The strange emotional power of swearingas well as the presence of linguistic taboos in all cultures suggests that taboo words tap into deep and ancient parts of the brain. In general, words have not just a denotation but a connotation: an emotional coloring distinct from what the word literally refers to, as in principled versus stubborn and slender versus scrawny. The difference between a taboo word and its genteel synonyms, such as sh*t and feces, c*nt and vagina, or f*cking and making love, is an extreme example of the distinction. Curses provoke a different response than their synonyms in part because connotations and denotations are stored in different parts of the brain.
The mammalian brain contains, among other things, the limbic system, an ancient network that regulates motivation and emotion, and the neocortex, the crinkled surface of the brain that ballooned in human evolution and which is the seat of perception, knowledge, reason, and planning. The two systems are interconnected and work together, but it seems likely that words' denotations are concentrated in the neocortex, especially in the left hemisphere, whereas their connotations are spread across connections between the neocortex and the limbic system, especially in the right hemisphere.
A likely suspect within the limbic system is the amygdala, an almond-shaped organ buried at the front of the temporal lobe of the brain (one on each side) that helps invest memories with emotion. A monkey whose amygdalas have been removed can learn to recognize a new shape, like a striped triangle, but has trouble learning that the shape foreshadows an unpleasant event like an electric shock. In humans, the amygdala "lights up"—it shows greater metabolic activity in brain scans—when the person sees an angry face or an unpleasant word, especially a taboo word.
The response is not only emotional but involuntary. It's not just that we don't have earlids to shut out unwanted sounds. Once a word is seen or heard, we are incapable of treating it as a squiggle or noise; we reflexively look it up in memory and respond to its meaning, including its connotation.
Much more in this long but interesting article by Steven Pinker
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/11/2007 07:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
F@¢kin' A, man, all these years I've told my kids there is always a better and more effective way to say things without cussing if they just take an extra second or two think about it. I told them it's important to develop a good vocabulary so their words can have even more impact without havivg to resort to profanity. But now I see that I was wrong. $h!t.
#2
That's why we save the strongest language for the strongest situations, treo. Otherwise the f*ckin' words lose all their f*ckin' meaning, and become merely f*ckin' rhetorical emphasis.
#3
What the f---? Every dumba-- knows that people f------ use G------ swearwords because they've got s--- for brains and they're too f------ stupid to improve their m------------ vocabulary! We need some c---------- b------ university professor to spend a s---load of grant money to point out the f------ obvious?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/11/2007 11:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"I am your dam guide, Arnie, please don't wander off the dam tour and please take all the dam pictures you want. Now are there any dam questions?"
Michael C. Moynihan
In a rare display of honesty, Zimbabwe's dictator Robert Mugabe has acknowledged that his "redistribution" of white-owned farms (which included giving land and equipment to thousands of people who hadn't a clue how to farm) has been a disaster, and that it has turned his country into a "laughing stock." But, according to Mugabe, it's still not his fault. The Telegraph reports:
The malnutrition that afflicts millions of Zimbabweans has reduced the country to a "laughing stock", President Robert Mugabe has admitted. Distributing equipment to black farmers resettled on land seized from white owners, he said: "We have become the laughing stock because of hunger. We all need to eat, whether you are Zanu-PF or MDC. Let's unite."
Since Mr Mugabe began confiscating farms Zimbabwe has gone from being an agricultural exporter to a country where millions need food aid. He blames supposed Western sabotage for the situation, rather than his own actions.
Last year, Jens F. Laurson and George A. Pieler made the moral case for ending foreign aid to African dictatorships. As they point out, Robert Mugabe "takes the cash and blames the West, trashing the human rights of both large landowners and defenseless slumdwellers in Harare."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Mike ||
10/11/2007 6:36 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And what is really sad is that the ANC in South Africa can literally look across the border into Zimbabwe and see what a nightmare the forced "redistribution" of farms has caused - and they still are pushing the same program in SA. We will be reading the same reports coming out of Pretoria and J-burg in a few years.
#7
We will be reading the same reports coming out of Pretoria and J-burg in a few years.
Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-10-11 07:19
Already happening Shieldwolf in Zuid Afrika and neighboring countries. Western MSM just doesn't wish to cover it, it's a "black thing" and not very attractive I'm afraid, the full scale butchery that is. Native governance you know, they need more (not fewer) western dollars to fight.... growing pains, hindered by years (something less than 100 total) of nasty colonial rule, apartheid.... they need TIME, 8 to 10 thousand years at least. We must be patient with these people, even thought they may very well be the oldest "civilization" on the bloody planet.
Even though he may win the Nobel Peace Prize today, Al Gore was handed a humiliating set back yesterday in a British court which ruled that there were 9 instances in his film Inconvenient Truths that were not supported by evidence or scientific consensus:
In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the apocalyptic vision presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.
It is plainly, as witnessed by the fact that it received an Oscar this year for best documentary film, a powerful, dramatically presented and highly professionally produced film, he said in his ruling. It is built around the charismatic presence of the ex-Vice-Presi-dent, Al Gore, whose crusade it now is to persuade the world of the dangers of climate change caused by global warming.
It is now common ground that it is not simply a science film although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion but that it is a political film.
Some of the specific non-truths (lies) illustrated in the film include:
The claim that sea levels could rise by 20ft in the near future was dismissed as distinctly alarmist.
Such a rise would take place only after, and over, millennia. Mr Justice Burton added: The ar-mageddon scenario he predicts, inso-far as it suggests that sea level rises of seven metres might occur in the immediate future, is not in line with the scientific consensus.
A claim that atolls in the Pacific had already been evacuated was supported by no evidence, while to suggest that two graphs showing carbon dioxide levels and temperatures over the last 650,000 years were an exact fit overstated the case.
"Alarmist," "no evidence," "overstated" - not to mention the judge calling the movie a "political film" - would seem to destroy the credibility of Gore's vision of disaster. But don't worry, the Global Warming crew will be out in full force touting the idea that "most" of the film passes muster with scientists despite its blatant political bias.
#1
What we need is someone like Christopher Hitchens to write about Gore and his new religion like Hitch did about God.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/11/2007 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
LUCIANNE POster said 'tis actually ELEVEN, not nine. *OTOH, WND.com > Pert study of Siberian area/enviro indics that GLOBAL WARMING bgean over 200 years ago, circa year 1750???
. . . the real historical comparison taking shape these days may be with Hillary and . . . Al Smith! My thesis is simple: Hillary is going to become the Al Smith of our age: an inevitable nominee, and a sure loser for similar reasons to Smith in 1928. It is not just that a woman president is likely unacceptable to a decisive portion of the swing vote (which will be loathe to admit this to pollsters), but also that she is just too emblematic of the Deep Blueness of the blue states in a way that her husband was able to conceal successfully.
These thoughts came to mind as I was reading a 1925 essay on Smith by Walter Lippmann, in which he judged:
The availability of Al Smith is glaring, indisputable, overwhelming. And yet he is unavailable. By the unspoken and unwritten law of the United States, as it stands today, he cannot be nominated by any national party.
Lippmann was wrong about this judgment, of course, but his broader analysis is correct on why Smith couldnt win the presidency. The parallels arent exact, but close enough to prompt some reflection:
One cannot say that the new urban civilization which is pushing Al Smith forward into national affairs is better or worse than the older American civilization of town and country which dreads him and will resist him. But one can say that they do not understand each other, and that neither has yet learned that to live it must let live. The conflict is an inevitable consequence of our history. It seems, however, to be the fate of this genial man to deepen that conflict and to hasten it, and to make us face the conflict sooner than we are ready. . . The Ku Kluxers may talk about the Pope to the lunatic fringe, but the main mass of opposition is governed by an instinct that to accept Al Smith is to certify and sanctify a way of life that does not belong to the America they love. Here is not trivial conflict.
Maybe this all means that in another generation, well be observing "AL Smith/Hillary Clinton" dinners, with an ecumenical Catholic/Methodist clergy presiding.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/11/2007 11:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the 2008 election is the question, Hillary is definitely not the answer. She is just another talking head political poque floating to the top by any means. If the trunks come up with anyone that sounds reasonable they will probably win in a contest with Hillary. She is shrill, comes across bitchy, speaks in tongues (well, fake accents), is opportunistic, and I think wishy-washy. These are some of the nicer words I can think of to describe her. She would be a Nancy Pelosi in the White House.
In the course of asking the rhetorical question "Would Hillary! defend Rush Limbaugh's free speech rights?" he has this to say about the Left:
Who threw the first stone in these media-driven bloodlettings? Good question. But to my knowledge the right has no equivalent to "repressive tolerance," the aggressive theory of scorched-earth political argument laid out in the hothouse years of the 1960s by the late left-wing political philosopher Herbert Marcuse. Just last November, in an admiring essay for the Chronicle of Higher Education, the left polemicist Stanley Fish aptly summed up Marcuse's assertion that "liberal" notions of tolerance for political speech should be overturned.
The rationale for this notion is that standard tolerance is rigged against the left. In practice, tolerance extends only to the ideas and beliefs of the powerful, while it shuts out ideas on behalf of the weak or "marginalized"--the poor, minorities, women and the rest. Mr. Fish says liberals fail to see "the dark side of their favorite virtue."
Prof. Fish has an alternative to traditions of tolerance, and to anyone awash in American politics today it will sound familiar: "That is to say, and Marcuse says it, anything the right does is bad and should not be tolerated; anything the left does is good and should be welcomed." This would explain the emotional intensity and animosity in politics now: The other side no longer deserves minimal respect.
It's not enough to disagree with conservative viewpoints; one has to undermine and delegitimize them. Mock them. Put them beyond the pale. Incidentally, Marcuse, Fish and others on the left who want to "withdraw" tolerance from the speech and ideas of their opponents count centrist Democrats among them. "Opponents," that is.
That is what happened to Joe Lieberman.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/11/2007 06:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A government only lasts as long as there are people willing to defend it with, as Lincoln said, the "last full measure of devotion". When you burn the Constitution for POWER, when you make the words meaningless, when you can't fool the people with shames and shows, bread and games, who's going to be there when someone shows up and says "I'm now in charge". Cause the people won't care. You can draft them, but you can't put 'fight' into them.
#2
When you consider the Ann Coulters, Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons and other shrill talking heads of the right, Fish and Marcuse are on to something. As long as those dopes and partisan misanthrophes are being illustrated as the conservative, pro-American, pro-Capitalism, pro-War Support then we are doomed to the left's strategy. Why don't they come here and pick on us? What's wrong with us - why don't they pay attention?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/11/2007 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
Islamic terrorists destroyed two of the tallest buildings in New York on September 11, 2001. Six years later, one of the remaining super-skyscrapers in New York, the Empire State Building, is going to go green for the Muslim holiday of Eid.
New Yorks iconic Empire State Building is to be lit up green from Friday in honor of the Muslim holiday of Eid, the biggest festival in the Muslim calendar marking the end of Ramadan, officials said.
This is the first time that the Empire State Building will be illuminated for Eid, and the lighting will become an annual event in the same tradition of the yearly lightings for Christmas and Hannukah, according to a statement.
Eid al-Fitr, which marks the end of the fasting month, is expected to be celebrated in New York from Friday, depending on when the new moon is sighted, and the citys tallest skyscraper will remain green until Sunday.
Built in the early 1930s, the 443-meter-tall (1,454-feet-tall) Empire State Building was first lit up with colored lighting in 1976, when red, white and blue lights were used to mark the American Bicentennial. An estimated seven million Muslims live in the United States.
And of course, the last sentence is a CAIR-promoted lie. The Pew Research Center estimates the total population of Muslims in the United States at 2.35 million.
#3
"And of course, the last sentence is a CAIR-promoted lie. The Pew Research Center estimates the total population of Muslims in the United States at 2.35 million."
-do you think it's more or less? If it is 2.35M then we are accomodating less than 1% of the population w/this non-sense. Supposedly 6% of americans are gay, might as well have the ESB be draped in little rainbows for gay pride day or some such crap.
#4
BH6: I'm sure you're quoting "MSM" sources on your gay thing, but it's not true. Otherwise, there's more than 18 MILLION gays out there???
That's more than NYC and LA combined. I call B.S. on that "statistic" too. Sure, they're concentrated in San Francisco, Atlanta and a few other cities, but even then, I'd bet that's only a few million at most. Even if ALL of Atlanta were gay (City Limits), that's only 450,000 or so.
Posted by: BA ||
10/11/2007 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
BA - hence I caveated w/"supposedly 6%" - Actually the MSM says 10% of all Americans. I got 6% from some source I heard O'Reilly & Boortz use. I'm still wondering what the actual # of muzzies is.
Now, let's assume that most Muslims are Asians. Yet, I would assume the largest Asian blocks of immigrant groups are not Muslim (Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Thai, etc.). Add into that, the fact that large #s of other Asians (including former USSR republics) have recently immigrated, and I'd venture to guess that maybe 10% of the Asian population *could* be Muslim (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Malay, Indonesian, etc.).
So, let's just assume that 10% of Asian immigrants are Muslim (that's just a shot in the dark). That gives you 1.3 million. Then, add in the fact that Arabs might consider themselves "White", let's add in another 50%. You're still only around 2 million. And, my gut tells me that's generous.
Of course, you have an up and coming Black-Muslim population too, but they're not *true* Muslims in the eyes of the faithful.
Posted by: BA ||
10/11/2007 14:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
hope that some of the tenants 'forget' to put in the green light bulbs........
#10
I only hope the electrician is a rantburger and sets the green lights in the shape of a pig.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
10/11/2007 17:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Imagine that you are on a subway train at 5PM during Ramadan, and the driver is a starving Muslim. He is weakened from 12 hours of not being able to eat or drink. All the protein nutrients have dissolved in his stomach, and the body is cannibalizing his muscle tissue, weakening him in the process. In addition, he is dehydrated and exhausted.
Worse scenario: the starving muhammedan is a pilot, as is his co-pilot.
I remember a few days ago LauraW identifying the next MSM meme. They will be forced to abandon "We Are Failing", so they will instead embrace "Was it Worth It"? I think she's spot on with that prediction (prescient! Google it!).
I concur. And do read the whole post as he contemplates the nutroots getting their seethe on.
#1
"Was it worth it" > FREEREPUBLIC Poster > USA + WOrld is approaching an uncertain and unstable time period in our existence, and we'll be lucky to just survive/live through it.
#2
The implication in this meme shift would be that we are currently making headway in achieving our objectives there.
The MSM might be forced to repeat the cold hard statistics that Iraq is becoming less dangerous lately, but one sentence you will never hear them say is, "America is winning the war in Iraq".
The MSM, like the nutroots and the Democrats, has too much invested in U.S. failure there.
Which will be largely an unanswerable question unless you can identify the place you're coming from.
For a lot of us, having seen the works of the post-Marxists, nativists and general American bashers of Europe and Korea, we're having a great deal of trouble thinking those efforts were 'worth it' either.
However, it leaves those, who pontificate we shouldn't meddle in other peoples problems outside our borders, to try to rationalize why we should therefore be concerned with peoples problems inside our border, if they themselves consider nativism to be equitable to racism.
#4
The problem, or advantage, of the Was it worth it? argument is that we don't really know what the alternative was. And many times it would have been much worse than anyone will allow.
#5
Expect the '08 Democrat election rhetoric to shift away from the war and terrorism, and straight to the standard Democrat boilerplate of "healthcare, education, the widening gap between the poor and the rich"
They will also focus on the environment and global warming and increased governmental regulation while at the same time trying to keep quiet the fact that taxes are increasing to finance everything.
Last Saturday, Palestinian Christian Rami Ayyad was abducted and murdered. His body was found the next day. Six months ago, a bomb destroyed Ayyads Christian bookstore, the Holy Bible Society in Gaza City.
No group claimed responsibility for the murder of Ayyad, but the bombing of his bookstore was consistent with the pattern of bombings carried out by a jihadist group calling itself The Righteous Swords of Islam.
Ayyads death comes at a time when the position of Christians in the Palestinian Authority is more precarious than ever. Dr. Justus Weiner of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs said in July that for a number of years now, this minority community [of Christians] has been in dire need of assistance. Palestinian Christians are unable to practice their religion in freedom and in peace. Most in danger are Arab Christians. And most in danger among Arab Christians are those who have converted from Islam. They are often left defenseless against cruelty from Muslim fundamentalists.
This cruelty is often hallowed by the sanction of Islamic law. Sheikh Abu Saqer of the jihadist group Jihadia Salafiya announced last June: I expect our Christian neighbors to understand the new Hamas rule means real changes. They must be ready for Islamic rule if they want to live in peace in Gaza. This would mean that, in accord with ancient provisions of Islamic Sharia law, Christians could practice their religion, but only if they did so inconspicuously: Jihadia Salafiya and other Islamic movements will ensure Christian schools and institutions show publicly what they are teaching to be sure they are not carrying out missionary activity. No more alcohol on the streets. All women, including non-Muslims, need to understand they must be covered at all times while in public. Hamas even intends to reinstitute the jizya, the special tax mandated by the Quran (9:29) for Jews and Christians, but from which Muslims are exempt from paying.
Christians are accordingly streaming out of Palestinian Authority-controlled areas including some of the holiest sites in Christendom. Christians comprised 85 percent of the population of Bethlehem in 1948; by 2006 their numbers had dwindled to twelve percent, and a large mosque has been built on one side of Manger Square, right across from the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Muslim thugs beat a Christian cab driver in Bethlehem, George Rabie, just for displaying a crucifix in his cab. Rabie noted: Every day, I experience discrimination . Many extremists from the villages are coming into Bethlehem. Sometimes this discrimination turns lethal: several years ago, Muslims shot dead two Christian women for not wearing the Islamic veil. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades took responsibility and explained: We wanted to clean the Palestinian house of prostitutes. Samir Qumsiyeh, owner of a private Christian television station, observed last January: The situation is very dangerous. I believe that 15 years from now there will be no Christians left in Bethlehem. Then you will need a torch to find a Christian here. This is a very sad situation. A Bethlehem hotelier, Joseph Canawati, said simply: There is no hope for the future of the Christian community. We dont think things are going to get better. For us, it is finished.
Yet while all this has gone on the world has turned a blind eye. The UN has issued no resolutions calling upon the Palestinians to stop mistreating their Christian minority. Human rights organizations have likewise been silent. And in the West, where Islamic advocacy groups and student groups profess to reject and abhor extremism, the oppression of Palestinian Christians has likewise not registered on the radar screen. The Council on American Islamic Relations has said nothing about it. Neither has the Muslim Public Affairs Council. And on campuses around the country, Leftist and Muslim groups are denouncing organizers of Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week events, instead of joining with them to stand against the oppression of Christians (as well as women, gays, and others) in all too many Muslim countries today.
Why is that? If these groups really oppose jihadist activity and Sharia oppression, why wont they stand against them? These groups have been directing their efforts toward discrediting Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week by casting aspersions upon David Horowitz and others. Some have stooped even to fabricating posters in order to portray the organizers of the Week as bigoted and hateful. The losers in all this are the Palestinian Christians and other victims of jihadist oppression. The only ones who are speaking up for them are being vilified and smeared by those who claim to be the sentinels of tolerance and justice.
Yet if Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is ultimately shouted down on campuses all over the country, among the winners will be those who are making life so miserable for Christians in the Palestinian Authority and all over the Islamic world. And no one will be left to speak for them at all.
#1
You won't see anything like this article in the French newspapers.
Here, journalists explain all day long that Israelis are bad for Christians, and Palestinian islamonazis, good.
In fact, the French intelligentsia's newspaper "Le Monde" even published, at the beginning of the year 2007, an article saying that Hamas terrorists (they call them "militants", of course) were laying down flowers in front of Gaza's churches !!!
Less than one month after this wonderful article, Hamas took over Gaza Strip, and burnt churches and monasteries...
#2
Curiously enough, I had two ladies from the Jehovah's Witnesses visit me this morning. I rapidly diverted the conversation from their prosyletizing and over to Islam's predations upon Christianity. Get this:
BOTH OF THEM HAD NEVER HEARD OF BESLAN.
I gave them a detailed description of young girls being raped, people drinking urine out of their shoes to avoid dying of thirst and fleeing children being shot in the back as terrorists gleefully gunned them down. I implored them to begin making their congregation aware of Islam's threat and noted how the two of them, uncovered as they were, would receive public lashes for going outside dressed as they were.
Here's hoping that they took it to heart. Christians everywhere had best begin smuggling arms to their brethern around the world if they want to have any hope of them surviving. Islam will not perish soon enough to avoid several million Christians being swept before them. That needs to change in a big bad way.
The opinion of Nibras Kazimi, Visiting Scholar at the Hudson Institute
.... Yesterday, the Hezbollah-friendly Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar began to publish the initial sworn testimonies of the Al-Qaeda-related cell members who were arrested in Lebanon during January 2006. .... There are two new revelations in Al-Akhbars stories: the first is that Faisal Akbars nationality is reaffirmed as a Saudi rather than a Syrian.
Faisal Akbar was one of an Al-Qaeda cell arrested by the Lebanese Government immediately after the assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in early 2005. The linked article contains details.
The second - this blew my mind - is the mention in two sets of affidavits of a character called Nabil. Both Faisal Akbar and [another member of the cell] Hani al-Shenti mention Nabil as a high-level member of their cell who was killed in Iraq in the summer of 2005.
Al-Shenti adds that Nabil was also known as Abul Ghadieh. This would make him Abul Ghadieh Al-Souri, the pseudonym of Khalid Suleiman Darwish, who was killed in the town of Al-Qaim on the Iraqi-Syrian border during June 2005 in an American airstrike, and who was later eulogized by Abu Musaab al-Zarqawi.
Abul Ghadieh was a veteran of the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. He was a dentist by profession. It seems that he relocated to Jordan in the 1980s where he married a Palestinian-Jordanian lady. He joined Zarqawi in the Herat camp in Afghanistan in early 2000, and was instrumental in building-up the Zarqawi network in Iraq. In many ways, there would have not been a Zarqawi had it not been for Abul Ghadieh.
This is the first time whereby Abul Ghadieh is being publicly linked to the Al-Qaeda cell that allegedly had some role in assassinating Hariri. This would mean that someone like Ahmed Abu Ades, who was shown in a video taking credit for the Hariri assassination on behalf of this cell, was not linked to second or third tier flunkies in the Zarqawi network, but was rather linked directly to Zarqawis right-hand manAbu Ghadieh!
Abul Ghadieh was killed four months after Hariri was assassinated.
I had speculated back in January 2006 about a possible role for Abul Ghadieh:
Interested parries should also look into a possible role, if any, for Syrian terrorist Abul Ghadieh Al-Souri, another Zarqawi aide killed in June 2005. I'd wager that the multi-talented Al-Souri was the mastermind behind establishing Al-Qaeda's recruiting/funding/operations network in Lebanon and Syria.
This new information about Abul Ghadiehs alleged role lends further credibility to Al-Qaedas culpability in assassinating Hariri: such an operation would have had to be micro-managed from the very top of Zarqawis network, and Abul Ghadieh would fit such a bill.
I now find that this idea - that Zarqawi was directly involved in killing Hariri - very convincing. Surely, I will get plenty of flak for this statement from those whose are wedded to allegation that the Syrian regime was behind the assassination. Maybe Syria controlled Abul Ghadieh? Who knows? But as far as Im concerned, the Whodunnit? part of the murder mystery - the smoking gun and the finger on the trigger - has traveled a great distance towards being solved with todays revelation about Abul Ghadiehs role in all this. ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
FPM MP Ibrahim Kenaan said Aoun's bloc will vote in parliament irrespective of whether agreement is reached on a candidate. In an interview with Naharnet, he appeared unwilling to acknowledge he was part of the "opposition", and refused to call Hizbullah an "ally".
MP Ibrahim Kenaan, secretary of the Change and Reform Parliamentary bloc, said that if legislators failed to reach consensus on a presidential candidate "we can still vote in parliament" irrespective of who wins or loses. Kenaan, in an interview with Naharnet, said that Free Patriotic Movement leader Michel Aoun is the bloc's candidate for the presidential office, but failed to identify him as the opposition candidate. Hizbullah, according to Kenaan, "is not an ally" but rather "a partner in the homeland."
At the risk of reading too much into this statement, cracks in this "non-alliance" between Aoun and Hizbullah have emerged over the past couple of weeks, following a Hizbullah statement that Aoun was "not the only candidate". A Nasrallah speech extolling Aoun's character without naming him or committing to his candidacy seems to have failed in impressing the general, who is not stupid enough to buy into Nasrallah's 11th hour proposal to change the constitution to allow for Aoun's election through a popular vote.
Aoun's movement is also under immense pressure by the Maronite church, which is close to excommunicating (at least in a patriotic/political sense) Christian MPs who heed Hizbullah's call to boycott the election. The talks between Hariri and Berri will probably reach a dead end, if they haven't already after Nasrallah's speech. At best they are designed to diffuse sectarian tension in the country. Sunni-Shia clashes in Beirut often go unreported by the media. But even if these talks produce a candidate, it will not be Aoun. And the general knows it. All he can do now is vote for himself.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/11/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
I get so confused by the names and groups and alliances, religious affilations and plots...
Is this bad news for the Hez-bullies, I hope?
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/11/2007 6:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If it's true. I'd put it at 50-50 at this point.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/11/2007 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Nah, should be Opinion, because it's written by Michael Scheuer, who used to be important, when he was working for the Government (Chief of the bin Laden Section of CIA, 1996 to 1999), and now is presumed to have an axe to grind.
Posted by: Bobby ||
10/11/2007 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's nicely footnoted, though. And Mr. Scheuer does raise some interesting points about taqiyah in action.
#4
Al-Q may be on the wane in Iraq but in Pakistan its big and getting bigger.
Scheuer puts in a lot of the theological give and take in Salafi bigwigs because he has some knowledge of it but the reality on the ground depends on more than this theological conflict.
#5
It would be good to examine the evolution of al-Qaeda, based on how we have culled it over time. That is, at the beginning, they were middle and upper classes, able to travel, set up elaborate support mechanisms and commit terrorist acts far away from their home countries.
If al-Qaeda is effectively reduced to just Pakistan, and their fight is just to stay in Pakistan, they have ceased being a worldwide threat. They are entirely on defense. And the quality of their personnel is just local peasants.
While those outside of Pakistan may call themselves al-Qaeda, they are just local freelancers, having no real connection left to the real al-Qaeda. As such, they are just like any home grown extremist movement, and can be dealt with the usual way.
#6
There are two Al Quedas. The real terrorist group and the ideal that motivates sudden Jihadi syndrome. We killed communism but somehow the ideal lived on, a thorn in our side to this day.
We must continue to fight Al Queda until both the group and the Ideal are dead, then we need to mock it and hammer the stake home so that it can't come back.
#7
Interesting article but it reminded me about Al Queda's goals. The goals are to take over the Muslim world first. The Saudi's know this so it's not a surprise Saudi religious leaders pop off against Al Queda once in awhile. As long as Al Queda is obviously aiming at the West it's okay to tacitly support them but the conflict has been going on next door for some time and the Saudi troublemakers are probably not crossing into Iraq to die as often as before, so the troublemakers will be at home in Saudi Arabia and the King and cronies finally have to do something.
#8
The irony is that in a piece warning against optimism, Scheur presents a very optimistic thesis. Al Qaeda would be destroyed, he tells us, by the removal of bin Laden as its head, but it hasn't happened yet. But it is in the nature of things that in time it will; it has to. His death, Scheur suggests, natural or otherwise, would effectively end the operational menace from al Q. Personal allegiance to him holds the organization together. There is no institutional framework likely to survive him. The war may be shorter if Scheur is correct about al Q's fragility.
He also leaves aside the stronger argument that al Q is losing not because of internal rifts but because they are losing on the battlefield. The Sunnis of Anbar and Diyala are al Q's natural base. They lose them, they lose in Iraq. Lose in Iraq, lose almost everywhere. And losing they seem to be.
Scheur critices the Bush administration for screwing up and making al Q stronger and the jihadi problem worse. But I read this piece as postive for the future.
Posted by: Baba Tutu ||
10/11/2007 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I haven't seen much dancing in the streets of the muslim mideast lately.
#10
"No matter how much we disagree with any person regardless of his approach, we cannot remove him from the circle of Islam, unless he commits a sin of unbelief."
Perish the thought that flying fully loaded passenger jet airliners into occupied skyscrapers isn't sufficiently evil to represent a "sin of unbelief". Moreover, given thatin factit is not, what then does this tell us about the boundaries of acceptable behavior in Islam?
#11
#4 is gener correct - IMO AL-QAEDA, despite heavy field and leadershiplosses and the likely current physical incapacitation of Osama Bin Laden, is getting ready for a final campaign to decide the fate of Iraq + a perceived US-Iran conflict.
* GUAM K57 CALL-IN > TOPFF 4 ANTI-TERROR EXERCISE > demanded that US-Guam Officios tell local residents THAT IT IS ALREADY KNOWN THAT GUAM WILL NOT SURVIVE A MAJOR NUCLEAR DETONATION(S), plus to tell HOW MANY CHINESE MISSLES ARE POINTED AT GUAM RIGHT NOW [plus Taiwan, Philippines?]AS A CONSEQUENCE OF POTUS BUSH AND THE "US/AMERICAN" WOT. IMO the Caller prob thinks the USA is using terror = anti-terror as a PC excuse for new wars/US imperialism.
*WESTPAC > soooo, besides China, Russia, Russia-China, etc, the USA andor the former now have RADICAL ISLAM to contend with in the WAR/BATTLE FOR THE PACIFIC = ASIA-PACIFIC.
Many critics are calling for the expulsion of these students but the only technical offenses they are guilty of is the improper use of the University logo and of not obtaining permission to post the materials. Such an extreme act as expulsion would be inappropriate and only further exacerbate the situation.
A group of seven students posted inflammatory fliers Monday morning with the intention of spreading awareness about another student group's upcoming event. It is unknown if they strategically played to people's emotions or could not have fathomed the reaction across this campus, but regardless, the words and images should be condemned for their extremism.
Unfortunately for the entire University, their goal of satirizing the conservative Young America's Foundation at GW and their "Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week" went too far and was misconstrued. Indeed the possibility for rational discussion during the week was squandered by extremism. The seven-member Students for Conservativo-Fascism Awareness, whose de facto leader is graduate student Adam Kokesh, did a disservice to the entire GW community, not just its Muslim segment.
While the fliers did spur discussion about a questionable awareness week, the fact remains that the content is offensive - regardless of the rationale behind it. This feeble attempt at political satire prompted campus unrest and national media attention to spiral out of control.
The flier depicted an Arab man flanked with descriptions such as having a "peg-leg for smuggling children and heroin," with its title proclaiming hatred for Muslims. While the fliers did spur discussion about a questionable awareness week, the fact remains that the content is offensive - regardless of the rationale behind it. This feeble attempt at political satire prompted campus unrest and national media attention to spiral out of control.
While the sponsors of the poster said they wanted to help the Islamic community by exposing the extremism of YAF, their actions ultimately defeated their well-intentioned goal. The central issues both sides want to debate - hate, racism and the threat terrorism poses to America today - were lost in a blame game.
Despite the hyperbolic manner in which the seven students broached the YAF's views toward Islam, they do have the right to express themselves. This page adamantly defends the right to free speech in a fair and open forum. Yet the manner in which the seven students presented their opinion - through the incendiary rhetoric and images of the fliers - was far from such a forum.
Many critics are calling for the expulsion of these students but the only technical offenses they are guilty of is the improper use of the University logo and of not obtaining permission to post the materials. Such an extreme act as expulsion would be inappropriate and only further exacerbate the situation.
It is understandable that YAF, both at GW and nationally, is upset at the misuse of the organization's name in the fliers. However, further accusations will do little to put the hurtful issue behind the campus community and will do even less to facilitate a fruitful discourse on the issues.
It is understandable that YAF, both at GW and nationally, is upset at the misuse of the organization's name in the fliers. However, further accusations will do little to put the hurtful issue behind the campus community and will do even less to facilitate a fruitful discourse on the issues.
In the first step towards a productive discussion, on Monday night more than 100 students joined administrators at Marvin Center to talk through their concerns about the hateful rhetoric and images. Although heated at times, the discourse was peaceful and healthy.
YAF President Sergio Gor, a senior, disturbed the Islamic community by asserting: "Not all Muslims - most Muslims - are not terrorists, and most Muslims are not fascists." Gor was quickly rebuked by the audience for implying that many Muslims are in fact terrorists. A group of concerned students approached him after his speech and asked about his opinions directly.
This is good. A back-and-forth discourse is the type of healthy debate the University was denied by the overly provocative nature of the fliers.
This page commends other acts of unity in the wake of the detestable fliers. Wednesday evening's Iftar dinner beautifully symbolized the coming together of students across faiths and ethnicities at GW. This celebratory breaking of a Ramadan fast has been an annual staple on campus since 2001, and this year's garnered the highest attendance ever. Breaking bread, enjoying conversation and learning each other's prayers knocked down the barriers of religion and eased the tensions of the week.
This is the type of communication our community should be striving towards. When we come to a college for its diversity, students have the desire to learn and grow based on shared experiences.
Former Student Association President Omar Woodard spoke of the need to find common ground. The collective conversation among disparate groups at the Iftar and other forums of discussion this week is free speech at its best. This should serve as a guiding light to Kokesh and the other six creators of the flyer.
Learning and debate are core elements of living in a community and participating in the college experience. Compromising this by engaging in extreme and overly provocative acts is both unwise and unfair to all of us.
mojo,#1 Wait, I thought it was "hate speech", "completely indefensible" and the miscreants responsible "should be expelled"...
Dats Wad'i taught..
So I guess that was before it was transmuted into "satire" by close proximity to an intense "stupid lefty" field, huh?
mojo, Youse means, transmuted into dat Hate into "satire" by close proximity to an intense "stupid lefty" field..?
*GW rats, satire nyetski*
an Idea mojo, from now on any Transmogrified satire shall be called A ....
*Thomas Woof 'n Spoof*
Posted by: Red Dawg ||
10/11/2007 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
While the sponsors of the poster said they wanted to help the Islamic community by exposing the extremism of YAF, their actions ultimately defeated their well-intentioned goal.
Even as economists have derided the U.S. dollar as heading toward parity with Monopoly money, Monopoly money itself has held its value with marked consistency.
Price of Boardwalk in 1950: m$400
Price of Boardwalk in 2007: m$400
Concurrent decline in the purchasing power of the U.S. dollar: 87%
Recommendation: Not only would the switch to monopoly provide the US with a more stable currency, but it would also grant the Fed even further control over the economy by enabling them to set the house rules. By determining the Free Parking Rules and financial outcomes from such events as rolling snake eyes and landing directly on Go, the Fed could steer the economy with even greater precision. Too little liquidity? Just tell the banker to actually become a bank and provide loans rather than solely acting as a cash register. More research is needed, but there seem to be real and compelling reasons for the US to switch to the Monopoly currency.
#1
Monopoly Money? Bah! We'll call it Hewlett-Packard money. Why go to the bank when you can print your own. Cut out all the middle men bureaucrats and workers from tax collectors, clericals, data input techs, print operators, to politicians who return it 5 cents on the dollar. Think of all the displaced expenses which would make up for all the extra paper in circulation. ;)
#9
You are onto something AH9418. But go for pennies before 1982 (95% copper / 5% zinc). Today the ratio is more than reversed (97.5% zinc core, 2.5% copper plating).
Canadian pennies:
98% copper, 1.75% tin, 0.25% zinc before 1997
98.4% zinc, 1.6% copper plating 1997-1999
94% steel, 1.5% nickel, 4.5% copper plated zinc since 2000.
#10
Country started going to hell in a handbasket when folks looted the treasury for handouts at Free-Parking. It's rong, it's immoral and it ain't in the rulz.
The $400 pricing for BoardWalk is of course the asking price. Free and Open OutCry is the only way to play.
Also 1 cent on the dollar real money is way fun.
Posted by: Thomas Woof ||
10/11/2007 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Woof, also if you buy only 4 houses instead of going for the hotel you can create a housing shortage and really put a hurtin' on the competition ( USN Son did that to me and his sister when still just a young'un. took me about 23 years to get revenge)
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.
Even though he may win the Nobel Peace Prize today, Al Gore was handed a humiliating set back yesterday in a British court which ruled that there were 9 instances in his film Inconvenient Truths that were not supported by evidence or scientific consensus:
Islamic terrorists destroyed two of the tallest buildings in New York on September 11, 2001. Six years later, one of the remaining super-skyscrapers in New York, the Empire State Building, is going to go green for the Muslim holiday of Eid.
By Robert Spencer
FPM MP Ibrahim Kenaan said Aoun's bloc will vote in parliament irrespective of whether agreement is reached on a candidate. In an interview with Naharnet, he appeared unwilling to acknowledge he was part of the "opposition", and refused to call Hizbullah an "ally".
