Let's be careful who we embrace. Some of the voices correctly identify the problems of multiculturalism and islamic fascism. A few of the voices would substitute their own brand of fascism. Let's not jump into bed with the latter.
#1
It is the European way to piss around until things get way out of control, then overreact in terrible ways.
It gets surreal when the two overlap, for instance burning down a ghetto with people trapped inside, while refusing to call them bad names as you do it.
#2
It is the European way to piss around until things get way out of control, then overreact in terrible ways.
Yeah, the "european way". Because that's how europeans and european countries have always reacted, during all of Europe's history. That's an innate response; that's what europeans do. Yeah, right. That's not a all-sweeping comment, nope. Because it's not PCness. Because PCness is inherent to european thought. And because PCness is absent from the USA.
#3
A few of the voices would substitute their own brand of fascism. Let's not jump into bed with the latter.
Gaaahhhhh.... so, europeans are wimps who doesn't react, but when some do react, they're fascist and that's bad, and anyway, Europe is a dark contient where the lights never were on, etc, etc, ad nauseam. I'm sorry, but from the Lgf and assorted/Fjordman and assorted split, my definite impression was that one side was unwilling to follow its own logic up to its conclusion and prefered to dwell in the comfort zone, and that was not Fjordman's.
#4
The problem is that the many, many Europeans who disagree with this dangerous nonsense seem to have no way to affect events. It's not that all are craven and stupid, and it's insulting to our European Rantburgers (who by their existence and the quality of their comments demonstrate that) to say so. I imagine the outflow from England will be replicated in the rest of the EU.
"A few" people would substitute their own brand of fascism, or national socialism, for what they see as the train wreck of multiculturalism.
A few, not all, and not even many. But there are a few who predicate their objection to the Muslims, the multiculturalists, and the left-socialists on the basis of race, religion or national identity. That takes you down an equally dark pathway.
No thanks. Many Europeans (and Americans) reject both evil ideologies. Let's keep it that way.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/04/2008 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
1) Preventing speech does not prevent thought. If speech cannot be an outlet for ideas and emotions then other outlets will be found, including violence.
2) If speech is punished with fines, loss of jobs, and imprisonment, and assault is punished with fines, loss of jobs, and imprisonment, then violence becomes as viable an action as speaking.
I suspect that in order to fight the monsters you mentioned with enough fervor to defeat them, there will have to be a recourse to methods like those used by the Russians in WWII. Remember, when they were up against the wall, it was Russian nationalism that Stalin and the Politburo turned to for motivating the troops because they realized that the pale allure of international Communist brotherhood just wasn't going to cut it.
Read some of Ilya Ehrenburg's war poetry sometime. The one where he states "Soldiers of the Red Army: the German women are yours!" is particularly enlightening as to that nationalistic emphasis.
Beyond that, pay close attention to the fact that what the link exposed was the gagging of the safety valves of free expression. That's generally not a smart idea in situations where pressure is building and I won't be surprised to see it eventually blow up on them. Germany turned to the Nazis after an amount of suffering and insult sufficient, I believe, to have had Americans electing a Fuhrer under similar circumstances.
It's going to get worse for non-Muslim whites in Europe, that goes without saying. That means there will undoubtedly be a serious backlash at some point. When that backlash comes, the natural allies of that movement will be all those who have felt (or actually been) oppressed, and the easiest method to bind that movement together will be appeals from its leaders to nationalist (including racial and religious) solidarity. Ever read the cry, "For England and St. George!" before? It's honored in their past. I suspect it will be again. Such things have real value when it's war to the knife.
Movements that inspire violent and sustained insurgency without such a uniting force are few and far between in world history. Your comment reminded me of Kerensky--well intentioned but ultimately ineffective against forces far stronger than bourgeois morality.
Posted by: Thaimble Scourge of the Pixies4707 ||
06/04/2008 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Everything that is happening now in Europe has a history. The only thing that can stop the implementation of the new constitution (The Lisbon Treaty) is Ireland. They are the only country in the EU allowed to vote. And things are not looking good.
By Monica Duffy Toft I already have a bad feeling about this article . . . .
Cambridge, Mass. - It matters what we call things. It took too long for the Bush administration to admit that its intended liberation of Iraq had become an occupation, that US forces faced a home-grown insurgency there, and that a transition to Iraqi democracy might not result in a nation that supports US interests.
Finally, not until 2007 did the Pentagon acknowledge that Iraqi sectarian violence had crossed a threshold to become a civil war. I don't remember them calling it a civil war. It was just a couple of gangs going at each other for a while. Want civil war? Think Gettysburg. More died on in that single battle than this whole Iraq thing to date.
But policymakers still haven't come to terms with the implications of that fact. If they did, they'd see that a wisely executed withdrawal of US-led forces could well be the surest path to peace. That's because withdrawal is likely to transform the fighting in Iraq into a defensive struggle for power in a nation-state, as opposed to an offensive battle rooted in religion. Surely. How many times have you fired a pistol at a paper target?
The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the war in Iraq is a religious civil war and that even putting aside Al Qaeda in Iraq Islam is at the heart of it for three reasons. Is? There wasn't even a was in this regard. A few people killed by a few murderous thugs in rival gangs in a country doesn't make a civil war. Have you read the news lately? Or do you think Kos is the news?
First, Iraq's Sunnis and Shiites themselves see the war in these terms. They identify first and foremost as Shiites and Sunnis. Second, they use religious identity both to target opponents and define threats. Finally, they have appealed beyond the borders of Iraq for aid fighters, arms, cash in religious terms. Well, all of this is true for the terrorists and their sympathizers anyway. Who are obviously in the minority because they are losing big-time. The rest would probably disagree.
Islam is not based in a specific territory; it is a transnational faith that unites its community, or umma, in the minds of men. Well then go erase all the countries' borders and see how they like it.
Further, Islam does not have one leader who can dictate what is right or who is wrong. The absence of an ultimate authority figure means that Shiites who, unlike Sunnis, believe that religious scholars are needed to help interpret the will of God often latch on to charismatic imams. Who are trying to latch onto jihad to gain political power.
This helps explain why the cleric Moqtada al-Sadr has recently committed himself to further religious study in Iran. It also helps to explain why Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will fail to gain acceptance as a leader among the vast majority of Iraq's Shiite population. Sure. Especially now that they are turning against their own Shiite terrorists.
Not only does Mr. Maliki not have support in the street his government's failure to deliver even basic security and life's needs is apparent to most Iraqis but he has no religious credentials of his own to fall back on. So what? The government is somewhat secular. And it's hard to deliver security when terrorists keep blowing things up thinking they are going to go to heaven or gain favor with their imam. Or, more likely, pull down $200 or gain the release of their family from terrorists for planting a bomb.
By contrast, Mr. Sadr's ability to deliver security and services through his Mahdi Army, and his authority as cleric and the son of the martyred Grand Ayatollah Mohammed al-Sadr, has assured him a devoted following. And call for embarrassing itty bitty rallies?
Sectarian conflict in Iraq was previously limited to fighting between Sunnis and Shiites. But today, the conflict has grown to include Shiites against fellow Shiites. Despite signs that security has improved, the religious civil wars in Iraq may have only just begun. That shiite vs. shiite thing is the shiites deciding that terrorists are bad, by the way, not a civil war, or the supposed continuation of a nonexistant civil war.
My research on civil wars from 1940 to 2000 highlights three important facts about such wars, all of which apply to Iraq. First, nearly half of all ongoing civil wars (46 percent) involve religion in some form. Second, Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars. Third, religious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory. Nice research there, miss. Can I assume that the rest of the article will be derived from these truths?
In Iraq, a negotiated settlement is going to be very difficult for two reasons. First, the Shiites will want to remain in almost complete control due to two entirely legitimate concerns: (1) fears of Sunni repression as experienced in the past, and (2) a sense of majority-rule justice. Second, the Shiites themselves are divided on how Iraq should be ruled, so it's difficult to know whom to bargain with on the Shiite side, and therefore who can credibly commit to abide by the terms of any settlement. Maliki, a shiite, did away with the shiite militias, gaining lots of cred with the sunnis. They'll be fine. Especially now that they see other shiites running the guys with guns off, too.
What then can the United States and its allies do to bring about a negotiated settlement? Ironically, the best way to support a negotiated settlement would be to leave Iraq. No, leaving Iraq would be a great indicator that their job was done properly. And what is this crap about negotiation? Who is negotiating? I don't know about any plans or needs for negotiations, present or future. Just the usual political maneuvering until everyone can trust each other.
The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq's predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians. The longer the US and Britain stay, the more they facilitate a shift away from the identity that long unified Iraq to the religious identity that is tearing it apart and facilitating its manipulation by Iran. I don't see anything getting torn apart. I see terrorists getting killed and run off, and lots of dancing in the street.
There are three obvious downsides to this approach. Uh oh, brace yourselves.
First, the end of violence in Iraq following a US withdrawal would lead to the emergence of a nonsecular, nondemocratic government in Iraq. It would be more friendly toward Iran (though not Iran's puppet, as currently feared), but less friendly toward Israel, although a democratic Iraq would be no improvement in this regard. No trust in your fellow man. Check.
Second, since US withdrawal has been conditioned on a de-escalation of violence in Iraq, the Bush and Brown governments would be left the unenviable task of explaining to their countries that "withdrawal is the best way to create the conditions for, withdrawal." ???
Third, withdrawal before violence has fully ceased will look like failure to most Americans and Britons. No, withdrawl before the Iraqi government is able to fend for itself will look like failure.
The idea of victory versus failure is really a false dichotomy, however. The real choice for US and British policymakers is between the more costly failure that will obtain from current policy and the less costly failure that might obtain from a well-thought-out and well-executed withdrawal. Get your fingers out of your ears, open your eyes, and stop making that awful bleating sound, Monica.
Monica Duffy Toft is a professor of public policy at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. Ah, the Kennedy School of Government. Didn't we have a similar article by another Kennedy "professor" recently?
What is this place anyway? Does one have to be fully certified before being admitted, or is hearing liberal voices from the electrical outlets sufficient?
They really need someone to show up there as a tuition-paying student to ask a few stragetigic questions and give some of those "professors" an aneurism.
#1
Some things she gets right. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the war in Iraq is a religious civil war.
First, nearly half of all ongoing civil wars (46 percent) involve religion in some form. Second, Islam has been involved in more than 80 percent of all religious civil wars. Third, religious civil wars are less likely to end in negotiated settlement. Instead, combatants tend to duke it out until one side achieves victory.
Third, withdrawal before violence has fully ceased will look like failure to most Americans and Britons.
Some things she gets wrong. The withdrawal of US forces would allow Iraq's predominantly Arab Shiites and Sunnis to find common interest in opposing their two more classical historical adversaries: Kurds and Persians. The longer the US and Britain stay, the more they facilitate a shift away from the identity that long unified Iraq to the religious identity that is tearing it apart and facilitating its manipulation by Iran.
#2
What a load of crap. Basically, it's liberals saying "how do we snatch defeat from the jaws of victory?". If the US were to withdraw now, before the victory is complete, the likely end would be more sectarian violence and real civil war as Iran would throw more resources into Iraq. Which in turn would cause the Soddies to throw money (and jihadis) at the problem. She seems to think that Iraq exists in a vaccuum.
#3
More Yankees died at Cold Harbor in 1865 in five minutes than we have lost in the entire Afghan-Iraq gig.
Oops, don't let that out.
Actually we have more servicemen killed in automobile/motorcycle and training accidents each year than we lose in the A-I campaigns.
Dang am I starting to sound like a Republican?
Posted by: James Carville ||
06/04/2008 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Cold Harbour...
Good times James, good times.
Posted by: AP Hill ||
06/04/2008 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well, I guess if we can so quickly forget the victims of 911, there is no reason why we can't forget those shredded and tortured by Saddam.
She did get one thing right - Islam lies at the heart of Iraq's war. Civil or not.
#6
Well, well, MONICA D. from PENN STATE - HAAAVERD YARD is now the Green Beret's JFK School = SpecWar center???
"Would be to LEAVE IRAQ" > 2008-2012 > unless something is done, Dubya's GOP-DEM POTUS successor WILL SEE THE RISE OF A NASCENT/BUDDING ISLAMIST NUCLEAR SUPERSTATE = REGIONAL BLOC INCLUD NUCLEAR JIHAD-TERRORISM, which in LT not even RUSS-CHINA-INDIA, etc. per se may be able to stop or contain.
"LEAVING IRAQ-ME" > means the USA WILL HAD INDIR CONTRIBUTED TO NEW GEOPOL COMPETITOR, potens a SUBSTITUTE for Russ-Chin-India, + PERHAPS EVEN ITS OWN FUTURE DESTRUCTION??? THE KEY TO PRECLUDE THIS OUTCOME WILL BE THE RISE+ ENTRENCHING OF PRO-WESTERN DEMOCRACY IN IRAN + CENTRAL ASIAN MUSLIM STATES, 2008 -2012.
God forgive me, but I so enjoy reading the crap that comes out of these twisted minds. It's just so strangely fascinating. Like watching a guy set himself on fire or drive nails into his brain. Another article by yet another moonbat/denier. Enjoy.
By ROBERT BAER
In an interview with the Washington Post last week, CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed we're beating al-Qaeda. As Hayden put it: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia."
I'll defer to Hayden on Saudi Arabia, but when it comes to Iraq, Hayden betrayed his belief in the neo-con lie that Iraq was one of al-Qaeda's bases before the 2003 invasion and still is today. Can no one drive a stake into a lie that suckered us into a war we didn't need? Probably not. For a reason, Robert. For a reason. Especially if there's even one conservative in the audience that has a mouth.
A anonymous friend of mine at the White House complained to me the other day that the Bush administration and the Pentagon until this day believe we are fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. They "stand up" al-Qaeda as the enemy in Iraq, he said, even behind closed doors. In the teeth of the facts, they ignore that the enemy we're fighting in Iraq is a half a dozen homegrown insurgencies, an incipient civil war, and criminal gangs. They ignore the fact that although a handful of Osama bin Laden's followers showed up in Iraq after the invasion, in a futile attempt to hijack the Sunni resistance, al-Qaeda is not the main enemy in that country. I know because I run around the country with Michael Yon.
It should be clear by now, but apparently it isn't: al-Qaeda is an idea, a way of thinking. Al-Qaeda thinks the world is divided between believers and nonbelievers, and the believers are divinely obliged to destroy the nonbelievers. It is a simple idea that has attracted tens of thousands of Muslims, but it is neither a political prescription nor the makings of an army. The Sunni Arabs who drifted into Iraq after the invasion and the Iraqis who embraced al-Qaeda were never an organization. They were never an army. They were never the main enemy. They numbered, what, a couple of thousand? They nearly triggered a civil war, but even that they failed to accomplish. Thanks to what?
The success we're seeing today in Iraq has nothing to do with rooting out terrorist cells. What we're seeing instead is a shriveling of grassroots support, Sunni Muslims turning against al-Qaeda and its messianic, dualistic way of looking at the world. It hasn't gone unnoticed in the Middle East that al-Qaeda has killed more Muslims than nonbelievers. Or that al-Qaeda has failed to take an inch of ground in the name of Islam. With this kind of record how could the Iraqis not turn against al-Qaeda? And just how were Iraqis supposed to kill these people themselves?
None of this, of course, is to take away from the turnaround in Iraq. Last month we saw the fewest American casualties since the invasion in 2003. Basra, Sadr City, and Mosul are coming back under Baghdad's control. Many Iraqis feel safe enough to move back into their houses. And none of it should take away from General Petraeus; our troops, who are bleeding and dying to hold together a country vital to American interests; or the Iraqis, who have backed away from civil war. So why should we now mischaracterize the enemy? Ah, the obligatory tip o' the hat to the folks that accomplished this. It's supposed to lend some credibility to the rest of your $hit, I presume?
The tendency will be to leave it at the lie: We fought and beat al-Qaeda in Iraq. But it's a lie we'll pay for later. By mischaracterizing the enemy in Iraq, we mischaracterize the enemy in Pakistan. Whether the car bomb that destroyed the Danish embassy in Pakistan on Monday was the work of an actual member of al-Qaeda or not does not matter - what does is that al-Qaeda's way of thinking is not defeated. Get out of the bar and back into your office, Robert. You have a deadline to meet.
View this article on Time.com
Old Spook, you can pop this a-hole it the choppers for me too if you ever get to meet him. Use a tire iron because he isn't worth a bruised knuckle.
#1
Al-Qaeda thinks the world is divided between believers and nonbelievers, and the believers are divinely obliged to destroy the nonbelievers.
This is a definition of Islam, not just AQ.
None of this, of course, is to take away from the turnaround in Iraq.
Bullsh*t. That's your whole point.
Are you suggesting that we should go after AQ (and other jihadi groups) world-wide? Pakistan? Iran? Paleostine? Syria? etc. That's where your logic leads - are you willing to say so openly or just piss and moan about the Administration?
#2
Whether the car bomb that destroyed the Danish embassy in Pakistan on Monday was the work of an actual member of al-Qaeda or not does not matter - what does is that al-Qaeda's way of thinking is not defeated.
That's not necessarily true. In fact, all indications are that al-Qaeda's way of thinking IS being defeated, bit by bit. At least all the more recent polls show that their popularity and their methods (e.g. suicide bombing) are losing favor with the people of the Middle East. The drop has been rather precipitous between now and 2002. Rather than creating a whole new generation of jihadi martyrs, as most Liberals and the MSM would like us to believe, our policies in the Middle East seem to be mitigating the problem overall.
Victory against aQ is not going to happen with a bang but rather a whimper.
#3
"By mischaracterizing the enemy in Iraq, we mischaracterize the enemy in Pakistan."
Baers use of the word lie may tip his cards that this is another one of his self-serving commentaries but he may have it right on the larger point. Its hard to argue that the AQ brand hasnt been overemphasized in this conflict. The practice of the MNF to periodically misidentify the enemy may be effective in the short term for domestic consumption but enables the greater problem to fester in the long term. Tell it like it is and the Get out of Iraq cause its a Civil-War crowd be dammed! Moreover, its time the enlightened world identifies Islam the Ideology as the root cause and the Hijacked Religion crowd be dammed!
#4
Al-Qaeda in Iraq ran a website for years. They published daily accounts of attacks on both Shiites ("apostates") and Coalition troops. As with original al-Qaeda, they operate on the basis of a co-ordinated plan, but by means of disconnected units. US field troops could have shown Baer captured black-flag banners of AQI (originally referred to as: al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia. The group led early fighting, and commenced use of suicide terror. Other Sunni groups followed and joined with AQI for a while. Following the negotiations in Jordan, Sunnis agreed to work with US troops against AQI, in exchange for $300 per Sunni combatant per month and with the end of consolidating Sunni territories in face of Shiite encroachment. (Baghdad became a Shiite city, during the first years of terror). The current situation is somewhat a status quo ante, with Shiites demanding a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), affirming a time table for US withdrawl. Meanwhile the US runs the largest military airport in the world, 50 miles north of Baghdad, and maintenance of same is integral to long term US regional strategy. President Bush and Senator McCain fear that the Shiites could re-open the 1400 year old civil war, should SOFA fail. Unfortunately, I believe that will happen by August. And Obama will exploit the situation.
Iraqis don't deny AQI's existence. Neither do field troops. What else does Baer deny?
#5
Point of information: as far as I know, only the New York Times and their fellow travellers have ever used Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia instead of in Iraq.
#6
Baer is creating a strawman or he's a moron. Hayden never claimed Al Queda was in Iraq prior to 2003. It's irrelevant if they were or not. We arrived in 2003 and Bin Laden sent in his warriors to fight us. They are now near a strategic defeat after giving us a tough time in 2004-7.
Sen. Obama was in town tonight, and made a speech. He said:
John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy -- cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota -- he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for."
Right here in Minnesota? Hardest hit by this economy? What is he talking about, exactly? Is this a specific reference to a specific plight faced by specific towns, or a boilerplate remark about the dire lives of people trapped in the Bittervilles that dot the strange outlands?
Minnesota, like many states in the rich heartland, has a large farming economy, and if the farmers are struggling, its for reasons to complain. Between the demand for ethanol and the related boost in commodity prices, theyre doing well, thank you very much and this spills over into the towns that service the farms. My paper is running stories about how the prairie chicken is imperiled, because land previously idled is being brought back into service to raise crops and make money. Which is like reading a story about subterranean bacteria threatened by all the drilling for oil in North Dakota and Montana. Theres good news in there somewhere, you suspect.
The other industry in these strange, CHUD-infested outlands is tourism, which may take a hit from high gas prices. So Id ask the candidates both of them, and our Senators as well what theyve done recently to increase the supply of gas. Domestically. What they did a few years ago to prepare for a day when prices spiked and supply contracted. I suspect that people would be complaining about drilling in North Dakota if theyd seen enough National Geographic-quality photos of Bison herds; given enough preparation, the empty lands of NoDak could have the same rep as Alaska, a virgin expanse no sensible person would pierce with the godless drill. But leave that aside for a moment: aside from the aquifer-sucking ethanol boom, Minnesota is doing quite well when it comes to renewable energy. We have companies that make ginormous wind-power blades. But theyre having problems, too:
For the Pipestone plant, success has brought its own problems.
The plant that was lured here by a slew of local and state incentives is struggling to keep up with demand. Its blades and nose cones are back-ordered for two years.
So Suzlon is turning its attention to working smarter. New equipment coming this fall will computerize Suzlon's manual fiberglass "skin" cutting process. A new crane will soon hoist and place blades onto trucks more quickly than crews.
For now though, the company is trying to cope with the headaches that come with rapid growth.
A shortage of rental housing and workers in Pipestone forced Suzlon to bus in employees from Worthington, Minn., and Sioux Falls, S.D., at a cost of nearly $50,000 a month. Turnover remains a big problem.
Yes, headaches aplenty in struggling Minnesota, the third-largest producer of wind power in the nation: back-ordered wind-power blades and not enough employees.
There are economic trouble-spots, of course; the cities have been hit by the subprime crisis, which has exposed government spending projections based on the endless fountain of real-estate tax revenue, and the condo boom guttered hard, hitting people whod made speculative investments. Higher gas prices will hurt the core cities office markets, as they make suburban edge-city nodes look more attractive, and call into doubt the wisdom of spending a billion dollars linking Minneapolis / St. Paul with light rail when cheap flexible bus routes could help move core-city populations to and from the edge-city jobs.
What are the cures for the ills the state suffers in this economy? Cracking down on trade with other nations? As the aforementioned wind-power article notes, Suzlon Energy Limited is based in Mumbai, India, with operations in China, Russia, South Korea, Germany, Chicago and Pipestone. Good luck crafting a law that untangles that modern fact with deft precision.
New taxes? New regulations? If the Senator returns to these blasted heaths in the future, he may want to visit the town of Fargo, which borders Minnesota. On the Minnesota side higher taxes and more well-intentioned regulatory enthusiasms there is a smallish city called Moorhead, founded about the same time as Fargo. On the North Dakota side, where less is taken for a variety of historical reasons, there is a much larger town that provides a far superior quality of life. The communities even seem to have organized themselves, against all logic.
Minnesota isnt an old-line industrial rusty state dependant on the sale of smelting machinery, bolts and pistons. For heavens sake, this is the home of Pillsbury and General Mills and have you looked at the price of Lucky Charms lately? But were all so comfy and happy we regard a few consecutive quarters of diminished growth as the equivalent of the Ambergris Panic of 87, which closed two-thirds of all banks nationwide. Hardest hit, eh.
I know it was a shout-out for the locals, but really, dial it back a bit. Pick on someone else.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/04/2008 07:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
N.B.: "C.H.U.D." Cannibalistic Humanoid Underground Dwellers. Based on the 1984 movie about grotesquely deformed vagrants living in the sewers of New York City.
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0087015/
Memorable quotes:
"She says some monster came out of the sewer and ate her grandfather."
"You figure it out! You may not know it but there's NRC men crawling all over this God damned city. Something's gone wrong and it's so bad nobody wants to talk about it. The cops are going nuts trying to figure out why a bag lady wants a handgun!"
Another claim of Larry Johnson, the main promoter of the "there's a Michelle Obama berating 'whitey' tape out there" rumor, is that Barack Obama's campaign has hired 400 bloggers. The source on that is another blog, which claims to have seen it on the Fox News crawl. Yet somehow, strangely, we're asked to believe that Fox News never did a report on this, nor did any other news organization believe it is worth mentioning.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Larry Johnson rumors AGAIN? They need to flush twice to get that turn to finally go down the drain.
[William J. Bennett]
This is an astounding moment in American politics. You cannot credibly say the Clintons are a political dynasty the way, say, the Kennedys or Bushs are. But I think one has to say the Clinton rule of the Democratic party has been dynastic. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have served two terms as president in two generations, the only Democrat to twice beat Republican nominees for president and his wife is a two term U.S. senator who will likely be in the Senate for years to come. Bill Clinton has been rated one of if not THE most popular person in the world, and yet Clinton rule in American politics ends tonight. Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, weve learned the Democrats have had enough as well.
And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGoverns military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakiss executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerrys record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carters religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
nice material for Mcpain to use..and all very true - scary indeed that this empty suit is the best the dems can come up with. (not that mccain is any sunday picnic)
#2
And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate...
Which is what the 'superdelegate' function was suppose to stop. To set up a break so that the PARTY, not interests that exploit the party, would produce a winner. How's that working?
The Democratic Party has the press covering their ass as they worship Obama as the socialist Messiah.
So none of the previous points of far-left, inexperienced, no-record, no-integrity, bad judgement, poor attributes, will get a fair hearing or any traction in the general public mass media.
Folks we are about to be railroaded by the press.
And when Obama turns out to be a disaster, the PRESS should bear the bunt of the punishment - soap box, ballot box, jury box, and ammo box.
At that point we will be past the first 2 and the legal precedents prevent them from suffering consequences on the third box,, so that leaves just one way to mete out consequences.
The big networks, and the major papers must be destroyed.
Posted by Joe Klein
Matt Duss has some good thoughts about the growing sense that Al Qaeda seems near defeat in Iraq, and is losing the hearts-and-minds battle in the greater Middle East. As Duss says, this is something that happened despite the Bush Administration's war in Iraq... which was, initially, a major recruiting tool for the terrorists. But, as I reported from Iraq a year ago, it slowly became clear that Sunnis had no interest in living under the extreme--no smoking, no television--and coercive (forced marriages) rule imposed by the terrorists. David Petraeus saw the anti-AQ mood in al-Anbar province when he arrived in Iraq in 2007 and wisely decided to cultivate it throughout the country. That recognition was crucial to the improved security situation in Iraq--although the apparent unwillingness of the Shi'ite government to incorporate the so-called Sunni Sons of Iraq into the government security forces remains a major point of worry.
The larger question, as always, is: With AQI close to defeat and Muqtada Sadr's forces in remission--for the moment--and with significant Iraqi opposition to a long-term U.S. military presence, can we speed up the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq? With the presidential primaries over now, I'll be traveling back to the region and checking in with my sources--and I'll have more to say about what should happen next in Iraq and Afghanistan in the weeks to come.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Iraq
#1
He speaks like Petraeus just tripped over the Strategic & Tactical solutions he has been using during the surge. Haven't read the article yet but I think Klein is a bit full of himself.
In mid-May, Iraqi security forces began to crack down on Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) in a Sunni area of Mosul that the U.S. military had described as AQI's last major urban stronghold. As AQI melted away in response to these operations, we gained a glimpse of the brutal and bizarre governance that the terrorist group had imposed.
Most notably, AFP reports that the group banned the display of tomatoes and cucumbers side-by-side because they regarded this as "sexually provocative." AQI also banned a local Iraqi bread known as "sammoun" on the grounds that it did not exist during Prophet Muhammad's time. (As my colleague Steve Schippert of ThreatsWatch noted in an e-mail, neither AK-47s nor explosives--two AQI staples--existed in Muhammad's time either.) The use of ice was similarly banned because Muhammad did not have ice. Under AQI's rule, barbers were not allowed to use electric razors, as AFP notes:
Barber Atta Sadoun, 29, is back in business. "They threatened to kill me if I used an electric shaving machine," he said adding that Al-Qaeda had also decreed that men's facial hair should not be removed. He was forced to place a sign outside his salon saying he was using only scissors and no electric shaver. Several of his colleagues had been killed because they had failed to comply, he said.
Peter Bergen wrote in his 2001 book Holy War, Inc. that the Taliban in Afghanistan had "a long list of what might be called 'Tali-bans.' Some of the decrees had a Monty Python-esque quality, like the rule banning the use of paper bags on the remote chance the paper might include recycled pages of the Koran." The evidence coming from Mosul suggests that the Taliban had nothing on AQI. And the barber Atta Sadoun's comment shows that however Monty Python-esque these restrictions may be, they are no laughing matter: People lose their lives for flouting these rules. There have been many such reports from Mosul, such as restaurant owner Hashim Abdullah Al-Hamdani's report that two of his employees were killed by AQI because his establishment served both men and women--violating the religious prohibition of mixing of the sexes.
But now that AQI has melted away, life is returning to normal. Public weddings, which AQI had banned, have returned to Mosul's "Forest Park." Cucumbers and tomatoes are now displayed "provocatively" beside each other in the markets that brim with new life since al Qaeda skipped town.
It is worth being reminded of the enemy's totalitarian brutality, and it is likewise worth keeping in mind that this brutality creates strategic opportunity for the U.S. The Taliban's ouster in Afghanistan revealed how average Afghani citizens despised the group's brutal rule--and we can now see similar contempt for what AQI did in Mosul.
This article starring:
Peter Bergen
Steve Schippert
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Iraq
#1
Hey wait! Robert Baer (see above article) says the AQ was hardly even in Iraq!
Posted by: Fred ||
06/04/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Don't know if I agree... "strip away the oil accident", ok, but in the meantime, the oil accident IS here, and so are the demographic trends, even if birthrates are falling down to replacement level or below like in iran or tunisia, the momentum is still here for a couple decades or more...
So, I really think the writer underscopes the subversive power of said oil money, and the massive impact of mass migrations into western Europe coupled with general white demographic winter and "cultural pessimism"/civilizational AIDS.
It's not so much that muslims are powerful (they are not) and we are weak, it's rather that we are weak, and they are here to fill the void/pick up the pieces.
#2
Idiot. Their strength is not oil---their strengths are.
(i) Persistence---they've never given up on Jihad since Mohammed's time (e.g. when Europe became too strong, they've switched to Africa).
(ii) Their ability to exploit their opponents' weaknesses (Nowadays they manipulate "the West" through masterful combination of greed, fear, "anti-racism" & anti-semitism).
#4
The oil is no accident. We gave them the oil. We continue to allow them to have it.
They use the money to buy our luxury goods, bribe our most prestigious universities, and arm our most ardent enemies. We pay for their culture of hatred and rape.
#5
Gee, g(r)om/Mike, I hope the idiot is the writer and not me.
Also, I really think you're giving them (the muslims as a "civilization", lovelock-style entity) way too much credit; this really is an opportunity moment for them, based on perceived and real weaknesses from the oppoent(s), IMHO. Furthermore, if you restrict "muslims" to "arabs", then, it's even worse, they've basically been perpetual losers since their initial drive stalled, and the current "3rd jihad" is nothing like a bold aggressive campaign by savvy warriors... like I said IMHO it's
1) ploutocrats & kleptocrats sitting on top of a mineral wealth they neither found nor developed, buyt stole from thoses who did (the West, thanks to the marxist-driven "people liberation" historical episode) who funds a worldwide campaign of subversion.
Really, who could care about soody arabia, even if it were still the keeper of mecca, if it was just a country of inbred goatherders and desert raiders... WITHOUT the oil and the oil money/power???
2)Demography, with over the course of the 20th century an explosion of the arab/muslim pop (made possible NOT by any kind of muslim prowess, BUT by western advances - french colonizers in algeria were very worried the natives would eventually go extinct, as the area was so backward and mortality so high it was basically depopulated).
The main problem of Western Europe is that it is now a "bloody border" of islam, "thanks" to its own policies (with apparently a big hand from the soviets), and that it is driven by nihilism, apparent in its cultural pessimism that the cultural marxist worked so hard to inculcate, and its demographic winter.
You're an israeli, you've got an israeli muslim problem, which is not the same as the Us muslim problem, which is not the same as the western Europe muslim problem.
All three stem from the same source, you're right in saying this is what islam is at its core, an aggressive, arab supremacist imperialism which is a formidable eraser of identities and civilizations, BUT it is active only against foes it think it can easily conquer.
Were we the 19th century Europe, and were they without oil and warm bodies, nothing like this mess would be even thinkable.
They're losers and carrion, we're bigger losers and decaying bodies.
#6
This struck me as being written by a left wing liberal the got hit by the clue bat buts can't quite shake himself out of denial mode.
His moral relativism such as complaining about a few Christians objecting to Darwin; his pooh poohing of Conservative fears as "premature" while agreeing that their is a there there lead me to believe that he, down deep, knows that he is whistleing past the grave yard of his own fears.
#8
I might add that for western Europe, islam is just an opportunistic illness, so to speak, a symptom of a larger civilizational malaise of which one blatant illustration is the mass pouring of non-european populations into european population an unprecedented historical occurrence, leading to "frictions" of which islamic supremacism is but an example, with islamic terrorism being an even more marginal (what is the strategic threat of bus bombings, bar them being part of a global, total irregular warfare like the paleos do against Israel? And now, what is the strategic threat of millions of pakistanis immigrating to the UK?).
This is not islam-related, yet, it is part of that larger picture. Still in the UK, "grooming" (the deliberate targeting of young teenage or preteen english girls by gangs of young pakistanis or single middle-age pakistani, to be turned into whores and f*cktoys) IS islam-related, but it is still a result not of "islam", but of the massive influx of non-european populations in the UK.
#9
Though, that could be said to be true as well for the USA, possibly in a less severe scale (that could be argued). Not just Europe, or the "decadent EU-peons".
#10
What would the world be like if the Anglo-Americans carved out a homeland for the Jews in the oil rich area at the top of the Gulf (Kuwait and Northern Saudi Arabia).
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.
Another claim of Larry Johnson, the main promoter of the "there's a Michelle Obama berating 'whitey' tape out there" rumor, is that Barack Obama's campaign has hired 400 bloggers. The source on that is another blog, which claims to have seen it on the Fox News crawl. Yet somehow, strangely, we're asked to believe that Fox News never did a report on this, nor did any other news organization believe it is worth mentioning.
