The full post at the Daily Kos is to be read to be believed. Hat tip to LGF.
Heres another open thread, with a gratuitous link to yet another jaw-droppingly whacked out Kos Kid diary: Daily Kos: I would rather die in a terrorist attack.
This one would rather die in a terrorist attack than see Valerie Plame outed. Yes, really. Link to post at the Daily Kos I would rather die in a terrorist attack
By Robert Spencer Excerpts:
After a police raid Friday at Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland, bakery employee Devaughndre Broussard admitted to murdering Chauncey Bailey, the editor of the Oakland Post. Bailey was writing a series of investigative articles about the Bakery and thats why, according to police, Broussard killed him.
...
Chauncey Bailey, moreover, is not the first person in the United States to have been murdered by a Muslim who didnt like what he said. That distinction may belong to Rashad Khalifa, an unorthodox interpreter of the Quran who was murdered in Tucson, Arizona, in January 1990 probably by a member of the jihadist group Jamaat al-Fuqra. But Baileys is still a singular case. Much more common has been the practice of trying to intimidate critics into silence through legal threats.
...
Nor is CAIR alone among Muslims in its efforts at legal intimidation. Billionaire Saudi financier Khalid bin Mahfouz has sued journalist Rachel Ehrenfeld and others for libel in the U.K., where the libel laws favor plaintiffs. Ehrenfelds offense? In her book Funding Evil, she wrote that bin Mahfouz was involved in funding Hamas and al Qaeda. Bin Mahfouz denied that he had knowingly given any money to either. And Cambridge University Press has, in response to another libel suit filed by bin Mahfouz, just removed from circulation and destroyed all unsold copies of Alms for Jihad by Robert Collins and J. Millard Burr, because the book made essentially the same allegations. But Frances foreign intelligence agency has recently revealed that as long ago as 1996 Mr. bin Mahfouz was known as one of the architects of a banking scheme constructed for the benefit of Osama bin Laden and that both U.S. and British intelligence services knew this.
Posted by: ed ||
08/06/2007 09:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#2
Of course the media has closed the information gates on the reporters and media people assassinated in Iraq by the 'insurgents'. What circle in hell awaits the NYT people who betray even their own 'brothers' in the profession rather than report, with the same level of glee that they reserved for Abu Ghraib, that AQ has targeted Iraqi media critical of Islamic terrorism. If it were American media people kidnapped, killed or wounded in Iraq, we'd get all day, all night coverage. Have they hit the hundred killed or missing in Iraq yet? Why should we be surprise the radical think this will work here? Betcha it'll be old news by next week. Buried. However, the message is delivered. Teach us how to treat you by your response.
1. Ayman al-Zawahiri
2. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
3. Ayatolla Kahmeini
4. Mullah Muhammad Omar
5. Abu Bakar Ba'asyir (Bashir)
6. Moqtada Sadr,
7. Abu Hamza al-Masri,
8. Mullah Krekar (AKA: Abu Sayyid Qutb),
9. Khaled Meshal
10. Sheikh Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah
11. Ismail Haniya
12. Mohammed Abbas
13. Yusuf al-Qaradawi
14. Tariq Ramadan
15. Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilali
16. imam Omar Bakri Mohammed
17. imam Abdel-Samie Mahmoud Ibrahim Moussa
18. imam Sheikh SyeSyed Mubarik Ali Gilani
19. Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal
20. Sheik Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi
21. Dr. Mahmoud al-Zahar
22. Prince Sultan Ibn Abd al-Aziz
23. Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz
24. Prince Nayef bin Abdulaziz
"Silence" this list Muslims over a few weeks time and you would hear the entire Islamic world STFU for a good spell.
#7
Are you assuming OBL (Satan's henchman) has already had had his library card cancelled, Z?
I pretty much have to. The prick was such a media whore that there's just no way in hell he could have brought himself to stay out of the spotlight for this long. It's just as likely that rumors of him being in Pakistan are being spread to counter the negative effects of his absence or death.
There is the additional fact that in high context Muslim societies the personal role played by emperor thugs like bin Laden is absolutely critical to maintaining the momentum of radical movements. Bin Laden knows this damn well and would have continued to make personal appearances in order to energize his minions. He has not and that speaks volumes.
It's not often that an opinion article shakes up Washington and changes the way a major issue is viewed. But that happened last week, when The New York Times printed an opinion article by Brookings Institution analysts Michael O'Hanlon and Ken Pollack on the progress of the surge strategy in Iraq.
Yes, progress. O'Hanlon and Pollack supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Pollack even wrote a book urging the overthrow of Saddam Hussein -- but they have sharply criticized military operations there in the ensuing years. "As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," they wrote, "we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily 'victory,' but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with." Their bottom line: "There is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008."
That's not what almost all their fellow Democrats in Congress want to hear. Freshman Rep. Nancy Boyda of Kansas, who unseated Republican Jim Ryun last fall, bolted from a hearing room when retired Gen. Jack Keane described positive developments in Iraq. When she came back, she explained: "But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation -- things are going so well -- those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country, instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue."
But reality can change -- and in war it often does. For George W. Bush and his leading advisers, the reality of Iraq in June 2003 was that we had won a major military victory and that any postwar messiness was not a big problem. We'd put a proconsul in for a year, set up elections and install an Iraqi government, train Iraqi soldiers and police, and restrict our troops to a light footprint. But that reality changed, into full-fledged sectarian warfare, after al-Qaida bombed the Shiite mosque in Samarra in February 2006.
Bush and his military commanders acted as if that reality hadn't changed, until the voters weighed in last November. Then, Bush made changes, installing new commanders and ordering a surge -- an increase in troops, and a more forward strategy of confronting and cleaning out al-Qaida terrorists. And the reality apparently has once again changed.
It can be argued that the surge will prove insufficient to produce the "sustainable stability" that O'Hanlon and Pollack see as a possible result. Serious military experts have argued that we still don't have enough troops or that we won't be able to keep enough troops in place long enough -- current force rotations indicate a net drawdown of troops next spring. And certainly there is room to make the argument that Bush should have acted sooner, as the results of the Samarra bombing became apparent months before the voters' wakeup call.
But it is also reasonably clear that Boyda's "reality of this issue" -- that our effort in Iraq has definitively and finally failed so clearly that there should be no further discussion -- may no longer be operative. That, instead of accepting defeat and inviting chaos, we may be able to achieve a significant measure of success.
Wars don't stand still. In June 1942, the House of Commons debated a resolution of no confidence in Winston Churchill's government. Four months later came the war-changing victory at El Alamein.
Gen. David Petraeus, the author of the Army's new counterinsurgency manual and the commander in Iraq, is scheduled to report on the surge in mid-September. The prospect of an even partially positive report has sent chills up the spines of Democratic leaders in Congress. That, says House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn, would be "a real big problem for us."
The Democratic base has been furious that Democrats in Congress haven't pulled the plug on the war already, and Democratic strategists have been anticipating big electoral gains from military defeat. But if the course of the war can change, so can public opinion. A couple of recent polls showed increased support for the decision to go to war and belief that the surge is working. If opinion continues to shift that way, if others come to see things as O'Hanlon and Pollack have, Democrats could find themselves trapped between a base that wants retreat and defeat, and a majority that wants victory.
#1
Wait, wait, wait a minute; we will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. This will not stand. It does not fit with our agenda.
Posted by: Dhimmicrats and Harry Reid ||
08/06/2007 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't worry. It will fade from the national attention span within a month and a half.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/06/2007 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Late September, Fred? Might be hard to keep this one from visibility, tho I don't doubt that there are congressional leaders who'd like to.
The situation here remains dynamic and fluid. The surge in operations is achieving tactical momentum. The political and legislative progress is still lagging. We know that many eyes are on September when Ambassador Crocker and GEN Petraeus provide an assessment to Congress. -- sent recently by an O6 in the Iraq theater.
#4
The Democratic base has been furious that Democrats in Congress haven't pulled the plug on the war already, and Democratic strategists have been anticipating big electoral gains from military defeat
Who in the hell is the democrat base that they wish failure for Iraq and court defeat for the efforts of our military? These people should be put against the wall for such treachery.
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.
