#3
"Animal rights groups remained leery, out in force this month, stripping naked in front of Canada's parliament in freezing temperatures, dousing themselves in red paint to protest the seal hunt and appealing to the public."
What is it that leads Moonbats to imagine that gettin' nekkid will validate their cause? If I were a cute little furry thing (which btw I am not), these are the last people I would want pleading my case in public.
if and when they are elected to the White House
By Thomas Sowell
Best read I've read on this topic (sent parts of it to Reid)
Congressman Tom Lantos, who is a member of the delegation that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leading to Syria, put the mission clearly when he said: We have an alternative Democratic foreign policy.
Democrats can have any foreign policy they want if and when they are elected to the White House.
Until Nancy Pelosi came along, it was understood by all that we had only one president at a time and like him or not he alone had the constitutional authority to speak for this country to foreign nations, especially in wartime.
All that Pelosis trip can accomplish is to advertise American disunity to a terrorist-sponsoring nation in the Middle East while we are in a war there. That in turn can only embolden the Syrians to exploit the lack of unified resolve in Washington by stepping up their efforts to destabilize Iraq and the Middle East in general.
Members of the opposition party, whichever party that might be at a given time, knew that their role was not to intervene abroad themselves to undermine this countrys foreign policy, however much they might criticize it at home.
During the Second World War, the defeated Republican presidential candidate, Wendell Wilkie, even acted as President Roosevelts personal envoy to British Prime Minister Churchill.
He understood that we were all in this together, however we might disagree among ourselves about the best course to follow.
Today, Nancy Pelosi and the congressional Democrats are stepping in to carry out their own foreign policy and even their own military policy on troop deployment all the while denying that they are intruding on the presidents authority.
They are doing the same thing domestically by making a big media circus over the fact that the Bush administration fired eight U.S. attorneys. These attorneys are among the many officials who serve at the pleasure of the president which means that they can be fired at any time for any reason or for no reason.
That is why there was no big hullabaloo in the media when Bill Clinton fired all the U.S. attorneys across the country even though that got rid of the U.S. attorneys who were conducting an on-going investigation into corruption in Clintons own administration as governor of Arkansas.
So much hate has been hyped against George W. Bush that anything that is done against him is unlikely to be questioned in most of the media. next paragraph is the real problem with what they are doing
But whatever passing damage is being done to George W. Bush is a relatively minor concern compared to the lasting damage that is being done to the presidency as an institution that will still be here when George W. Bush is gone.
Once it becomes accepted that it is all right to violate both the laws and the traditions of this nation, and to undermine the ability of the United States to speak to other nations of the world with one voice, we will have taken another fateful step downward into the degeneration of this society.
Such a drastic and irresponsible step should remove any lingering doubt that the Democrats political strategy is to ensure that there is an American defeat in Iraq, in order to ensure their own political victory in 2008.
That these political games are being played while Iran keeps advancing relentlessly toward acquiring nuclear weapons is a fateful sign of the utter unreality of politicians preoccupied with scoring points and a media obsessed with celebrity bimbos, living and dead.
Once Iran has nuclear weapons, that will be an irreversible change that will mark a defining moment in the history of the United States and of Western civilization, which will forever after live at the mercy of hate-filled suicidal fanatics and sadists.
Yet among too many politicians in Washington, it is business as usual. Indeed, it is monkey business as usual, as congressional Democrats revel in the power of their new and narrow election victory last year to drag people before committee hearings and posture for the television cameras.
It has been said that the world ends not with a bang but with a whimper. But who would have thought that it could end with political clowning in the shadow of a mushroom cloud?
#1
I believe I'll compose a letter based on this, and mail it to Queen Nancy - she no accepta dah e-mails from anybody at the 'Burg except Frank.
I think.
Posted by: Bobby ||
04/03/2007 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
nope - only FOTSGreg, Ima believe. She claims to represent the nation, but won't accept emails from other than her district. I'm in Duncan Hunter's district (Alpine, CA)
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/03/2007 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The problem with the Democrat party is that it is controlled by the narcissistic, self-indulgent draft dodgers of the 60's and 70's and their wannabe children and grandchildren. These hedonists have never thought beyond the fulfillment of their fantasy of the moment. Worthless f*****rs all.
#5
Actually, I live, vote, work, and ran as a Republican write-in candidate for her seat in 2000, in Tauscher's district (10th CA US House of Reps).
The 10th is one strange octopus of a district stretching all the way from Livermore (includes LLNL) to Berkeley (includes LBNL) to Fairfield (includes the AFB there) to a line down in Alameda County somewheres.
I believe it's the only House district in the country to have 2 national labs in it.
#6
my Uncle (ret'd) worked at LLNL - I find it hard to believe that such a Nat'l-curity-oriented community elected these assholes - it must cover Moraga and Berkeley, huh?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/03/2007 20:19 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Maybe if enough people contact the FBI to report her giving aid and comfort to a terrorist leader/nation in a time of war, violating the Logan act, they might actually do something. If nothing else, it puts it on the record.
#8
Moraga definitely (my political consultant said Moraga had the highest number of registered Republicans in the district). I'm not at all certain if all of Berkeley is in the district or not (it could be like Concord where the northern half of the city is in the district, but the southern half isn't and you need a map to see the difference).
BTW, you can go here,
http://www.house.gov/tauscher/district.shtm
to see the map of the 10th on Tauscher's website or here,
Democrats in Congress are heading into a game of chicken with the Bush White House akin to the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown battle of 1995-96. The roles are reversed this time - so the Republicans are likely to prevail.
The consequences will be lasting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will find their party shattered. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be forced to choose sides in their party's schism. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
04/03/2007 12:45 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
If the Republicans are smart, they will let Pelosi hang by her own rope and will force her to break her party apart by twisting arms for every last vote to pass a funding bill.
#3
W did just that this morning. He said "if you send this bill to me, I will veto it, and the veto will be upheld. So send it quickly, then you can get back to creating a bill without the deadlines and pork dammit! "
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/03/2007 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If the Donks were smart, they'd give W everything he asks for with no strings attached, and make stirring speeches about supporting the troops. If the surge works, they can take the credit; if it doesn't, they can pass the blame.
The Kos Kiddies and such will not let them be smart.
Posted by: Mike ||
04/03/2007 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
This is a report on the Council's March meeting. The April Council meeting is tonight.
TULLYTOWN, Pa.--More than 50 people braved the sub-freezing temperatures last night to show their support of a Tullytown Borough, Pa. councilman who wants to vote on borough business while serving in Afghanistan. Councilman Joe Shellenberger, 46, a master sergeant with the U.S. Air Force Reserves was deployed on January 14 and asked council if he could vote over the phone at their monthly meetings
Council President Beth Pirolli said she didnt believe it was a good idea as Shellenberger wouldnt be part of discussions of the issues during the meetings and wouldnt have a full understanding about what was happening. "We have to protect the integrity of the public vote despite the circumstances," Pirollli said "Were all behind Joe 100 percent." As she sinks the knife into his back
At the February meeting, instead of allowing Shellenberger to vote, council voted to deny his request and passed a motion to require that council members must be at meetings to vote
That angered Jesse Hill, board member and treasurer of the Delaware Valley Vietnam Veterans, who organized last nights protest outside town hall before the council meeting
Hill called council the "Tullytown Taliban." "I support Joe Shellenberger. That man is there fighting for our right to vote and hes not allowed to vote here," said John Bucannan. "Hes an American who put his life on the line for our freedoms. Give him his vote." Others in the packed meeting hall asked council to reverse last months vote, but council majority was steadfast
That was even after Councilman Ed Czyzyk motioned to allow the phone vote, which died for lack of a second.
Only a couple people spoke in support of council majoritys decision, agreeing that one must be present to hear all sides of an issue before voting. This is a quote from another councilman fighting to have Joe participate:
It should be noted that Joe is a stand-up guy, my wife and I were discussing him one night and decided that his only fault(s) is that he's too kind and generous to people. No warts, no skeletons in the closet. After serving in Desert Storm he came home and donated a kidney to his diabetic father. Does it get much better than that?
In this day and age of webcams and communications technology it amazes me that anyone can make that sort of argument. This amounts to discrimination against serving servicemen. If you'd like to make a comment to the Council call 215-945-1560 today.
Posted by: DanNY ||
04/03/2007 10:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West.
While there are many ideological "rootlets" of Islamism, the main tap root has a name--Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.
It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence.
Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America's enemies.
Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand--but so far haven't--that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered "moderates."
When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
IMO he's tilting at windmills, but I wish him Godspeed.
Washington's policy of bringing elections to the Middle East, we were assured, would lead the region's people to embrace America. But in fact many have flocked to support Islamic totalitarians--members of the ideological movement behind 9/11.
In Lebanon's U.S.-backed election, Hezbollah won positions in the cabinet, and its current drive to topple the regime and take over has massive popular support. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas won in a landslide; it remains both wildly popular and adamantly committed to destroying Israel. In Egypt's parliamentary elections, the group that scored stupendous gains was the Muslim Brotherhood, whose offshoots include Hamas and parts of al Qaeda.
This show of support for Islamic totalitarianism is commonly attributed to Washington's supposedly overly aggressive military action, which allegedly antagonized and "radicalized" otherwise-friendly people in the region. But in fact the opposite is true. It is Washington's failure to unleash sufficient force to defeat the Islamists that explains their growing popularity.
Contrary to Bush's evasions, vast numbers of Muslims in the region have not been pining to embrace our political values. They have long been intellectually sympathetic to the Islamists. These Muslims believe that submission to Allah's laws is morally good, and that their religion was meant to apply universally. While many will not themselves attack the West, they regard the cause of Islamic world domination as a noble ideal. This is why so many condone and actively support Islamist warriors and their sponsoring regimes. Consider the (little reported) street demonstrations after 9/11 across the Islamic world celebrating Osama bin Laden as a hero; consider the everyday popular glorification of "martyrs" on posters and in videos.
The region's widespread support for Islamic totalitarianism is led by the states that are that movement's chief financiers and inspirations: Iran and Saudi Arabia. These regimes are waging a proxy war against the West; they are proselytizing and recruiting untold numbers to join the fight to subjugate mankind to Islamic rule.
Since the Islamist cause has state-sponsorship and widespread moral endorsement, Washington's military response to 9/11 should have been to crush the hostile Islamist regimes and demoralize the movement's many abettors. By unapologetically devastating these regimes, America would have disheartened the Islamists and their supporters. Only demoralized people will reject the ideals and leaders that inspired their belligerence and promised victory; only humiliating defeat will drive them to renounce the fight as hopeless.
But instead of defending America by bringing defeat to our enemies, Bush chose to bring them elections--elections that have strengthened the Islamist cause.
Were Bush and his supporters merely ignorant about the ideas popular in the region? No, anyone who reads the newspaper can tell that Islamists command mass support. Bush and his supporters pushed for elections, not because of some honest mistake about the probable results, but because they evaded--and continue to evade--the nature of the threat we face from the Middle East. Why? Because our leaders lack the moral courage to do what is necessary to destroy it.
If our leaders admitted the nature of the threat, they would have to fight an assertive military campaign against a hugely popular movement--potentially killing many people. But such a response is morally inconceivable to them. They believe that America has no moral right to wage a self-interested war to protect our lives. For Washington, only a self-effacing response is legitimate. Thus, our leaders pretend that the threat is limited to a handful of "radicals," and that the region is dense with oppressed, peace-loving admirers of the West. Our leaders selflessly empowered Mideast mobs with elections and vowed to endorse whatever they chose.
Encouraged to vote their conscience, the mobs demanded Islamist rule and "Death to America, Death to Israel."
The U.S.-engineered political success of Islamists vindicates one of the movement's central claims: committed jihadists bearing inferior weapons but armed with moral certainty can triumph over the powerful but cowardly America. Even after 9/11, the United States cravenly refused to defeat Islamists, and instead bent over backwards to hand them political power. What could do more to galvanize Muslim support for the cause of Islamic totalitarianism?
And what could do more to demoralize and disarm the better people in the region, however few, who genuinely renounce terrorism and aspire for freedom?
By bringing elections, rather than defeat, to our enemies, the United States has made them stronger. To protect American lives, we must recognize the ideological nature of the threat and proudly exercise our moral right to self-defense.
Posted by: ed ||
04/03/2007 12:39 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Elections are designed to draw the Jihadi into Iraq where we can kill them. This is rough on our troops (especially since Rummie didn't up the numbers) but essential as we can't go after the crazies hiding in other countries.
Elections are incompatable with militant Islam. The Jihadi have to stop it.
A few years ago I ran into a former student of mine, a Marine Lieutenant Colonel who had gone directly from the Command and Staff College to General Frankss planning staff for Operation Enduring Freedom. I asked him if anything he learned at Quantico helped him fight an actual war as an educator, Id like to think we made some contribution. The campaign-planning process perhaps? No, he said, that was largely cookie-cutter stuff; you can pick that up by doing it. But he mentioned that he benefited a great deal from the section we did on Thucydides. I was pleased, being a proponent of more classics in the curriculum You already got your grade, I said, no need to blow smoke. But he explained that Afghan warlords behaved the same way the Greek city states did they were a strictly amoral group with no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Todays friend became tomorrows enemy and the next days tomorrows ally. The path to success in that part of the world was to keep your eye on the interests involved.
This is true with all tribal societies. To operate well in them one must know and understand the patchwork of interests, and see how and when they lead to changes in behavior. Begin with the assumption that long-standing tribes also have long-standing grudges. Lumping the enemy into one category as we often do is counterproductive by giving them a common adversary we keep them bound together. The key is to wedge them apart, promote disunity, and exploit the preexisting tensions. It is noteworthy in Thucydides that many if not most battles (particularly sieges) are won through acts of betrayal by one faction against another. It is important to know how to create conditions where this dynamic comes into play. It doesnt mean groups we assist are our friends forever or we condone everything they do. It means that at a specific moment in time, in a specific political situation, interests coincide. We may not even be working together, but we seek the same ends.
Take for example Maulvi Muhammed Nazir. A few months ago he was a Taliban commander based in South Waziristan, pledged to establishing sharia law and waging jihad on NATO forces in Afghanistan. A bad guy, right? Well yes he was and still is, but right now he is doing his best to run al Qaeda and the rest of the foreign terrorists out of his portion of Pakistan. Did he switch sides? Decidedly not. He has always been on one side, his own. And what he is doing represents our best chance yet at getting hold of Osama bin Laden.
The story starts last November when Nazir was named by the Taliban as their local branch manager in South Waziristan, replacing previous ineffective leader Haji Omar. Nazir had a great record in the company, having gotten his start at entry-level during the Soviet war in Afghanistan. He stayed on to back the Taliban government, and only quit Afghanistan when Taliban resistance crumbled. He went underground for three years in Pakistan, emerging in 2004 after a deal was reached with Islamabad giving tribal leaders a measure of local control. His elevation to management in 2006 was reportedly blessed by Mullah Omar personally.
Nazir was well liked locally because he respected Pushtun traditions, and was seen as a moderate (to the extent such terms make sense in this context) because he did not seek battle with Pakistans security forces. But he was also a law-and-order leader whose religious adviser issued edicts enforcing strict shariah law. Some Uzbek militants were put to the lash for criminal activity, for example. But Nazir was not content with that punishment; he wanted these and all other foreigners to leave. He and others in the area saw the foreigners as the root of their troubles, particularly the outsiders who grew bored with jihad and turned to crime.
The bulk of the foreign fighters (i.e., the Arabs, Uzbeks, Chechens, and others not from around there) came to that part of Pakistan in 2001, and availed themselves of the Pushtun code of ethics known as Pushtunwali. In particular they sought to invoke melmastia (hospitality) and nanwati (sanctuary). The Pushtuns accepted them under these principals.
But Nazir believes the guests have overstayed their welcome. He issued an 11-point policy statement on taking over local leadership, which included the expulsion of foreigners. Furthermore the Taliban organization in South Waziristan had been fragmented, and Nazir banned the splinter groups. The response from the troops to this new sheriff in town was mostly negative, and in December the Taliban leadership sought to placate them by mandating that none of Nazirs decisions could be implemented unless they passed muster with a three-member oversight panel, which included a local Taliban member, an Arab, and an Uzbek. Also the decision to expel foreigners was rescinded. Nazir rightly understood this as a vote of no confidence and soon left the position.
Meanwhile other local tribal leaders came out against the presence of foreigners, particularly Uzbeks, and found themselves in trouble. In November 2006 Maulvi Haji Khanan, began opposing the foreigners and was treated to several assassination attempts. Wazir Tribal leader Malik Zarwali, who supported Khanan, was kidnapped, his bullet-riddled body found a short time later. In March a tribal elder and opponent of foreigners named Malik Saadullah Darikhel was attacked and two of his cousins killed. All of this tended to reinforce Nazirs point that the foreigners were not the most polite guests.
The Uzbeks have been particularly rapacious, and are also very important. They number between one and two thousand, and are part of the al Qaeda affiliated Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU) are led by Tahir Yuldashev. Yuldashev, who faces a death sentence back in Uzbekistan, is close to Mullah Omar and sits on the Mujahedin Shura Council, the governing body of the movement. He at one time had close ties to Osama bin Laden, who allegedly employs Uzbek bodyguards. The relationship may have cooled in 2004 a splinter faction emerged, the Islamic Jihad Group, which is centered in North Waziristan, the consensus location of Osamas hideout. Nevertheless Yuldashev is certain to know a great deal about bin Ladens organization and security setup.
Open fighting between Nazirs tribal fighters and a combination of foreigners and local Taliban broke out in late March. (Nazirs people significantly refer to it as a jihad.) About 160 were killed, mostly among the foreigners, who include Uzbeks, Chechens, and various Arab nationalities. Haji Sharif, brother of Haji Omar, sides with Nazir, even as his brother fights alongside the Uzbeks. Pakistan is giving assistance to Nazir, and sending 8,000 troops to the region, primarily to support operations in North Waziristan.
Clearly this was bad for business and the Taliban rushed in mediators from Afghanistan. A meeting was brokered, and Nazir set his terms foreigners could stay if they disarmed and demonstrated good behavior. The terms were rejected. Taliban mediators tried to arrange relocation of the Uzbeks to Helmand Province in Afghanistan, which would be tricky to do move that large a group with NATO forces looking for them.
But the ceasefire broke down March 29 and the fight was back on. On April 1, a tribal jirga declared war on the foreigners, and a fatwa was issued that authorized killing them. Locals who assist foreigners face having their houses burned, a one-million rupee fine (about $16,400), and being expelled from the area. It is open season on Uzbeks and the like. Five thousand tribal fighters have volunteered to join in the struggle, and Pakistani tribesmen are digging foreigners out of their hilltop bunkers and dispatching them without ceremony. The struggle is growing daily, and has the potential to spread to the north, perhaps to threaten the top al Qaeda leaders.
Terrorists like al Qaeda may have found safe haven in places like Waziristan, but as this ongoing incident demonstrates they only have sanctuary at the sufferance of the local leaders. And while we may not be able to locate them, the tribal leaders know exactly where they are. At the very least bin Laden must be watching this internecine struggle apprehensively. Perhaps he is readying his escape pod. Make no mistake about Nazir and his crowd, they are still hard-core Islamists who want to impose the worst kind of sharia-based rule on the areas they control. But right now we have a common interest running the foreigners out of Pakistan. More power to them. One hopes we are preparing welcoming committees for the extremists who run over the border into Afghanistan. And if somehow this battle moves north into the domain where bin Laden is hiding out, if hospitality is withdrawn and he is asked to leave, perhaps finally someone will decide that it would not be a stain on Pushtun honor to turn him in and collect the reward money. And really, why would it be? It has been six years, its about time the foreign fighters moved someplace else. Cuba perhaps.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/03/2007 09:36 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
heh - excellent post, Steve
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/03/2007 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Things That Wouldn't Leave.
Pisses people off after awhile...
#3
This piece shows a tremendous understanding of the issues at ground zero. perhaps one of the best pieces in a very long time, its not just descriptive of the area in question, but it reveals the trend in all areas in question.
#4
The key is to wedge them apart, promote disunity, and exploit the preexisting tensions.
No, this is a strategy for eternal war. The key is to destroy the economic and social base for these tribal societies. We did it before by distributing small-pox blankets and wiping out the buffalo.
#7
European diseases spread like wildfire through the native peoples of the Americas starting with the landing of Columbus on those islands off the coast, and following on the first landing of the Spaniards. One reason we don't know exactly which island Columbus first touch ground is because the natives died off so quickly thereafter. Likewise, the reason the Pilgrims were able to set up shop so quickly is that they landed on the land of a tribe that had completely died off in the years previous. If they'd had to cut down virgin forest it would have taken years to clear enough land to be able to feed themselves... and they weren't the kind of mighty hunters able to live off those skills. I've seen estimates that 75-90% of the native population of North America died of European diseases by the 17th century.
Mona Eltahawy The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a dispute over land, it is about an occupation that must end and it is about a people who deserve a state. But it is not a religious dispute. Clerics, rabbis, priests and any one else who claims religious authority for his opinion should stay out of it. As a Muslim, Im particularly eager to keep our clerics away from Palestine.
For too long the easiest Friday sermon to give began and ended by cursing the Zionists, often interchanging Zionist with Jew, stopping along the way to enflame the worshippers with news of the latest humiliations or atrocities committed by the Israelis against the Palestinians. The conflict has been one of the most jumped upon bandwagons in both the Arab and the Muslim world but framing it in religious terms serves no ones interest, least of all the Palestinians. With the Islamist Hamas at the helm of the Palestinian government the temptation is great to lose ourselves in the religious kaleidoscope they would love to wrap around the conflict. But just as Islamists are more about power than religion, so is the conflict less about religion than land.
Posted by: Fred ||
04/03/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a dispute over land, it is about an occupation that must end and it is about a people who deserve a state. But it is not a religious dispute.
Sure thing, go and try telling Hamas that sometime. Im confident that theyll be happy to dispel any such notion with some automatic weapons fire. Big hint: When you do it, wear body armor.
The Muslim Brotherhood of which Qaradawi and Hamas are both products and other fundamentalist groups in the Arab world used the 1967 defeat to remind the regions mostly secular leaders that their defeat was because of those leaders godlessness.
Ah, yes. The good old, not Islamic enough routine. Actually, it was more a case of mental midgets being at the helms of their collective militaries. Much to their amazement and contrary to popular Muslim belief, Inshallah is not a valid order of battle.
his position on Palestine will guarantee him a spot on the list of clerics who have brought ruin to the Muslim sense of justice.
One of many reasons why Qaradawi so desperately needs to catch a slug. Deserving of blame as he might be, Id still wager that the intensely abusive and intolerant nature of sharia law is what has really brought ruin to the Muslim sense of justice.
His support and endorsement of suicide bombings or martyrdom operations as he calls them - led not only to the lionization of death among too many Palestinians, but oiled the slippery moral slope along which suicide bombings began as a legitimate weapon against the Zionists and Occupiers and ended as the means by which hundreds of Iraqis are torn to shreds.
Happy shredding ya dumbfucks. Dont forget that it was Qaradawi who helped light the fuse for yall.
When Muftis and clerics like Qaradawi gave their blessings to suicide bombings they had to have known they did not come with an off button: once they were made legitimate against Israelis, what was to stop them from being used against others?
Oh, dont be so certain that they dont come with an off button. Its just one you aint gonna like very much because itll off a whole mess of you bloodthirsty maggots all at the same time. yet our imams and scholars could not condemn them outright.
Which goes a long towards explaining why Islam has its back to the wall right about now.
such reasoning promoted that culture of death and nihilism that will take years to erase from the Palestinian narrative.
It could take years or just a single sustained round of carpet-bombing.
the promotion of a culture of death through suicide is ruinous for the Palestinian future. Suicide is one of the gravest sins in Islam and yet the clerics inserted their asterisks making exceptions to that sin.
Except for the fact that the Palestinian people went right along with it. You cant blame it all on the clerics. Common sense would have told anyone that devouring your young doesnt promise much in the way of a bright future.
Muslims do not own the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Like Hell they dont. They are the ones who have perpetuated this festering pus-filled sore on humanity for decades. It could have ended a long time ago but for Arab intransigence.
It is long past time to wrestle back Palestine from the Islamist grasp.
Damn straight. Jews deserve a state. Arabs already have 22: every single one of which is a stinking cesspit spreading the disease of Islam around the World.
You mean the people who have robbed, raped and killed in Lebanon, who have in cold blood smashed the skull of Israeli babies, lived without working for 58 yeards, destroyed greenhouses who were supposed to feed, them (to have a pretext for continuing to living without working), perpetrated every crime known plus those they invented, educated their children in order to prepare them for genocide, you mùean those people deserve?
Those people desrve to be mass deported to Saint-Helen or still better to Tromelin (an island 300 ygards long, 100 yards wide near Madagascar and kept there on isolation.
In the meantime we will care about the people who really deserve states like Kurds, North-African Berbers, Middle East Christians, Sudanese Blacks and similar victims of Islamo-Arabico-Fascism. Plus of course damages are to be paid to states victims of Islamo-Arabico-Fascism like Armenia, Cyprus, Timor, Israel and last but not least for the invasion of Spain. You have long memeories, we too.
#4
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a dispute over land, it is about an occupation that must end and it is about a people who deserve a state.
Certainly, the Jordanian/Egyptian occupation of Israel through their "Palestinian" proxies must end. And there has never been a people more deserving of a state than the Jews.
#2
I would call this the "glass half-empty" side of the discussion that followed from Fred's On Genocide post yesterday. Personally I tend to prefer Fred's "glass half-full" approach more, although I can go back and forth listening to a good discussion on the subject. I do hope that the right series of events will lead the majority of Muslims to reject fascism in the long run. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst, I suppose. I really did enjoy Fred's essay and the parts of the discussion that I read. I might need a more comfortable chair to read some of the posts [just kidding Zenster :-)]. Thank you Fred for your site and thanks to all the people who take the time to share what they know and what they think here.
#3
The unholy quran orders Muzzis to fight until "allah alone" is believed. How can savages who oppose freedom of conscience be pacified? If they aren't fighting jihad terror, then they are either financing it or undermining Western resolve.
At least I am if a study alleged to have been done in Germany by Dr. Karen Weatherby, and alleged to have been reported in the New England Journal of Medicine, is valid.
The researchers supposedly found that staring at women's breasts for 10 minutes is "as healthy as half an hour in the gym." A "five-year study" showed that men who copped a look had "lower blood pressure, less heart disease and slower pulse rates (than) those who did not get their daily eyeful..."
#1
"lower blood pressure, less heart disease and slower pulse rates"
Hmmm, in my anecdotal testing I've found increased blood pressure and a faster pulse when doing that. More research is obviously called for. Anyone got a grant application handy?
One of the pillars of al-Qaida's operational objectives in its war against the West is striking at targets of high economic value, the so-called bleed-until-bankruptcy plan first made public by Osama bin Laden in December 2004.
"One of the main causes for our enemies gaining hegemony over our country," bin Laden reasoned, "is their stealing of our oil; therefore (Islamic fighters) should make every effort ... to stop the greatest theft in history of the natural resources of both present and future generations, which is being carried out through collaboration between foreigners and (local) agents.
Al-Qaida has been careful to spare oil wells, which are seen as critical to the success of "the soon-to-be-established Islamic state, by Allah's Permission and Grace," concentrating instead on petroleum industry personnel, refining and transportation infrastructure. A new call for attacks on oil facilities appeared early this year in the online magazine Sawt al-Jihad (voice of the Jihad), issued by al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, expanding the list of targeted countries to include such key U.S. suppliers as Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. Al-Qaida has also called on Nigerian insurgents in the Niger Delta and "mujahideen" in the Caspian Sea region to take action against western oil interests.
These calls have not fallen on deaf ears. On Sept. 15, 2006, two attacks were mounted by al-Qaida affiliates in Yemen. One targeted the Canadian Nexen Petroleum Company's oil refinery in al-Dhabba while the other took aim at the U.S.-owned Hunt Oil Company refinery in Safer. Both sites are located in the eastern provinces of Marib and Hadramawt. In signature fashion, the attacks came 35 minutes apart. Both attacks were thwarted by security guards, but in the Marib case suicide bombers were just 100 yards from pipelines containing more than 15,000 cubic feet of gas and a control room for lines pumping crude oil. Al-Qaida's message after the incident warned: "Let the Americans and their allies among the worshippers of the cross and their apostate aides ... know that these operations are only the first spark and that what is coming is more severe and bitter."
More successful in its quest to disrupt oil markets was the al-Qaida "franchisee," the so-called al-Qaida Organization in the Islamic Maghreb (formerly the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or GSPC). On March 3 this group killed a Russian engineer and three Algerians as well as wounded five others traveling in a convoy at Hayoun, near Ain Defla in southern Algeria.
All were employees of the Russian company Stroytransgaz and were laying gas mains between Ain Defla and Tiaret, some 211 miles southwest of Algiers. Al-Qaida announced that this "modest conquest" was being dedicated to "our Muslim brothers in Chechnya ... victims of the criminal (Russian President Vladimir) Putin."
But no doubt an equally important objective was the oil industry. Three months ago this group killed one and injured nine in a similar attack on a bus carrying staff of Brown and Root Condor, a subsidiary of the Algerian oil company Sonatrach and of the U.S. construction firm Halliburton.
Why Yemen and why Algeria? Aside from the fact that they are good targets of opportunity and there are indigenous elements sympathetic to or directly aligned with al-Qaida, they offer a two-fold return on a rather modest investment.
The first, of course, is the undermining of Western economic interests; the second is destabilizing local "apostate" regimes. Yemen is not a particularly significant player in global energy markets, but the Yemeni government is highly dependent on oil revenues, which account for more than two-thirds of the country's GDP. A successful strike in Yemen would have further emboldened al-Qaida operatives in the ultimate target state -- Saudi Arabia. There, several attacks have thus far been repelled, including one against the world's largest oil production facility in Abqaiq (the failed attack led to a $2-a-barrel spike in world oil prices).
It would also have hurt Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh -- referred to by al-Qaida as the "devil" and urged to renounce democracy and his alliance with the "infidels" -- on the eve of the first contested presidential election in Yemen in more than a decade. There was also the issue of revenge, the leitmotif of many an al-Qaida operation. Saleh is held responsible for the 2002 killing by the CIA of Sheik Ali al-Harthi, the Qaida leader in Yemen.
Similar considerations apply in Algeria. Al-Qaida does its homework. According to one report, "A recent post on a password-protected Internet forum affiliated with al-Qaida asserted that attacks on Saudi oil pipelines would have a greater effect on the United States than a chemical weapons attack by creating 'a big economic disaster for the American public.'" This is borne out by studies suggesting that a moderate-to-severe attack on the Abqaiq facility could cut Saudi output by more than 4 million barrels a day for several months, pushing oil prices to more than $100 a barrel. The consequences for the United States and other western economies could be catastrophic. The mere threat to the security of oil supplies has already added to the cost of oil in a variety of ways. In the aftermath of the 2002 al-Qaida attack on a French supertanker off the coast of Yemen, insurers have tripled the premiums charged for supertankers passing through Yemeni waters. Rates for a typical supertanker that carries around 2 million barrels of oil have climbed $150,000 to $450,000 per trip. This charge is for the ship only; cargo is insured separately.
Al-Qaida may no longer possess the assets or enjoy the permissive environment to mount an attack on the scale of Sept. 11. But it understands that striking at the oil industry closer to home can have the dual effect of sending significant ripples through western economies while weakening enemy regimes in the Maghreb and Middle East whose legitimacy is inexorably linked to oil revenues.
#1
The West's economic vulnerability to interdiction of its oil supply is greatest at the outlet of the Persian Gulf. Sinking a single supertanker there would have even worse consequences than those outlined in the article. Iran can do this anytime it wants.
#2
Rates for a typical supertanker that carries around 2 million barrels of oil have climbed $150,000 to $450,000 per trip. This charge is for the ship only; cargo is insured separately.
Doesn't the US get most of their oil from the Americas, specifically Canada, Mexico and, decreasingly (oh well done, Hugito!), Venezuela? I thought the Middle East sent most of their production to Europe and Asia, which are closer. I do realize oil is fungible, and after a successful attack the price spike would affect US costs, too, but it sounds like the involved parties are already starting to take the increased risks into account... even as Canadian oil sands exploitation increases by leaps and bounds, devastating the surrounding landscape.
#3
And Europe can, at least, take a lot of people out of cars and put them on trains, both for weekend pleasure driving and commuting to work and shopping. Also, in Germany everybody has the windows in their houses open a few inches with the heat going full blast, while the village shops propped their doors open for convenience (the bloody bells!) and to look more welcoming. I don't know what percent of the oil used goes for that, but there is more elasticity in European oil consumption than they admit. I suspect the same holds true for the larger economies of Asia.
15 British Agressors [sic] must be EXECUTED. That was the placard being held up by some beetle-browed Iranian outside the British Embassy in Tehran. Well, I dont entirely disagree. I certainly think that those British captives who have let themselves be put forward on Iranian TV, that woman wearing a headscarf, and the young man apologizing to the Iranian gangster-rulers, should be court-martialed for dereliction of duty when they get back to Blighty, with shooting definitely an option.
How on earth can Britons behave like that? A previous generation would not have done so. I knew the women of my mothers generation pretty well (Mum was born in 1912), and I am certain that any one of them, given that headscarf and told to put it on, would have said: You can hang me with it if you like, but Ill be damned if Ill wear the filthy thing. The men likewise. What on earth has happened to the British? Where is John Moyse? Rest of this Derb article at the link
#2
There's a widow in sleepy Chester
Who weeps for her only son;
There's a grave on the Pabeng River,
A grave that the Burmans shun,
And there's Subadar Prag Tewarri
Who tells how the work was done.
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.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a Muslim issue. It is a dispute over land, it is about an occupation that must end and it is about a people who deserve a state. But it is not a religious dispute. Clerics, rabbis, priests and any one else who claims religious authority for his opinion should stay out of it. As a Muslim, Im particularly eager to keep our clerics away from Palestine.
