre of guests, who assert themselves in the definition of European countries more and more. Terrorist acts in the name of Islam continue to strike every country in the world that is not America and still Europeans avoid physically resisting, or arming themselves, or even equipping themselves with a philosophy that sees a need for military preparedness to defend their world. Anti-Americanism and blame for perceived US policy flaws grow as the Union of Europe solidifies a new position for itself on the world's stage-a strutting, spineless, gun-less Gargantuan bereft of moral compass or natural principles, while American presidents of every stripe come and go, and other world powers gain power on the world stage, indifferent to Europe's opinion or the condition of other people in other nations, and much more singleminded about attaining absolute power in the world.
Then, one day America no longer sees the value of covering Europe's back and decides not to anymore. It has to draw all its energies in towards protecting itself. Europe's anti-Americanism proves to have disemboweled its own societies. There is no wishfulness or remorse, no snide anti-American view which can shield them against jihadist movements gaining majority political status within their nations and reestablishing European countries as parts of Dar al Islam. Islam takes over, unchallenged.
All the sophistication and culture in the world can't make that goulash taste good. But enjoy your self-satisfaction-for the time being.
#10
Agree with you, RJS, about the analogy of the teenager. The Marshall Plan and NATO were what permitted the Euros to have their socialist utopia, not the Euros' superiority at planning and running a society vs American ideals. In the absence of either (MP or NATO), Europe could never have afforded the "free" health care and transportation and education and public funded art etc. - the amount that they would have had to spend of their own GDP to ward off the Soviets would have made it impossible. The American taxpayer funded their little "utopia", on some level they know this, and they will always resent the truth of it.
I wonder if the "powers that be" in the U.S. the late '40's and early '50's actually felt that by funding Eurosocialism with NATO dollars that they would be emasculating and permanently weakening the Europeans, as well as sending them on a demographic downspin, thereby eliminating a future rival for American power. Don't know how you would prove it, but if it were true, a stroke of strategic genius in an era before the rise of Islamic fundamentalism (which of course changes the equation mightily).
Agree with you, Jules, that the strutting, preening, full-of-itself-but-without-claws bantam rooster that is modern Europe is doomed.
Unfortunately, we cannot afford to allow France's nukes to fall into Islam's hands.
I believe that ultimately we will have to colonize Europe to save it from what is now unavoidable demographic collapse and Islamic incursion.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/07/2007 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#11
SPACEWAR> POLAND sez Iran missles a threat in 5-6 years. NEWSMAX > Chicom officio says NORTH KOREAN CRISIS MAY SPARK US-CHINA REGIONAL CONFLICT [WAR]. Methinks its Amer that has a Euro problem.
#12
no mo uro, I think the Americans running things at the time wanted to keep Europe militarily dependent so they didn't start a third world war in another fifteen years. It worked, too. Think what the '68ers might have done had they had armies to play with instead of terror cells.
Methinks its Amer that has a Euro problem.
Would you be kind enough to expand on that, JosephM?
If putting ones foot in ones mouth were a lucrative enterprise, George Soros would be worth far more than his current $8.5 billion. While bashing the Iraq war for the benefit of reporters at this years World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the Hungarian-born Soros, a Holocaust survivor, unburdened himself of the view that the Nazis were once more in charge. Only now they were running the United States. America needs to follow the policies it has introduced in Germany, Soros explained. We have to go through a certain de-Nazification process.
Lest there be doubts that Soros was actually likening his adoptive country to the Third Reich and the Bush administration to the Nazi nomenklatura, a Soros spokesman, Michael Vachon, moved quickly to dispel them. There is nothing unpatriotic about demanding accountability from the president, he said of Soross appeal for de-Nazification. Those responsible for taking America into this needless war should do us all a favor and retire from public office. In other words: guilty as charged.
This is not, to be sure, the first time that Soros has revealed himself as a dispenser of Godwin's Law. In The Age of Fallibility -- a bluster-heavy rant against America, its feel-good society, and its economic market fundamentalism published last summer -- Soros posed the rhetorical question: Is it valid to compare the Bush administration to the Nazi and communist regimes? Soros ruled unhesitatingly in the affirmative. Sure, he allowed, the U.S. was a functioning democracy while Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were totalitarian dictatorships. But concerned citizens must look past this glaring contrast, he urged, because then we can discern some surprising similarities.
And which similarities might those be? First, there was the unbridled pursuit of self-interest and self-indulgence and a societal revulsion to both, a connective tissue that, in Soross judgment, made the United States the modern offspring of Nazi Germanys forerunner in the Weimar Republic. In Weimar Germany, this revulsion manifested itself in the Nazi rule. In the US there was the comparably troubling rise of religious fundamentalism. Second, Soros wrote, the Bush administration and the Nazi and Communist regimes all engaged in the politics of fear. As if to underscore his historical illiteracy on this point, Soros explained that the 9/11 attacks had their counterpart in the Reichstag fire in Germany and the Kirov murder in the Soviet Union. (In view of its inability to prevent even minor policy debates from leaking into the media, can it really be the case that the Bush administration declared a one-party state and purged political opponents by the thousands without arousing suspicion?)
There was more along these lines. Citing yet another supposed similarity, Soros wrote that in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union and present-day America, political life came to be dominated by a movement that originated outside the parliamentary system and seized state power. Thus, according to Soros, the German Nazis and the Russian Communists find their logical match in the conservative movement within the Republican Party. Not least, there were similarities in propaganda methods. Here, however, Soros maintained that the United States was actually more pernicious than its Nazi and Soviet analogues. His reasoning was that the Bush administration has been able to improve on the techniques used by the Nazi and Communist propaganda machines. (At least this would explain why the Bush purges remain unknown.)
To point out the flaws of these comparisons would be to invest them with unearned seriousness. In any case, Soros made it clear that even he thought them unlikely to convince the lay reader. Conceding that his equation of the United States with Nazism and Communism won him few supporters -- outside, that is, the left-wing blogosphere, which found his Nazi analogies entirely on point -- Soros lamented: Why does the general public not react in the same way?
A better question might be: Where does George Soros, of all people, summon the nerve to smear his political opponents as Nazis? If anyone ought to be wary of a critical examination of the Nazi era, it is Soros. Though one finds only vague and sporadic mention of it in his books, all written with the conceit that a worldly power-broker is speaking inconvenient truths to power, the billionaire activist has his own uncomfortable ties to the Nazi genocide.
To examine these, one has to go back to 1944. In the aftermath of the German invasion of Hungary in March of that year, Soross father Tivadar conceived of a plan to safeguard his Jewish family from the occupiers. All were given false names with young Soros, then 14, becoming the suitably gentile sounding Sandor Kiss and posing as the godson of an official in the Hungarian ministry of agriculture. Throughout 1944, as the Nazi Final Solution to Hungarian Jewry took its murderous course -- within months half of Hungarys prewar Jewish population had been killed or shipped to their slaughter at Auschwitz -- Soros traversed the country in the company of repossession officials, looking on as they confiscated property whose owners had been freshly deported to the death camps. At times, Soros reportedly served notices of eviction to deportees.
On one level, its difficult to blame Soros for doing what he needed to survive. Yet there has always been something unseemly about the unfeeling manner with which Soros has recalled that chapter of his life. As flagged by Martin Peretz in the New Republic, when asked in a 1998 interview on 60 Minutes whether he was traumatized by the experience of dispossessing his coreligionists, Soros gave an arresting answer: Not, not at all. Not at all. Maybe as a child you don't ... you don't see the connection. But it was--it created no--no problem at all. In his mania for demonizing Americas political leadership, Soros seems to have forgotten that there is at least one prominent figure implicated in the real -- as opposed to imagined -- crimes of the Nazi era. And its not President Bush.
Casting further suspicion on the legitimacy of Soross Nazi analogies are his strained ties to the Jewish state. While addressing a fund-raising conference for Israel in 2003, Soros claimed that the resurgence of anti-Semitism in Europe could be partially attributed to the policies of the Bush administration and the Sharon administration. The Anti-Defamation Leagues Abraham Foxman, no stranger to overreaction, nonetheless echoed the sentiments of many in the Jewish community when he pronounced Soross comments absolutely obscene.
This would be an equally fair description of Soross views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which he sees as a vicious circle of escalating violence, a familiar bromide that posits a false moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinian rejectionists unabashedly seeking her destruction. More recently, Soros has floated plans to fund a progressive alternative to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, apparently on the grounds that the lobbying organization is too supportive of Israel. Details are still vague, but early reports indicate that it will be on the model of the Israel Policy Forum, the liberal advocacy organization that has never let the lack of a credible Palestinian negotiating partner temper its enthusiasm for negotiations (read: Israeli concessions). The IPFs director, David Elcott, is among the names linked to Soross project.
All this may seem of parochial interest. Why should anyone concern themselves with a blowhard financier whose politics are as extreme as his wealth? One reason is that Soros has in recent years committed much of that wealth to charting the course of the Democratic Party. In the 2004 election cycle, Soross spent more than $23 million on a campaign to defeat President Bush. Even as that effort foundered at the polls, the political landscape is now dotted with Soros-funded political action committees like America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and the Center for American Progress, all vying to steer the Democrats leftward. Scratch a left-wing interest group and youll likely find Soros cash.
With the 2008 presidential election getting into high gear, another issue has come to the fore. Last month Soros announced that he was throwing his substantial clout behind the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic star from Illinois who has cast himself as a pragmatist unwilling to play the game of political division. Yet there are few public figures more divisive than George Soros. In the interest of his moderate image, Obama should decline Soross support. Better still, he might ask Soros to apologize for slandering the country that has given him every opportunity to prosper. Spurn the self-styled prophet of the Democratic Party? Admittedly, its a lot to ask. Call it the audacity of hope.
#1
If there was ever a person that failed to understand what they were getting into when they became US citizens, it was George Soros. I'd like him to suddenly get HIS 72 virginian raisins, and soon. Maybe he can have a "New York accident" (also known as a Kennedy swimming lesson).
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
02/07/2007 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Karma decrees he be stoned by Mooslims, gnawed on by N. Koreans and Paleos block his life-saving emergency treatment by Joooos. He's done his absolute best to enrich himself while disrupting Western democratic financial markets. He should enjoy the benefits in all their consequences
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/07/2007 22:00 Comments ||
Top||
I am an Arab-American as well as a fan of "24." The two things are not mutually exclusive, despite what the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) and other such groups have to say about this season's opening episodes possibly increasing anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice in American society.
Most of the terrorists represented in "24" through the years have been Arab Muslims. Why? Well, probably because most terrorists today are, in fact, Arab Muslims. As a descendant of Syrian Muslims, I am very well aware that the majority of Muslims world-wide are peaceful, hard working, and law abiding. That still does not change the fact that the greatest terrorist threat to the U.S. today comes not from the ETA, the IRA, etc., but from one group: Islamic terrorists.
And this is what makes "24" a compelling drama every week. Instead of pretending Islamic terrorists don't exist, the show presents frighteningly real worst-case scenarios perpetrated by Osama bin Laden's followers. So CAIR thinks it's over the top for the terrorists in "24" to blow up Los Angeles with a nuke? Please, if bin Laden and his crew had nukes, most of us would be way too dead to argue over such points.
There is a dangerous trend in the U.S. today that involves skirting the truth at the risk of offending any individual or group. . . . When "24" confronts America's worst fears about al Qaeda--whose goal remains to kill as many Americans as possible whenever possible--the show is said to be guilty of fueling anti-Muslim and anti-Arab prejudice.
Well, here's the hard, cold truth: When Islamic terrorists stop being a threat to America's survival, viewers will lose interest in "24," because it will have lost its relevancy. Until such time, I will continue to watch "24"--because, believe it or not, the idea that there are Jack Bauers out there in real life risking their lives to save ours does mean something to me. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/07/2007 06:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I just wonder how many people would defend Graem and Phillip Bauer.
I do wager that around hour 18 Jack's nephewson will try to kill him.
Posted by: Eric Jablow ||
02/07/2007 9:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
wow! such a shame this guy will meet with reprisals. *sigh*
#3
It has become more evident than ever that non-violent Muslim Arabs, and Christian Arabs are afraid to speak out as Mr. Dabul has.
Planet Dan; reprisals? Probably. It seems that what is called "culture", with such things as suicide bombings and "honor" killings is nothing but the manifestation a Mafia Don having control over the "family" and that if anyone dare speak against the "family" they are liquidated.
If any of us knows, or knows of a person of Arabic descent who appears not to want to be a part of this, like Mr. Dabul, we have to show them our support in situations like this. If there were enough folks to stand behind people who are brave enough to do so, then it would be the leaders of the violent organizations and facilitating groups like CAIR who would be in fear...
#4
IONews, NORTH KOREA > to test a 2,500-km ship-based missle. Possibly a derivative of the obsolete Soviet SSN-6 Gadfly liquid-fueled missle, and capable of "dual-use" = conventional-nuclear usage as based on Soviet specs. FOR THE FUTURE WID IRAN???. *US NAVY > NOT TO WORRY as USN has eight AEGIS Destroyers in JAPAN which can travel all around the PacRim = Norkie "near-abroad/littorals.
Kenyan Foreign Minister Raphael Tuju is on a five-day visit in Israel this week and boy, does Israel have a lot to discuss with him. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Olmert government will fail to recognize this.
The most important question that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his colleagues should be broaching to their Kenyan guest is how his government is coping with the fact that Washington has apparently lost its will to fight the war against the global jihad. Last week, under pressure from US Ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger, Kenyan authorities released from prison Sheikh Sharif Ahmad, one of the leaders of the ousted al-Qaida-linked Islamic Courts Union (ICU) in Somalia.
In late December, with US backing and support, Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia with forces from the recognized Somali Transitional Federal Government, (TFG). The invasion came a month after the ICU declared jihad against Ethiopia and Kenya. ICU forces, which had set up a Taliban-style tyranny throughout the country, fled before the Ethiopian advance. In just six days, the ICU was overthrown and the recognized Somali government had retaken control over Mogadishu.
The Democratic Party's opposition to the war has been relentless, monolithic, adamant, hysterical and dishonest, and it began even before the dust settled in Lower Manhattan-- yet the American people gave them a resounding victory last November by handing them control of both houses of Congress.
I think anyone attempting a realistic assessment of the situation-- and that includes both our enemies and our allies-- has to conclude that neither America's political class nor the American public has the stomach for a prolonged war.
Hit us hard enough and yes, you can shock us into a brief flurry of action-- provided a cowboy Republican from Texas happens to occupy the White House when we are hit. But we quickly get distracted by bright shiny objects waved in our faces-- "universal health care" and "global warming", for example-- and lose interest.
Osama bin Laden posited that if you bleed the Americans long enough and hard enough-- and God knows, it doesn't take much-- they will eventually give up and go home. And I think most of the world suspects we are about to prove him right; certainly, listening to our politicians and our media, it's hard to conclude otherwise.
And if OBL is proven right, the consequences will be horrible. Not just for us, but for the entire world.
I see dead people.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
02/07/2007 6:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I hope Condi has no future political ambitions, because her State Dept appeasers and deadenders are killing them with me
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/07/2007 7:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I like Caroline Glick, but The President is not about to allow Iran to create a preventable ICBM threat to the US Homeland. He hears those "Death to America" shouts and reads intelligence reports of Iranian public contempt for the Ayatollah parasites.
#6
He hears those "Death to America" shouts and reads intelligence reports of Iranian public contempt for the Ayatollah parasites.
And appears to do nothing.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
02/07/2007 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I think the State Department needs an Enema. I don't blame Condi or Powell for being unable to clear out that sewage basin. If State Department folks can't be fired they should be reassigned to the Vatican desk where they can be ignored.
Pretty much all visa's from the Islamic world should be put on hold for the duration, that will clear up a bit of the other work.
Visa's from Europe should be either (a) fasttracked, which would accellerate the brain drain and kill Europe (b) Declined, which might keep Europe around long enough to learn to fight back. This decision can be made depending upon Europes attitudes.
#8
Visas to the US should be granted to those who have skills & resources needed in the US. E.g., European physicists, Iraqi scientists who are bilingual Arabic/English, etc. People who don't have something to contribute here can go elsewhere "for the duration."
#9
GUARDIAN UK > MUST STOP BUSH FROM BOMBING IRAN AND STOP IRAN FROM GETTING THE BOMB; MENEWS> US CONGRESS MUST STOP BUSH FROM ATTACKING IRAN. How the RN + French Navies are gonna stop the USA wid PROPELLER-GATES [France] + 44 ships or below [Brits] is beyond me.
OTOH, WORLD NEWS > US Congressional research office fears Radical Islam = Terrorists will put WMDS-NUKES on cargo ships. IOW, SUICIDE = AMER HISROSHIMA(S) BY SHIP. ALso, FREEREPUBLIC - For thhose whom say that Dubya ought not to had started this war, LETS ALL REMEMBER HOW MANY DEMOCRAT POTUSES LED THE USA INTO WAR AGZ NATIONS THAT DID NOT ATTACK US = NOT ATTACKED US FIRST.
* Songs of the the Third World War, DESTRUCTION OF THE BATTLESHIP OKLAHOMA, the theme from TITANIC. "You're here ... ... forever this way"
Frontpage Interviews guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI). CSPIs goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced a series on its focus.
Excerpt:
All of Western logic is based upon the law of contradictionif two things contradict, then at least one of them is false. But Islamic logic is dualistic; two things can contradict each other and both are true. No dualistic system may be measured by one answer. This is the reason that the arguments about what constitutes the real Islam go on and on and are never resolved. A single right answer does not exist.
Dualistic systems can only be measured by statistics. It is futile to argue one side of the dualism is true. As an analogy, quantum mechanics always gives a statistical answer to all questions. For an example of using statistics, look at the question: what is the real jihad, the jihad of inner, spiritual struggle or the jihad of war? Lets turn to Bukhari (the Hadith) for the answer, as he repeatedly speaks of jihad. In Bukhari 97% of the jihad references are about war and 3% are about the inner struggle. So the statistical answer is that jihad is 97% war and 3% inner struggle. Is jihad war? Yes97%. Is jihad inner struggle? Yes3%. So if you are writing an article, you can make a case for either. But in truth, almost every argument about Islam can be answered by: all of the above. Both sides of the duality are right.
Posted by: ed ||
02/07/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Koran contradicts itself in penty of things but thre is no duality about jihad: 100% war, 0% internal struggle.
#2
Warner is generous in tallying the spiritual struggle passages becaue where spiritual struggle is mentioned its not ordinarily in the context of jihad, but his quantitative approach is a good one.
Another quantification needed would be in the commentaries on the Koran. The commentaries are very extensive on the war side and the spirtual side is pretty barren (which is something that the Sufi movement has tried to deal with by invoking mystic storytelling for example).
#3
To pick a nit: Christianity also allows for paradoxes (remember the Trinity?), and it cheerfully uses "Western" logic.
Posted by: James ||
02/07/2007 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yes but Western Christian philosophy defines those paradoxes as Divine Mysteries, beyond the ken of the human mind. Western Christianity does not assert that all science, math, and philosophy are contained in the Bible, as does Islam with the Koran.
Avigdor Lieberman (who has a JPost Blog)
On Monday, a group of 17 organizations handed British Prime Minister Tony Blair a report titled "Time to Talk - the Case for Diplomatic Solutions on Iran." The report analyzes the consequences and ramifications of a military attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities. Among the consequences the report warns of are strengthening Iranian nuclear ambitions, greater instability in the Middle East, an inflammation of the war on terror, exacerbated global energy insecurity, damage to developing economies, environmental degradation and civilian casualties. For all these reasons, the report flat-out denounces military action against Iran.
Before reading the report itself, I was surprised to see on the cover the logos of 17 very diversified organizations - only two seem to be research bodies. The remaining 15 include four trade unions (Unison, GMB, PCS and Amicus) three British-Muslim bodies (British-Muslim Forum, the Muslim Council of Britain and the Muslim Parliament) and numerous charities, religious and aid organizations (Oxfam, Pax Christi, CSW, People and Planet, MedAct, Amos Trust, IPPNW and Ockenden).
When I actually got the report itself, I was quite puzzled by the tone, structure and non-academic appearance of the report. I quickly came to the realization that I was not holding a "report" at all, rather a policy paper with a very clear agenda: Do not attack Iran. In my opinion, this "report" has no academic value and does not meet the most basic criteria of academic research.
For example, section 1.2 of the report claims to analyze Iran's motives for pursuit of nuclear technology. The report lists national pride ("relinquishing the right to nuclear technology would be seen as a national humiliation") and deterrence ("Iran has also observed that the North Korean regime, which has declared that it possesses nuclear weapons, has avoided US military attention") as the only motives. Where do Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's countless declarations about 'wiping Israel off the map', 'a world without Zionism' and the 'annihilation of the State of Israel' fit in to this report? Not in this section, but in section 1.5 ("The Importance of Israel"), citing these declarations only as giving "credence to Israel's concerns," not real threats that have to be taken into account in this report. Needless to say, Israel is depicted as an aggressor (the amazingly ridiculous example given by the authors is Israel's 1981 strike against Iraq's nuclear facilities).
The one thing the "report" does not discuss is the possible outcome of Iran actually achieving nuclear weapons. This scenario of a non-rational player with a nuclear warhead and the ICBM (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles) capability to deliver it in the heart of the Jewish State doesn't seem to worry the authors as much as the prospect of the disruption of oil supply to the West or fueling more Islamic anti-West terror.
I can go on and on, tackling each and every inaccuracy of the "report" and pointing out glaring omissions, but I believe you get the general idea. I call upon research organizations and bodies to take this challenge and go through this report with a very fine-toothed comb, and expose it for what it's worth. I also call upon British citizens, who might belong or support any one of these organizations, trade unions or charities to protest that this "report" has been published in their name.
#2
Virgin No. 38: Im Zania, from the planet Xeron. My vagina is on my foot.
My personal favorite-what a conundrum for Muslims, given their aversion to feet. I loved Steve Martin in his younger days-maybe he's found his second wind.
I try not to rant about media bias or political correctness much, because after a while it feels like youre banging your head against the wall.
But Kathryns latest column pointing out the comments of John Edwards new campaign blogger, Amanda Marcotte about What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit? [Sorry to lay that on you, readers, but theres no other way to so effectively illustrate the obnoxious, vulgar, sneering and confrontational bigoted tone of her comments] - illustrates the ridiculousness of the rules for public debate in America today.
I like free speech. I like passionate arguments. I like it when opposing views clash with vigor and volume, when John McLaughlin bellows, WROOOONG, Eleanor! I like jokes, and I know that sometimes an attempt at humor is going to fall flat.
But sometimes some comment will cross a line of taste, or decency, or just common respect, and in an ideal world, the body politic would say, in a more-or-less unified fashion, thats wrong. Thats unfair. Thats out of line. Knock it off.
Right now, we have a public debate in which one side is stringently patrolled for anything that could be considered rude, uncouth, or indecent, and the other side is given carte blanche. . . .
UPDATE: Maybe I spoke too soon. The New York Times writes of the Catholic League's objections, and I'm stunned to read:
Mr. Edwardss spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
The two women brought to the Edwards campaign long cyber trails in the incendiary language of the blogosphere. Other campaigns are likely to face similar controversies as they try to court voters using the latest techniques of online communication.
Ms. Marcotte wrote in December that the Roman Catholic Churchs opposition to the use of contraception forced women to bear more tithing Catholics. In another posting last year, she used vulgar language to describe the church doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.
Kudos to the Times for paying attention, and it appears, so far, that the Edwards campaign might just be taking this seriously.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/07/2007 07:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
...It would have taken five - FIVE - minutes for the Edwards campaign to find out what they were hiring. This is just more proof - if any was needed - that the left simply does not understand that the Blogosphere and the Net not only cannot be ben to their will (as the MSM) but it forgets nothing.
Interestingly enough, I have NOT heard this about any of the bloggers hired for the Republican campaigns, even though there has been plenty of time to investigate them. Not sure if that means they're less offensive or just better at hiding it, but I think it's a good thing.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
02/07/2007 8:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mr. Edwardss spokeswoman, Jennifer Palmieri, said Tuesday night that the campaign was weighing the fate of the two bloggers.
Score one for Jeff Goldstein!
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
02/07/2007 9:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The internet never forgets.
Amanda Marcotte, as it turns out, is a nasty, over-the-top progressive who has no problem being as rude and vulgar as she believes necessary to make her points. She's hyper-partisan; she'll turn a blind eye to anything wrong that a progressive/left politican does and likewise never credit a conservative with anything done right.
In other words, she's the progressive answer to Ann Coulter.
One might like Ms. Coulter or Ms. Marcotte (not sure it's possible to like 'em both). One can defend their rights to speak as they wish.
But the internet never forgets.
And the more controversial you are, the more people are going to remember what you've said: they won't remember the specifics, but they won't have to, because they can search it out when the time comes.
If a Republican campaign had hired Ann Coulter to some position (any position), you can bet the progressive blogs would be rummaging through everything she's ever written to find the choicest morsels with which to attack her.
Welcome to that club, Ms. Marcotte. You're the Edwards campaign designated piñata this month. Enjoy the attention and then, in a week or so, issue some gooey statement about 'divergent interests' and slink back off to Pandagon.
Because the internet never forgets.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/07/2007 10:44 Comments ||
Top||
You hit the nail on the head, Steve, the internet never forgets and this fact just does not register on the left. I think this is because their entire style of rhetoric and even thought itself is built around centralized media. They are accustomed to friendly editors having complete control over access to their past statements. It just never became an issue unless someone else on the inside of the media-industrial complex wanted it to be. In contrast, Internet posts are there for all to see, anytime.
Just as importantly, the views of opponents and critics had only as much coverage as the dinosaur media wanted them to have, leading to the MSM culture's wanton and compulsive use of strawmen, something that looks ridiculous on the net where the original statements of the opposition are there for all to see.
Re: "Page-busting link fixed. Next time, it goes bye-bye."
Sorry. AOL, which I get for free, doesn't recognize HTML tags. Would it be okay not to tag links, and to leave it up to interested parties to cut-and-paste if they want? One Mod complained when I used to do that.
their entire style of rhetoric and even thought itself is built around centralized media. They are accustomed to friendly editors having complete control over access to their past statements
Man, that is it. Is there a way to exploit this on a systematic basis?
#9
Sorry. AOL, which I get for free, doesn't recognize HTML tags. Would it be okay not to tag links, and to leave it up to interested parties to cut-and-paste if they want?
Well, it's recogising something. Might I suggest using a word-processor?
And Ann's not vulgar. She's an inflammatory bomb-thrower, but she's not crude. Of course, I can't think of an inflammatory bomb-thrower on the left that isn't vulgar and crude.
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.
By Jacob Laksin
