Kuwaiti authorities have launched an investigation of mosque preachers suspected of spreading Al Qaida ideology and helping recruit for the movement. Kuwaiti security sources said authorities have interrogated about a dozen mosque preachers in the area of Kuwait City. They said most of the preachers were Egyptian nationals and suspected of supporting Al Qaida as well as the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq. "We are not trying to downplay this extremist phenomenon," Islamic Affairs Minister Abdullah Al Maatouq said. "It has reached a dangerous level, and although the magnitude of this phenomenon is small we do not underestimate any size." The sources did not rule out that some of the Egyptian preachers would be expelled or detained. They said the issue has been discussed with the government in Cairo, which for the last year pressed the sheikdom to allow additional Egyptian labor into Kuwait.
Crown Prince Abdullah stated yesterday that the Kingdom would crush militants linked to Al-Qaeda terror network as well as their financiers. "God willing, this deviant group, their supporters and guides as well as those who give them money to bring in weapons and explosives will be defeated," he said.
"They're really gonna get it!"
Addressing a group of citizens, including a delegation of Saudi engineers, Prince Abdullah said the terrorist group had tarnished the image of Islam. "Unfortunately, they are the tails of Satan... and Satan misleads people," he said, adding that the fate of the remaining 11 of the 26 most-wanted terrorists would be worse than those who were either killed or arrested in the past.
"We'll murderlize 'em! Hrowf! Hrowf!"
"Your country is strong and will remain strong. You will soon see many things that will make you happy and your enemies unhappy. Your enemies are a small group," the crown prince told the citizens who came to voice their support for the government's efforts to stamp out terrorism.
"... any time now."
"We'll stand united with the government in its efforts to root out this deviant group as well as its strange ideology," the Saudi Press Agency quoted the delegates as telling the crown prince.
"Abdullard, we will defend you with our blood!"
In a recent interview with Kuwait's Al-Seyassah newspaper, Prince Abdullah said the Kingdom had dealt a deadly blow to the terrorist "masterminds" and was now pursuing the last of the suspected militants. "We directly targeted the heads of the snakes in order to cut them off. Many were killed, some were arrested and the rest surrendered," Prince Abdullah told the paper.
Nobody's had his head cut off yet, though.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 1:35:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom ||
08/22/2004 23:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This stupid cow thinks she can sue the government? Her son was a volunteer member of the military. He got killed doing something he was trained to do. There is nothing due her. He was and adult. She dishonors his memory with this crap she is pulling.
The BBC show just how freeking uncritical their editorial thinking is. A government can at anytime send it's military to do it's job which is killing, breaking things, blowing things up and occupying territory. People in the military get killed doing that. That is just a plain fact. These morons need to get over it. Military people know they might get killed, they accept it and train not to get killed but some do anyhow. I will honor this mans memory with calling a spade a spade, his mother is a stupid cow. That is likely why he left home if one was to venture a guess.
#2
The South Koreans sure make piss-poor terrorists. You are supposed to kill and dismember innocent people -- not feed, house, and take care of them...
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 01:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That guy's only sixty four? Judging from the picture, I would have guessed the mid eighties. Kimmieland does not seem to be conducive to good health.
#5
Will you still need me
will you still feed me
when I'm sixty four?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/22/2004 11:38 Comments ||
Top||
#6
...In most cases like this, they eventually let the guy go after making him squirm for a while. But in this case...make him allocute. Publicly. And screw the 'cruel and unusual' crap - make him explain in detail why he deserted.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/22/2004 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
Friday, 20 August, 2004, 22:48 GMT 23:48 UK
France's top administrative court has given a Lebanese TV channel until 1 October to put behind it charges of anti-Semitism or face a broadcast ban. Al-Manar TV stands to lose its right to beam programmes into France if it does not sign up to France's code of conduct for media by that date. It caused a storm last October by showing a drama which depicted a Zionist plot to take over the world. A lawyer for the channel said it agreed the drama had been "inadmissible". So, what about making reparations in the form of broadcasting some pro-Jewish documentaries?
France has seen a rise in anti-Semitic attacks in recent years, linked by many commentators to unrest in the Middle East. And taking a year to bring al-Manar to an accounting hasn't exactly helped, now has it?
Arabic satellite TV is widely watched in urban areas where most of the country's five-million-strong Muslim community are concentrated.
Warning
The French broadcasting authority (CSA) took al-Manar to court over the drama,The Diaspora, which it described as "intolerable". "There will have to be a strong commitment that there will not be any anti-Semitic programming," said Sylvie Clement-Cuzin, the CSA's legal director, after Friday's ruling by the State Council. The State Council ruled that if al-Manar failed to satisfy the CSA's demands, its broadcaster, Eutelsat, would have to stop airing the channel via its satellites within a period of two months. Denis Garreau, lawyer for al-Manar, told the State Council's hearing that the broadcast of the drama had been "unfortunate" and asked for a chance to demonstrate that such airings would not be repeated. "The entire management was agreed in acknowledging that it was inadmissible," the channel's defence said in a statement. Horsesh!t. Everyone at the station knew full well ahead of time what was involved. These crocodile tears fool no one, save the French.
'Political pressure'
Al-Manar Foreign Editor Ibrahim Mousawi told BBC News Online that the proposed ban resulted from "political pressure by the Jewish lobby". "We are not anti-Semites and did not incite hatred," he said. I repeat, "Horsesh!t!
The Lebanese authorities have criticised action against al-Manar. A letter from the Lebanese foreign ministry to the French government argued that the broadcast was a criticism of "Zionist ideology and practices at the core of the Arab-Israeli conflict", not an attack on Jews. I didn't know the Nile flowed through Lebanon.
Correspondents who have viewed The Diaspora note that it quotes extensively from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious 19th Century publication used by the Nazis among others to fuel race hatred. From the linked site:
It is a classic in paranoid, racist literature. Taken by the gullible as the confidential minutes of a Jewish conclave convened in the last years of the nineteenth century, it has been heralded by anti-Semites as proof that Jews are plotting to take over the world. Since its contrivance around the turn of the century by the Russian Okhrana, or Czarist secret police, "The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion" has taken root in bigoted, frightened minds around the world.
The booklet's twenty-four sections spell out the alleged secret plans of Jewish leaders seeking to attain world domination. They represent the most notorious political forgery of modern times. Although thoroughly discredited, the document is still being used to stir up anti-Semitic hatred.
Posted by: Zenster ||
08/22/2004 2:02:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What do you expect from the center of anti-semitism and anti-isreal hate and nut jobs in Europe? Did any one expect to see them do anything?
Some cut and paste from a long article. Warning: those who'd like to remain chirpy and happy neocon cheerleaders should not read this article.
In the 18 months since President Bush declared war on Iraq, the close-knit community of hawkish intellectuals who built the case for the invasion have largely stood their ground. Lately, however, there has been emerging discord within their ranks over the lessons from the war. Earlier this month, Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History" and one of the most influential thinkers associated with the movement, surprised many by delivering a lengthy attack on the neoconservatives' longstanding arguments in support of the war in Iraq, including their confidence in building a democracy there and their assessment of the threat from Islamic radicalism.
I think it's becoming obvious that a part of Iraq doesn't do well with the concept of democracy. Kurdistan seems to be doing it well, but the Arab portion of the country, with its propensity for turbans, either doesn't seem to get the idea or views it as a religious abomination.
In the clubby world of neoconservative intellectuals, many of whom are longtime friends and allies, Mr. Fukuyama's repudiation of the case for war, which appeared in The National Interest, was all the more startling because he presented it as an attack on a recent speech by his friend, the columnist Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post. In an interview on Friday, Mr. Krauthammer says he is publishing a rebuttal in the next issue of The National Interest portraying Mr. Fukuyama's critique as "breathtakingly incoherent."
Others are redoubling their arguments for the invasion of Iraq, contending it should be the first step in a campaign to transform the region. In the next issue of Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz, who helped found the neoconservative movement in the 1970's, has written a 37- page defense of the Bush administration's foreign policy.In "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win," he argues that the United States should now help seek the liberation of other Middle Eastern countries to help drain the swamp where Islamic radicalism breeds, just as the cold war helped liberate the Soviet Union.
Iraq provides the foothold in the region. It removed support for terror organizations, but it needs to be pacified to provide the base for operations against Iran and Syria and possibly Soddy Arabia, whether they're military or diplomatic. Because it's part of a long-term strategy, it's not easy to explain to the public and you don't want to do too much explanation to avoid giving away too much to the enemy.
Although few in the movement have criticized the neoconservative argument for the war as comprehensively as Mr. Fukuyama did, several others said his argument with Mr. Krauthammer had captured widespread attention as a new stage in the debate over the lessons of Iraq. "These are two of the intellectual heavyweights among neoconservatives, and their dispute is real," said Gary Rosen, managing editor of Commentary. "People are looking for guidance on this, and these are two strong proponents of opposing views within the movement."
In an interview last week, Mr. Fukuyama said that he had harbored private doubts about the war at the time, although he kept quiet about them then. "I figured it was going to happen anyway, and there wasn't anything I could do about it," he said. "I believed it was a big roll of the dice, and I didn't believe it was a wise bet. But on the other hand, it was a roll of the dice, and for all I knew, it might have worked." He added, "It turned out to be even worse than I anticipated."
But as he was listening to his friend Mr. Krauthammer deliver a recent speech on the theme of the United States as a unipolar power, Mr. Fukuyama said, he grew increasingly agitated. Mr. Krauthammer's speech "is strangely disconnected from reality," Mr. Fukuyama said in his article. "One gets the impression that the Iraq war has been an unqualified success, with all of the assumptions and expectations on which the war had been based vindicated." Like many other critics of the war, he argued that Mr. Krauthammer and other neoconservatives were overconfident about turning Iraq into a democracy, too quick to dismiss arguments of longtime allies, and too willing to give up the practical advantages of partnership with other nations. Most of all, though, he argued that Mr. Krauthammer and other supporters of the war mischaracterized Iraq and Islamic radicals as an immediate threat to the existence of the United States, a claim that justified immediate intervention.
Terrorism represents a generic threat to the existence of the United States. All the groups — including the non-Islamic groups like the IRA, FARC and the ETA — have been seen cooperating with each other. We're fighting against an informal alliance, and if we take out weak parts of it like the PLA or MKO, it's still taking the movement apart piece by piece. Al-Qaeda is the main target, but not the only target. When we're down to fighting the Learned Elders of Islam that'll be even harder to explain to John Q. Public.
The Soviet Union arguably threatened the existence of the United States, Mr. Fukuyama argues, but Iraq never did.
But the turbans do. That's where we differ.
But, Mr. Fukuyama said, he retained his neoconservative principles - a belief in the universal aspiration for democracy and the use of American power to spread democracy in the world. He said he was acknowledging the mistakes to preserve the credibility of the neoconservative movement... Finally, someone in the neocon ranks has the courage to stand up and challenge these empty suit intellectuals on the practicality of their grandiose plans.
Here's the link to excerpts from Dr. Fukuyama's article in the National Interest entitled "The Neoconservative Moment" 6/30/04. You need to scroll down about 2/3 down the page. http://www.nationalinterest.org/ME2/default.asp
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 6:32:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unfortunately for the Neocons, they made the typical mistake of inviting anyone in who agreed with them. In this case, Fukuyama is a crackpot. As you might recall, he was the man who proposed the "end of history", with the fall of the Soviet Union--again to much hoo-hah in the media.
I keep hearing him described as "brilliant", but I suspect this "brilliance" was made in much the same way as liberal "intellectuals" make theirs: through the clever use of public relations and telling people at cocktail parties what they want to hear.
In any event, expect this single dissent in a movement to be trumpeted as *proof* that the entire movement was wrong, is wrong, is falling apart and must be destroyed. This would be based on some pretty ridiculous axioms.
#2
It's occured to me that the word "neocon" has become simply another smear tactic, devoid of meaning; it's generally used to describe, negatively, those who supported the war, but the attributes attached to it don't seem to match up very well with the people who actually support it.
Take, for instance, myself; I have no idea whatsoever who Irving Kirstol or whatever his name is is... I'm a semi-libertarian conservative and aside from a more libertarian period in the early 90's have been conservative all my life.
I've never been a liberal...
I've never been in a think tank.
Heck, I'd never _heard_ Fukuyama described as a "neocon" until I started reading articles like this one; I basically only knew of him as that guy from the early 90's who said history was over, and there wasn't any need for the watchers at the walls anymore... which even then bothered me as being hopelessly naive, and doesn't sound like the sort of philosophy that would support the war.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/22/2004 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've only got 3 words for this post:
NYTimes. Fukuyama. rex.
And rex, old boy, you'd do yourself a service to read the Podhoretz piece cited on "World War IV."
Every time the author talks about "realists," he means people just like you!
#9
Nothing at all in this article has anything at all to do with the New York Times in any way at all.
Except for where it's published.
Try to make sense, Mike. I know it's hard, but, geeze.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/22/2004 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#10
BTW, the only people who love to talk about "neocons" and "paleocons" in my experience have been drooling, deranged Dimocrats like Chris Matthews on BSDNC's "Whiffleball."
#11
This is a good thing, Whatever one thinks about Fukuyama, this breaks up the group think. And, it helps to clarify the message and keeps out in public. Mericans need to hear it again and again, hammer it home relentlessly and Krauthammer and Podhoretz make two very effective mallets.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/22/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
That's why he's named Kraut Hammer.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/22/2004 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#14
It is always remarkable to read liberal MSM portray fissues amongst groups it knows nothing about. That is, other than that they don't agree with them. I thought the LLL were in favor of diversity, including thought?
Posted by: Capt America ||
08/22/2004 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Everyone here knows, right, that "neocons" are all Jews? Just for your information.
#16
Fukuyama is the moron who came out with the idea of the End of History - the idea that western liberalism (in the classical, not the 1960's sense) would inexorably take over the world - . And now the NYT is trotting out the guy who came up with this load of horsedung as someone credible. NYT has been writing articles that treat conservatives as mental patients for a while now. This BS about neo-conservatism is profoundly ahistorical. Conservatives have always wielded the big stick when it was in the national interest. There is nothing neo (or new) about the invasion of Iraq, other than the fact that it occurred recently. Reagan invaded Grenada, intervened in Lebanon, sank Iranian warships in the Persian Gulf, financed the Afghan resistance against the Soviets and supported the contras against the Sandinistas. Lyndon Johnson invaded the Dominican Republic and intervened in Vietnam. The reality is that the US, like every other power in the world, will act in its interests when this is desirable. George HW Bush's New World Order, where so-called "allies" get a veto over actions that are in America's interests, is exactly what GWB is working to repudiate. It is GWB's father's policies that were neo-conservative, not GWB's policies, which are assertive in the traditional American way.
#17
Ah yes, I knew this article would bring out the usual ego-wounded suspects with their tired knee jerk responses.
a)there's the professional "victim" shipman who continually reworks the same old same old phrase as a rebuttal to any debate because playing the victim is comfortable like wearing an old shoe
information if the ideas are uttered by anyone other than herself, herself, and herself. Well, sometimes political geniuses like Zayhed or his brother are considered peers to Jen.
Well,I hope GWB has more sense than you stalwart soldiers of the neocon movement, because unless he boots out Wolfowitz et al out of the WH real soon, we will go through a long drought of not having a Republican in the Oval Office because Iraq will become the Republicans' albatross like the Democrats' Vietnam. Neocons are inflexible and arrogant and could care less about learning from errors in judgement and changing course as events dictate. Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy. At least Fukuyam has power of reflection and his ego is small enough to see the light of day. If you neocon-ists cannot see the similarity between Wolfowitz and McNamara, you are truly blind.
Postscript: If you worry NYT will "infect" you, Jen, or victimize Jews, shipman, here's another perhaps "safer" source. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,9981001,00.html
"Francis Fukuyama: Shattered illusions"
29jun04 The Australian ...Several neo-conservatives, such as Pulitzer prize-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer, have noted how wrong people were after World War II in asserting that Japan could not democratise. Krauthammer asks: "Where is it written that Arabs are incapable of democracy?" He is echoing an argument made most forthrightly by the eminent Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, who has at several junctures suggested that pessimism about the prospects for a democratic Iraq betrays lack of respect for Arabs.
It is, of course, nowhere written that Arabs are incapable of democracy, and it is certainly foolish for cynical Europeans to assert with great confidence that democracy is impossible in the Middle East. We have, indeed, been fooled before, not just in Japan but in Eastern Europe after the collapse of communism.
But possibility is not probability, and good policy is not made by staking everything on a throw of the dice. Culture is not destiny, but culture plays an important role in making possible certain kinds of institutions â something that is usually taken to be a conservative insight.
Though I, more than most people, am associated with the idea that history's arrow points to democracy, I have never believed that democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will.
Prior to the Iraq war, there were many reasons for thinking that building a democratic Iraq was a task of a complexity that would be nearly unmanageable. Some reasons had to do with the nature of Iraqi society: the fact that it would be decompressing rapidly from totalitarianism, its ethnic divisions, the role of politicised religion, its tribal structure and the dominance of extended kin and patronage networks, and its susceptibility to influence from other parts of the Middle East that were passionately anti-American.
But other reasons had to do with America. The US has been involved in approximately 18 nation-building projects between its conquest of the Philippines in 1899 and the current occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the overall record is not a pretty one. The cases of unambiguous success â Germany, Japan and South Korea â were all cases where US forces came and then stayed indefinitely.
In the first two cases, we weren't nation-building at all, but only re-legitimating societies that had very powerful states. In all of the other cases, the US either left nothing behind in terms of self-sustaining institutions, or else made things worse by creating, as in the case of Nicaragua, a modern army and police but no lasting rule of law.
This gets to a fundamental point about unipolarity. True, there is vast disparity of power between the US and the rest of the world, vaster even than Rome's dominance at the height of its empire. But that dominance is clear-cut only along two dimensions of national power, the cultural realm and the ability to fight and win intensive conventional wars. Americans have no particular taste or facility for nation-building; we want exit strategies rather than empires.
So where does the domestic basis of support come for this unbelievably ambitious effort to politically transform one of the world's most troubled and hostile regions? And if the nation is really a commercial republic uncomfortable with empire, why should Americans be so eager to expand its domain? In Iraq, since the US invasion, we Americans have been our usual inept and disorganised selves in planning for and carrying out the reconstruction, something that should not have surprised anyone familiar with American history.
...The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how easy the post-war situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would be self-financing, that Americans could draw on a lasting well of gratitude for liberating Iraq, and that we could occupy the country with a small force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few months.
On the question of the threat posed by Iraq, everyone â Europeans and Americans â were evidently fooled into thinking that it possessed significant stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. But on this issue, the European bottom line proved to be closer to the truth than the administration's far more alarmist position.
The question of pre-war Iraq-al-Qa'ida links has become intensely politicised in the US since the war. My reading of the evidence is that these linkages existed but that their significance was limited. We have learned since September 11 that al-Qa'ida did not need the support of a state such as Iraq to do a tremendous amount of damage to the US, and that attacking Iraq was not the most direct way to get at al-Qa'ida.
The point here is not who is right, but rather that the prudential case was not nearly as open-and-shut as many neo-conservatives believed. They talk as if their (that is, the Bush administration's) judgment had been vindicated at every turn, and that any questioning of their judgment could only be the result of base or dishonest motives. If only this were true. The fact that Washington's judgment was flawed has created an enormous legitimacy problem for the US, one that will hurt American interests for a long time to come...Democracy promotion, through all of the available tools at America's disposal, should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the Middle East. But the US needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social engineering projects in parts of the world it doesn't understand very well. Francis Fukuyama, professor of international political economy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and he has written 2 books...
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Everyone here knows, right, that "neocons" are all Jews
What's your point? That because Wolfowitz and Feith et al are Jews we should give them a pass when they are wrong?? Why don't you get a clue from what Bill Cosby told blacks about using victimology as a cover for stupidity.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 14:45 Comments ||
Top||
#19
rex: What's your point? That because Wolfowitz and Feith et al are Jews we should give them a pass when they are wrong??
The vast majority of Jews in the public eye are liberal, and they are trying to discredit Wolfowitz and Feith in both Jewish and Christian eyes by pointing to them as traitors to Judaism to Jews and by suggesting that they are Jewish interlopers to Christians. It's a pretty cynical approach, similar to liberal demonization of black conservatives. The liberal view is that Jews belong on the liberal reservation. The real Jewish cabal is liberal - look on the 527 list and you will discover that liberal Jews are way over-represented on the top 25 list of donors.
#20
Rex: If you worry NYT will "infect" you, Jen, or victimize Jews, shipman, here's another perhaps "safer" source.
Rex needs to get out more often. Most papers outside the US, including the semi-conservative Telegraph, make the NYT look like a right-wing newspaper. Their mission in life hammering on Americans, whom they view as violent, illiterate and crude. I understand why they might need to think of themselves as superior by printing anti-American perspectives, but it's interesting that rex gets some kind of masochistic pleasure out of reading them. The Australian's problem isn't with neo-conservatives, it's with conservatives - and with American national interests asserting themselves. There's simply nothing new about America's recent actions - WWII was hailed as a great crusade to make the world safe for democracy - but the reality is that we ceded Central Europe to the Soviets, and acquiesced in the return of European rule to their colonies around the world. Rhetoric and actions are two different things.
Fukuyama: Though I, more than most people, am
associated with the idea that history's arrow points to democracy, I have never believed that democracies can be created anywhere and everywhere through simple political will.
This is the biggest load of horsedung ever. George HW Bush's New World Order ideas were based on Fukuyama's idea as expounded in his essay in National Interest, which was that liberal (in the classical, not 60's sense) democracy was the inevitable wave of the future. In a world where foreigners become more like Americans, it seemed prudent to give foreign countries a veto over American actions, which was what George HW Bush did when he organized a coalition composed of countries which in many cases were semi-hostile to America. Now that his thesis has been thoroughly debunked, he starts backing away from it, claiming that this wasn't what he meant in the first place. I used to think that this guy was a dope, back in the early 90's. Now I think he's lying, dishonorable dope.
#21
ZF: In a world where foreigners become more like Americans, it seemed prudent to give foreign countries a veto over American actions, which was what George HW Bush did when he organized a coalition composed of countries which in many cases were semi-hostile to America.
The reference here is to Desert Storm, and the use of the UN, which set an unfortunate precedent that all future actions in the American interest would somehow need to be submitted to the UN, whereas other countries fought their own wars without even paying lip service to the UN.
#22
ZF: The vast majority of Jews in the public eye are liberal, and they are trying to discredit Wolfowitz and Feith in both Jewish and Christian eyes by pointing to them as traitors to Judaism to Jews and by suggesting that they are Jewish interlopers to Christians.
Now this approach might work with Jews and with the main line liberal Christian denominations, but it won't work with the evangelical (i.e. right-wing) churches, who think that Jews are the chosen people. They would like to convert Jews to their religion, but don't have a problem with Jews remaining exactly as they are. Liberal Jews are literally playing with fire here - if Jews get demonized in the non-Jewish public's eyes, the damage won't be limited to Jewish conservatives.
#23
Fukuyama: The Bush administration went into Iraq with enormous illusions about how easy the post-war situation would be: it thought the reconstruction would be self-financing, that Americans could draw on a lasting well of gratitude for liberating Iraq, and that we could occupy the country with a small force structure and even draw US forces down significantly within a few months.
Lying comes just as easily to Fukuyama as spinning implausible scenarios like the End of History. The reality is that we were figuring on years of protectorate status whereby Iraq would be ruled much like MacArthur ruled Japan. But what has actually happened is the restoration of Iraqi rule after just over a year. What Fukuyama was quoting is best-case scenarios put out to prod maximum effort out of the folks in charge of governing Iraq. We don't have the best case situation in Iraq, but we don't have the worst case either. Despite huge amounts of money available to the terrorists, and contiguous states that support jihad against America, we are losing men at the rate of two a day, far less than in Vietnam, where the national interest at stake was far less vital.
#24
Neocons are people that believe everyone is capable of democracy if the hob-nailed boot can be taken off of their necks long enough.
Liberals are people that believe Arabs are incapable of running a democracy.
One view of human nature is optimistic, the other sounds patently racist. With all things being equal I'd prefer to gamble along with the optimists until we know 100% certain they are wrong because if they are right they will change the world for the better.
#25
This is the biggest load of horsedung ever
Neocons didn't think so at the time that Fukuyama first formulated the neocon theory with his fellow academic colleagues.
it's interesting that rex gets some kind of masochistic pleasure out of reading them
I have 2 college degrees and enjoy intellectual stimulation. I continue to like reading widely and broadly to exercise my mind. If you consider reading as "masochism" just continue warming the couch in front of the TV with the dial permanently imprinted to FOX News Channel or having your ear pasted to the radio to hear only Hannity and Rush.
Rex needs to get out more often. Most papers outside the US, including the semi-conservative Telegraph, make the NYT look like a right-wing newspaper
You miss my point, ZH. I was MOCKING shipman and Jen for their rigid inflexible mindets. So I said, hey if you are "scared" to read NYT, here's a another choice. Get it. It was supposed to pull their chain. Nevermind. No one has a sense of humor here.
Anywho...accusing The Australian of left wing bias is a mot point in this instance - the article was written ENTIRELY by Fukuyama. Fukuyama is a neoconservative/conservative and he wrote the article because he could not bear to hear the muzzle that his colleagues were putting on other conservatives to challenge or voice dissent. Because of his high profile in the neocon movement,he felt it was his responsibility to speak out. The article in The Australian is a shortened piece of what appears full text in the 6/30/04 issue of the National Interest, which requires a subscription, which I do not have.
The vast majority of Jews in the public eye are liberal, and they are trying to discredit Wolfowitz and Feith in both Jewish and Christian eyes by pointing to them as traitors to Judaism to Jews and by suggesting that they are Jewish interlopers to Christians. Liberal Jews are literally playing with fire here - if Jews get demonized in the non-Jewish public's eyes, the damage won't be limited to Jewish conservatives.
Time to move on to a new conspiracy theory, ZH. Jews are not being victimized in America, neither by Christians or Liberal Jews or pink polka dot and blue striped zulu monsters. Take off your pointy hat and stay on point.
a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
b)Should the USA be using the military for nation building ventures?
c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?
These are some of the questions that Fukuyama brings up. What Bush 41 did or did not do in the Desert Storm venture or what Liberal Jews are doing to conservative Jews is not relevant to the article Kukuyama wrote in The Australian. Why go off on all these tangents? Please, just answer the man's questions that he poses or post an article that will generate discussion about the unrelated topics you bring into this thread.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#26
"Democracy promotion, should remain high on the agenda, particularly with regard to the Middle East. But the US needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social engineering projects in parts of the world it doesn't understand very well."
From what I can tell Fukuyama is blowing a little smoke. He's all for democratization as long as it's done correctly. Well, here here ol chap, well said and very timely too!
That the overthrow of saddam, which has gone swimingly, to the messy attempt to keep the country of Iraq whole, should not have been, or done wrong, and on and on. It was done, is being done, is not finished, and is a side show to the bigger problem. Which are herded sheep like gentle.
Iraq will morph into a cauldren of crap while the power that be takes control. To not give democracy there a shot would be lame. If, on the other hand, islamic sense of thought and tribal pettiness can't be overcome, so be it, saddam is toast. I think the country will prolly splinter and we can help those who whis our help. But keep an eye on jihad. Being a fractured state is better than being a nation that has the destruction of the US as an ideal. (IRAN)
#27
Yank: Neocons are people that believe everyone is capable of democracy if the hob-nailed boot can be taken off of their necks long enough.
There is nothing new about this idea. American occupation troops enforced it in Japan and Germany with far fewer forces than we have in Iraq today. What is beyond Fukuyama's ken is the fact that the guerrilla war we are facing today is the direct consequence of not killing millions of Iraqi combatants in the major combat phase. But at the same time, if we had fought the Iraqi armies instead of letting most units disperse by themselves, we would have taken many more casualties ourselves - hence the 10,000 body bags readied for the campaign. The difficulties with the reconstruction has nothing to do with incompetence, unless the City of New York can be judged incompetent for not having broken ground on new Trade Center construction 3 years after 9/11. It's to do with Iraq's longstanding poverty, the destruction of Iraqi infrastructure during the campaign and the fact that Fukuyama is a scribbler, not a doer - being someone who constructs castles in the sky - he doesn't actually have a good idea of how long something takes to get done. Note that Bosnia is a shambles, economically, after a decade of UN governance, and Kosovo is a disaster zone after 6 years of UN governance, and neither of them is encountering a major insurgency.
#29
Rex: Neocons didn't think so at the time that Fukuyama first formulated the neocon theory with his fellow academic colleagues.
Fukuyama shares this view mostly with the New York Times. Conservatives don't generally think that democracy happens naturally. Force is typically how it's imposed. Some of them fail, but democracies in Third World countries all have their roots in centuries of colonial rule that followed despotic monarchies.
#30
Rex, you accuse the proponents of the war of being closed-minded, getting their news only from Fox or Rush, and their leadership mainly from Feith or Wolfowitz... but you're being closed-minded yourself when you do this. You've constructed this massive straw-man argument of the opposition, the "dreaded arrogant neocons," but I don't believe the straw man itself is accurate.
The press wants to believe in the straw-man too, hence their promotion of Fukuyama as the spokesman-turned-rebel against the so-called movement.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/22/2004 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#31
"Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy."
And your experience would be... what?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/22/2004 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Rex: Fukuyama is a neoconservative/conservative and he wrote the article because he could not bear to hear the muzzle that his colleagues were putting on other conservatives to challenge or voice dissent. Because of his high profile in the neocon movement,he felt it was his responsibility to speak out.
Actually, Fukuyama is a lying, dishonorable dope of no particular distinction who is acting against American interests. Rex seems to think that conservatives rally to charismatic figures, just as the Nazis rallied to Hitler. Actually, that's not the case. Conservatives rally to bedrock ideas, and whomever carries the tune best is selected on the basis of his adherence to those ideas. Conservatives aren't "censoring" him - they're just saying that his ideas are not conservative ideas - which they probably aren't, if the New York Times and the Australian are giving them an airing. If Fukuyama wants to become a liberal, that is his choice. Conservatives support people who give voice to their ideas rather than worship them as the source of ideological truth.
#33
Rex: Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy.
Dave D.: And your experience would be... what?
Actually rex is someone who opposes a draft because he fears he will be called upon to serve. He thinks old people and women should serve in the combat arms, because the young are too valuable to sacrifice in battle.
#34
Rex: Time to move on to a new conspiracy theory, ZH. Jews are not being victimized in America, neither by Christians or Liberal Jews or pink polka dot and blue striped zulu monsters. Take off your pointy hat and stay on point.
This isn't a conspiracy theory any more than liberalism or conservatism is a conspiracy theory. Liberal Jews are demonizing conservative Jews by pointedly pointing to their religious faith as a means of discrediting them. They are also pointing to selected conservatives as religious Christians to discredit them. I wonder what would happen if conservatives started pointing out the obvious, and referring to many prominent liberals as Jews.
Rex: a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
What Rex fails to realize is that conservatives aren't the Nazi or Communist parties. Conflicts and schism are natural. The Democrats dropped the KKK, started buying off black constituents with goodies and embraced the Communist Party on its way to the present. Republicans have repudiated the John Birch Society and taken on evangelicals as their constituencies.
Rex: b)Should the USA be using the military for nation building ventures?
Conservatives have always felt that nation-building is part of the national interest - when America's security interests are at stake. Kosovo and Bosnia were not in the American interest - Iraq and Afghanistan are.
Rex: c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
Americans have always felt that inside every person was an American struggling to get out. When rex looks at non-white people, he sees mud people.
Rex: d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?
Actually, conservatives have taken on multi-decade foreign ventures throughout American history, when American interests were at stake. Fukuyama in trapped in the Vietnam quagmire mindset and his personal conversion to anti-American liberalism. Americans want whatever will make America more secure - and it is the job of conservatives to chart out a path that will ensure America's security by restoring the loss of deterrence that led to the 9/11 attacks.
Rex: These are some of the questions that Fukuyama brings up. What Bush 41 did or did not do in the Desert Storm venture or what Liberal Jews are doing to conservative Jews is not relevant to the article Kukuyama wrote in The Australian.
Actually, they are perfectly relevant in demonstrating that Fukuyama is a flake whose ideas are not to be taken seriously. He shades the truth in the anecdotes he uses, and leaves out context to make his arguments more persuasive. His essay and its proofs have about as much merit as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
Rex: Why go off on all these tangents? Please, just answer the man's questions that he poses or post an article that will generate discussion about the unrelated topics you bring into this thread.
These aren't really tangents - the article combines terminology - neo-this and neo-that that assumes foundational ideas that we should question before we even get to the meat of the article. The NYT's methodology is to distort reality by coming up with false things we can all agree about before launching into its polemical expositions. I am merely taking that apart before I smack the argument down.
#35
Rex, you miss the boat on one very important item:
Of ALL the societies in the Middle East, Iraq was by far the most secular excepting possibly Jordan (moreso than Israel in fact).
As such, it was the logical tagert for "Democracy building". And again, I see a great deal of naysaing, but no hard, clear-eyed vision of what to do better. Basically, the kind of conservatism you espouse is simplemined isolationism at its core. And looking back at 9/11, that is simply no longer an acceptable policy, paleo- or neo- conservative alike.
"there were many reasons for thinking that building a democratic Iraq was a task of a complexity that would be nearly unmanageable."
Nice statemnt - but I do note that the article you post presents not one established hard enumberable fact, nor does it place forward ANY alternative to passivity and allowing the middle east to rot futher until far more American lives would be spent in changing things there.
Rex, you are not a conservative so much as you are an isolationist. Either that or you want Bush out of there. Both areas you seem to have a lot of animus toward the current administration, almost to the point of being a (politically) self-destructive fanatic purist.
Propose a solution. Otherwise you and your ilk are whiners who need to get out of the way of those of us who are trying to get things done.
#36
Neocons didn't think so at the time that Fukuyama first formulated the neocon theory with his fellow academic colleagues.
Odd. I've never heard anyone pointing to Fukuyama as being involved in formulating the "neocon theory".
Hell, I've never even heard of the "neocon theory". Perhaps rex is referring to the Wilsonian theory, that America is safest when dealing with democracies, and therefore it is America's interest to create democracies?
If so, then the idea predates the "neocons" by a few decades, at least.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/22/2004 17:33 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Fukuyama is a lying, dishonorable dope of no particular distinction who is acting against American interests.
Kukuyama wrote 2 books and he has a PhD and he is a professor at John Hopkins. I think he earns the right to be heard and not to be dismissed as a "dope" by people who have 1/100 the academic credentials. I think Fukuyama is every bit as qualified or more than journalists like Krauthammer or Podhoretz, neither of whom have a PhD.
Rex seems to think that conservatives rally to charismatic figures, just as the Nazis rallied to Hitler.
Always the character assassination when one is too empty headed to debate. Victimology is old. Why not act like a grown up for a change?
Conservatives rally to bedrock ideas, and whomever carries the tune best is selected on the basis of his adherence to those ideas
Conservatives believe in principles that involve basic things like small gov't, fiscal responsibility, low taxes, national defense including protecting sovereignity. "Tunes" and "adherence" to tunes even if they are off the scale have nothing to do with conservatives.
If Fukuyama wants to become a liberal
It's the other way around. Most neocons like Fukuyama and Wolfowitz and Podhoertz and Krauthammer were liberals who changed to conservatives-ergo the term "neo"- when they saw the virtue of using the military to promote their airy fairy ideas. Why don't you do some reading about the history of how neoconservativism came to be instead of yapping about something you know nothing about?
Actually rex is someone who opposes a draft because he fears he will be called upon to serve
I oppose the draft because it is age and gender biased and it violates the constitution. I am not of draft age so thanks but no thanks I don't need anyone to interpret my political positions for me, least of all, an uninformed person like you. Go "channel" your pet dog or cat, if you think you are so good at it.
He thinks old people and women should serve in the combat arms, because the young are too valuable to sacrifice in battle.
No one or everyone should be draft-able, not just one age and gender of our society, where the majority make decisions over this small sector of "powerless" individuals that is their best interests and with no risk to them. It's called "tyranny" of the majority. I thought in our society every individual had equal rights and was not to be discriminated against. Forgive me, ZH, for the preposterous idea that our young are "valuable." Perish the thought. It would appear that you view young men as being totally expendable. Nice.
Rex said: Btw, what makes Krauthammer and Podhoretz any more credible than Fukuyama? All 3 are "suits" with zero experience in warfare or its strategy
#31 replies: And your experience would be... what?
Wakey, wakey, #31. You are missing my point. They are no more qualified than me and therefore and thusly NEITHER me nor they SHOULD BE THE ARCHITECTS, THE POINT MEN FOR PLANNING wars/military ventures. Get it???
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Rex: Fukuyama wrote 2 books and he has a PhD and he is a professor at John Hopkins. I think he earns the right to be heard and not to be dismissed as a "dope" by people who have 1/100 the academic credentials. I think Fukuyama is every bit as qualified or more than journalists like Krauthammer or Podhoretz, neither of whom have a PhD.
Political academics are people of no particular distinction. Liberals like rex might think that passing tests and writing papers that other academics read is a sign of great distinction. I put far greater stock in concrete achievements - a non-commissioned officer in the US military is better qualified than Fukuyama to lead the American people. Rex, like his liberal pals, thinks that a PhD is a sign of greatness.
#40
Rex: Always the character assassination when one is too empty headed to debate. Victimology is old. Why not act like a grown up for a change?
The basic point was that people don't look to figureheads to decide what they should think. They know what they think and look to like-minded public figures to help influence other people. Rex's reference to victimology makes no sense, like much of his other expositions.
Rex: No one or everyone should be draft-able, not just one age and gender of our society, where the majority make decisions over this small sector of "powerless" individuals that is their best interests and with no risk to them. It's called "tyranny" of the majority. I thought in our society every individual had equal rights and was not to be discriminated against. Forgive me, ZH, for the preposterous idea that our young are "valuable." Perish the thought. It would appear that you view young men as being totally expendable.
Rex dresses up his physical cowardice as moral strength. This is so laughable, it's like a parody. Conservatives believe in being young and of the masculine gender confers responsibility. Rex is clearly a new kind of conservative who believes that women and the elderly should serve before the young and masculine do. I'd call rex a neo-conservative, except there is nothing new about his views - it sounds a lot like traditional liberalism.
His moronic rants about "chest-thumping" "neo"-conservatives are just ludicrous. Conservatives believe in "chest-thumping" and have gone to war numerous times to prove their point. Deterrence comes from concrete damage visited upon the enemy, not from carrying a big stick. The will to use that big stick must be visible, and the only way to demonstrate that will is by going to war.
#41
Remember Rex means peace.
And how is that non-sequiter comment relevant to the article and the discussion at hand. shipman? Oh well, at least you have dropped the Jewish victim guise. I should view this change as progress I guess. Who knows... twenty years from now perhaps you may be able to string a few sentences of sequential and coherent thoughts together.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#42
Rex: Wakey, wakey, #31. You are missing my point. They are no more qualified than me and therefore and thusly NEITHER me nor they SHOULD BE THE ARCHITECTS, THE POINT MEN FOR PLANNING wars/military ventures. Get it???
Tommy Franks planned the war. Period. And military campaigns have to be approved by political leaders who are not mere rubber stamps. Ultimately the political buck stops at the president's desk.
#43
I think Fukuyama is every bit as qualified or more than journalists like Krauthammer or Podhoretz, neither of whom have a PhD.
Krauthammer has an equivalent degree, an MD, from Harvard.
Not that it matters much, just correcting your mistake.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/22/2004 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Oh well, at least you have dropped the Jewish victim guise. I should view this change as progress I guess
Unlikely.
But please do not mock me, it is hurtful.
I was under the impression that Rex means "king" and Pax means "peace".
"Liberals are people that believe Arabs are incapable of running a democracy."
Any specific examples of a liberals claiming anything like that?
The only time I've heard something like that was when a conservative Rantburger (don't remember who) had said that if the USA fails in Iraq that'd be proof that the Arabs are incapable of running a democracy and so you won't need to bother trying it again in the future. Which had seemed to me a quite elegant transfer of blame, not to mention unaware revalation of the Messianic complex: "If belief in Jesus can't help save the sinners, noone can." changed to "If USA's actions can't produce democracy in Iraq then nothing can".
#48
Rex, thats very LIBERAL of you. "Gender Biased" - straight fromthe leftist lingusitics playbook.Your mask is slipping, liberal.
No, dearie, you are getting hormonal again. Focus please: it's the language of "today."
That the draft only applies to one of two genders is better expressed how exactly, Ms.Spook Genius? Spit it out old wise one.
Sheesh. No wonder we had such a colossal failure of intelligence gathering re: the Iraq War with folks like you on the case.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 20:03 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Conservatives believe in being young and of the masculine gender confers responsibility.
Stick to channeling what dogs and cats value. You are bit too spacey to speak to conservative values.
ZF said: Rex seems to think that conservatives rally to charismatic figures, just as the Nazis rallied to Hitler preceded by several paragraphs of non seqiter verbiose gush about Jews being victimized by liberals and Christians and the world
Rex replied:Always the character assassination when one is too empty headed to debate. Victimology is old. Why not act like a grown up for a change?
ZF:Rex's reference to victimology makes no sense, like much of his other expositions
???? Who is the one that goes off on 25 different directions? Can you focus on intellectual rebuttals instead of character assassination? Don't interpret what I think. What do you think and can you support your arguments? I asked you to respond to 4 points raised one of the articles and your responses are personal attacks on me or on Fukayuma, whom you don't know from Adam.
Examples of ZF's personal attack based responses, none of which have any documented support :
Rex's question a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
ZF's response: What Rex fails to realize is that conservatives aren't the Nazi or Communist parties...Republicans have repudiated the John Birch Society and taken on evangelicals as their constituencies.
Rex's question c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
ZF's response: Americans have always felt that inside every person was an American struggling to get out. When rex looks at non-white people, he sees mud people.
Rex's question d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?
ZF's response: Actually, conservatives have taken on multi-decade foreign ventures throughout American history, when American interests were at stake. Fukuyama in trapped in the Vietnam quagmire mindset and his personal conversion to anti-American liberalism.
Answering as you did in post #34 is self-revealing. ZF, you have "issues" and don't want to role play therapist-patient with you. Good luck.
Posted by: rex ||
08/22/2004 20:42 Comments ||
Top||
#50
Rex: Who is the one that goes off on 25 different directions?
When I stomp on rex for making stupid statements and refer to historical precedents, he calls this going off in 25 different directions. I think rex believes that the proper way to address the issues is by looking at it from the standpoint of the likelihood of him getting drafted. I'm sorry, but national security has nothing to do with rex's personal safety.
rex: Can you focus on intellectual rebuttals instead of character assassination?
Can rex focus on intellectual rebuttals instead of denying that he has been rebutted?
rex: Don't interpret what I think.
I don't interpret what rex thinks. He tells it to me without requiring much interpretation on my part.
rex: What do you think and can you support your arguments? I asked you to respond to 4 points raised one of the articles and your responses are personal attacks on me or on Fukayuma, whom you don't know from Adam.
Rex can't defend his positions from attack, and declares victory without answering any of my objections. This is what defines a liberal. (For some reason, rex believes that getting the elderly and women to fight in his behalf is a conservative position. I don't know where he gets his definitions from, but it's certainly not what most people think of as conservatism - neo or otherwise). History doesn't matter to liberals, but it matters acutely to conservatives, and it's hard to see how rex gets off dismissing my references to history when he seems to know nothing about it, but still calls himself a conservative. Conservatism is about conserving the lessons of the past. And these lessons don't have to do with the inevitability of defeat, as rex and his liberal cohorts would seem to believe.
#51
Rex: Examples of ZF's personal attack based responses, none of which have any documented support :
Rex's question a) Are the neocons having conflicts about whether or not installing democracy thru military means is the appropriate approach to combatting Islamofascism?
ZF's response: What Rex fails to realize is that conservatives aren't the Nazi or Communist parties...Republicans have repudiated the John Birch Society and taken on evangelicals as their constituencies.
Rex is a champ at distorting arguments. My point here is that conservatives don't march in lockstep. Arguments do occur among conservatives. Only an intellectual of rex's caliber would see this as a personal attack.
#52
rex: Rex's question c)Is the USA's version of democracy the single type of government that should be spread thruout the world?
ZF's response: Americans have always felt that inside every person was an American struggling to get out. When rex looks at non-white people, he sees mud people.
This is well-documented in rex's comments - it's not a personal attack - he said that brown people throughout the world are united against America, so there's no point trying to do any good out there. If quoting his words back at him is a personal attack, rex is very thin-skinned indeed.
Note that I also pointed out that Americans have always felt that everyone can be an American, and that is reflected in our immigration policy. If everyone can be an American, then it also follows that American democracy is exportable abroad. Rex's skull is apparently too thick to draw the appropriate conclusions, leaving me no choice but to spell it out for him.
#53
rex: Rex's question d) Can we /should we take on regime change ventures and where does it start and when does it end? What do Americans want?
ZF's response: Actually, conservatives have taken on multi-decade foreign ventures throughout American history, when American interests were at stake. Fukuyama in trapped in the Vietnam quagmire mindset and his personal conversion to anti-American liberalism.
I am merely stating the historical precedents for the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are carried out, as in previous campaigns, in response to American interests. American troops have mounted punitive expeditions, wars for unconditional surrender, skirmishes, et al. Fukuyama is implying that Iraq and Afghanistan were embarked on without much thought or debate and I am saying that he is wrong. Other administrations have done as much or more than GWB. And yet rex appears to believe that precedent has no place in decisions about war. Regime change and invasions isn't a new thing to America's military - American administrations have pursued it since the founding of the Republic. People who call these policies new are either ignorant of American history or deliberately trying to hobble American credibility, which rests on a demonstrated willingness to destroy its enemies. And that cannot be accomplished short of war.
#54
As a very late addition to this fascinating "thread"....
This article reminded me of the series of page one articles in the NY Times (in the summer preceding the invasion) that alleged discord among Republicans vis-a-vis the wisdom of the war. Of course, those allegations turned out to be mostly vapors of the Times' anti-admin imagination. The only reason these allegations will be harder to refute is because (as Kirkpatrick pointed out) there is no such thing as a Neocon Party you can be a card-carrying member of.
But note: the Times rests its entire case for a Neocon Revolt on one article by one guy the Times classifies as a "neocon".
#55
Rex, attack me personally all you want: it only shows how hollow and shallow youa re. You ahve yet to address the points I raised, and the facts of the situation damn you and your argument as being irrelevant at best, or disingenuous and dishonest intellectually if taken prima facia. Your "arguments" are rife with improperly drawn inferences, hyperbole, and liguaistic misuse that borders on the CLintonesque.
Rex, you've become a troll, and shot any credibility you had here - is that what you intended?
You certainly are no conservative - not near the likes of W.F. Buckely. That leads me to believe you are simply a leftist trying to argue like a conservative, but unable to completely unmoor yourself from "left wing" speech patterns and ideas. Either that or the "John Birch" type of far right lunatic.
But in either way, you have yet to prove a point or even offer up evidence that you have any plan outside of snide character attacks on the current administration.
#56
OS: That leads me to believe you are simply a leftist trying to argue like a conservative, but unable to completely unmoor yourself from "left wing" speech patterns and ideas. Either that or the "John Birch" type of far right lunatic.
I wouldn't be so quick to insult the John Birch Society by suggesting that rex might share their viewpoints. The John Birch Society was composed of patriots who had no problem fighting America's enemies. Rex is just a chicken who just wants to make sure he doesn't get drafted.
#57
Okay..so neocons are actually liberals? Or...former Liberals? I've never been able to wrap my mind around them, because, either you are a conservative or you're not. I hear people throw around the label, but it's never made alot of sense. If they are former liberals wanting to use the military to ram their ideology down the throats of everyone, I don't see how any stretch of the imagination makes the conservative now.
Now, I am I freely admit, an Imperialist. I think we should conquor nations and convert them into states of the Union. It may take a few dozen centuries, but it worked well for Rome in the beginning.
I'll just assume Neocon means an agressive liberal.
#58
Either that or the "John Birch" type of far right lunatic.
I was thinking Buchananite.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/22/2004 22:37 Comments ||
Top||
#59
Silentbrick -- historically, the term "neocon" was used (as an insult, actually) by liberals to describe a group who had once been on the left, but had second thoughts and became conservatives. Typically the cause of their change of heart was leftist perfidy during the Cold War.
They're "hawks" in the same sense as Reagan was a "hawk".
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/22/2004 22:40 Comments ||
Top||
#60
SB: If they are former liberals wanting to use the military to ram their ideology down the throats of everyone, I don't see how any stretch of the imagination makes the conservative now.
Calling Iraq and Afghanistan an effort to ram ideology down "everyone's" throats is a stretch. Afghanistan was a punitive expedition combined with an effort to install a friendly ruler. Iraq was a punitive expedition combined with an effort to install a friendly ruler in an oil-rich Muslim and Arab state. Afghanistan works on some levels, but Iraq works on so many levels it's not even funny. Afghanistan convinced Muslims that America would not shrink from difficult wars. Iraq is like Afghanistan squared - it convinced Muslims and Arabs that America would not hold back from attacking oil-producing states, even states containing Muslim holy cities. A sure sign that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea is complaints from Muslim states galore, and from our "allies" such as France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and China. Anti-American elements in some of our true allies are against the war, but most of these are the usual suspects - Arabists or leftists who are anti-American anyway.
(And totally undiscussed in all of this is the Democratic Party's lurch leftward after the 60's when it got recaptured by the Henry Wallace wing of the party. There was a time when the average Democrat was a lot more conservative than the modern examples.)
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/22/2004 22:50 Comments ||
Top||
#62
But in either way, you have yet to prove a point or even offer up evidence that you have any plan outside of snide character attacks on the current administration.
Pity, OS, you actually get paid to do research and sleuth when you cannot read. Listen up. I contribute more research to posts than you and your mindless emotionally unstrung shrieker pals put together.
A sure sign that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea is complaints from Muslim states galore, and from our "allies" such as France, Belgium, Germany, Russia and China.
What a clever observation. So if we do what other countries say is imprudent, we know it's right thing to do? You are basically recommending that America should pursue foreign policy like a defiant 2 year old. Hey if that sounds logical to you, I don't want to rain on your parade.
Posted by: rex ||
08/23/2004 2:27 Comments ||
Top||
British shoe bomber Richard Reid is suing US prison authorities over his harsh prison conditions. The Londoner is being helid in a maximum security jail in Colorado for attempting to explode his sneakers blow up an American Airlines flight in December 2001. But he has appealed to a judge to be allowed the "same rights and privileges as other inmates" at the prison. Reid is trying to end his isolation and lack of access to Arabic-language religious books. In May, prison authorities told the inmate he had been placed on special administrative measures. These restricted his access to letters, the media, telephone and visitors. A federal prison official told him it was because "there is a substantial risk that your communications or contacts with persons could result in death or serious bodily injury." In his case, Reid, 31, said his cell had a window but he could not see out of it.
#3
Colorado has 44 mountains over 14,000 feet high. We can always find him a 3'x3'x8' 1/2" solid steel shack on the top of one of them, with just four bars welded over an open hole for him to peer through. Put it up this time of year - there was 2' of snow on Pike's Peak two days ago. We've also been having some NASTY thunderstorms, with several hundred hits a day on the mountaintops. Wind gust yesterday on top of Culebra Peak was 124MPH.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/22/2004 5:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think he should have the right to become someone's girlfriend.
#9
Ya wanna a better deal, Richard? Here take these shoes, just like you were wearing on the plane, and this Zippo. Now go out in the middle of the yard and show us what you did wrong the first time you tried blowing yourself up along with a couple hundred real people.
BTW, at Florence -- isolation is all there is. The closet thing to 'general population' are units D, F, and G where out-of-cell time is a total of nine hours a week -- three times a week for three hours with only one other person.
#14
"his cell had a window but he could not see out of it"
The lighting in each of the cells is designed to prohibit sunlight: a slit 3 inches wide and 3 feet long facing a wall or rec yard. The slit window and a florescent light strip provide the only illumination in the cell. The furniture is gray concrete built into white walls with drab green trim. The steel and cement cells are sealed off to prohibit any communication between prisoners. Reid's cell is no different from that of the other prisoners. The difference is that his communications are more restricted (as in none) than most of the other incorrigibles there.
No sympathy here.
#15
If he wants a better deal, I think he should get an agent instead of a lawyer. He could get great endorsements like Nike Air Reids, for explosive action on the courts..
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 01:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Guess we can now keep them on ice until the WOT is completed. How they are partial to jerked chicken.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/22/2004 1:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
10 down 590 to go. Jerked chicken---tastes like chicken.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/22/2004 2:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, well, well! Lawyers created this snailpaced litigation of rights so now they can struggle through the morass of appeals and briefs and motions and a priori, etc. until the cows pigs come home! Rummy must be whistling Brahms as he files his nails waiting for whole process to close out by 2015!
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
08/22/2004 3:27 Comments ||
Top||
Okay, I suggest a simple sans serif font for the header.... perhaps Helvtica, done up War Style. With sides bars.... all the news printed to fit, a page two bourka babe perhaps. The halal food section, the obits will be a seperate section, blood mixed into type? Doonesbury alone on the comics page. Rug ad section.... hmmmmm.
#5
I want to do the "On This Day in History Segment".
August 22nd,
721: Muhammed Beat His Wife Again
1221: Saladin Personally Cut off the Heads of Two Crusaders, Allah Akbar!!!
1973: A Few Weeks From This Date We Came this Close to Killing all the Zionists, but it Was Not Allah's Will...
Not that much will come of it...
Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has strongly criticised the conservative majority in the country's parliament who last week rejected two key reform bills, the news agency Isna reported. One of the draft bills related to equality and was aimed at eliminating discrimination against women on many issues including divorce and custody of children. "The fundamental principle of gender equality was not only rejected by the new male MPs but - and this makes me very sad - also by the female MPs," said Mrs Ebadi.
And we won't even bring up the question of Freedom of Religion...
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 1:50:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Some 100 Lebanese from across the country's professions launched a campaign on Saturday against a change in the constitution which would allow a second term for President Emile Lahoud, as Syria is thought to want. A statement entitled "for the Defence of the Republic and the Constitution", of which AFP obtained a copy, said that "any attempt to change the constitution to facilitate the renewal, prolongation or re-election" of Mr Lahoud "is nothing but the perpetuation of the current situation of dependence" on Syria. It was signed by university teachers, journalists, lawyers, doctors, engineers, and former ministers and members of parliament, both Muslim and Christian.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 1:49:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Banning al-Jazeera
By Erick Stakelbeck & Ali Babingyi August 19, 2004, 8:23 a.m.
Last week, thanks to decisive action by Iraq's interim government, the U.S. took a significant step toward winning the ever-elusive hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. Iyad Allawi, Iraq's acting prime minister, announced that al-Jazeera — the Arab world's one-stop shop for Islamist, anti-American, and anti-Semitic propaganda — would be banned from operating in Iraq for 30 days. Accusing the Qatar-based network of "inciting hatred," Allawi said that an independent panel had evaluated al-Jazeera's Iraq coverage and concluded that the station advocated violence against both Coalition and Iraqi security forces. The al-Jazeera shutdown came just days after the French government declared that it was banning al-Manar, the official television network of the terrorist group Hezbollah, from French airwaves "due to its anti-Semitic content."
As expected, both networks loudly protested the closures. Al-Jazeera argued that it had only recently implemented a station-wide "code of genocide ethics" that would ensure balanced reporting on Iraq. In turn, a representative from al-Manar labeled the French ban "restrictive" and a violation of "liberty and principles." Considering that both stations serve as sounding boards for Islamist terrorists who advocate the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, it's rather difficult to sympathize with their plight. Disturbingly, since its inception in 1996, Al-Jazeera has served as the foremost source of information about the West for much of the Arab and Muslim world. The station helps shape the worldviews of an estimated 45 million Middle Easterners, in addition to scores of Arabic-speaking Europeans and 150,000 American households.
And therein lies the problem: Al-Jazeera portrays the United States and Israel as twin Satans while casting jihadists and despots as courageous victims of Western aggression. Al-Jazeera has drawn the frequent ire of the Bush administration for its skewed coverage of Iraq, which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has labeled "vicious, inaccurate, and inexcusable." For instance, in violation of the Geneva conventions it has showed footage of the interrogations of captured U.S. soldiers. Plus, American troops in the field are portrayed as arrogant imperialists who intentionally target Iraqi civilians and holy sites.
Additionally, the weekly al-Jazeera program, Ash-Sharia wa Haya ("Sharia and Life"), has played host to well-known jihadists like Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, an avowed advocate of suicide bombings; Safar Al-Hawali, a Saudi cleric with ties to Osama bin Laden and the 9/11 hijackers; and Muhammad Husayn Fadlallah, spiritual leader of Hezbollah. While Al-Manar may not yet enjoy the same name recognition as al-Jazeera, its pro-terrorist message does manage to reach an estimated 200 million viewers worldwide via satellite. Al-Manar regularly airs programs that glorify suicide bombers, including one that shows Palestinian "martyrs" preparing for suicide missions. It also broadcasts frequent footage of Hezbollah terrorists attacking Israeli soldiers.
In recent months, the network ran a Syrian-produced mini-series, Al Shatat ("The Diaspora"), which was based on libels found in the notorious anti-Semitic tract, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The series depicted Jews in Israel plotting a world takeover. One typically outrageous scene showed Jewish leaders engineering the murder of a Christian boy in order to drain his blood for Passover matzah. Given the increasing number of violent attacks against France's Jews by the country's burgeoning Muslim population, is it any wonder that the French government decided to ban a station that propagates such incendiary anti-Semitic rhetoric? Despite its setback in France, however, al-Manar remains a thriving operation, with bureaus already established in Dubai, Egypt, Iran, and Jordan — and is planning to open another in Britain.
As for al-Jazeera — which, just last month, was cleared by the Canadian government to begin broadcasting in Canada — it continues to gain mainstream acceptance. An August 9 New York Times editorial lauded it as "a healthy and crucially important force for change," and the network even had a skybox at the recent Democratic National Convention. Indeed, the positive measures taken by the Iraqi and French governments seem to have had little effect on the global standing of either al-Jazeera or al-Manar. As a result, the pro-terror propaganda machine rolls on, much to the West's disadvantage. EMPHASIS ADDED
It may be time for al-Jazeera to begin having a series of devastating "transmitter breakdowns." I'm sure you're all familiar with those types of catastrophic equipment failures that manage to collapse the entire studio taping facilities next door. Jamming all of their satellite uplinks and over-the-air broadcasts would be an acceptable alternative.
#1
Jamming of it's uplinks wouldn't be that hard but there are only a few places that can do that. Mostly under tight control. No "government" would dare getting caught. So perhaps some enterprising folk will target the source of the signals for "equipment failures." of a expensive and catastrophic nature.
If anyone remember whe the super bowl got jammed? That poor guy is still locked up I bet.
From Al Muhajiroun
.... the one who was Muslim, but then commits apostasy, we must declare takfeer on them. Takfeer is purification of the camp of Islam, and is worship to Allan Allah (swt), we become closer (qurba) to Allan Allah by making takfeer. The one who wants to speak like the kaafir, act like the kaafir, fight with the kaafir against Muslims, they have no right to remain in the camp of Imaan and Tawheed. Those in the Camp of Islam have certain privileges, they marry from the Muslims, they give and take the salami salam from the Muslims, they have rights over Muslims. However the one who commits apostasy from Islam, has no right to those privileges, they have no right to remain in the camp of Imaan, rather they must be with the camp of Kufr, or the kuffar and Mushrikeen. ....
Two Muslims went to Muhammad (saw) with a dispute for arbitration, he judged between them. One man disagreed with the verdict, and said, "I disagree", his companion asked what to do. .... they went to Umar and told him what had happened, Umar [ibn Khattab] told them to wait and he went into his home to retrieve his sword, he struck the first man who disagreed and injured and then chased the second man. .... Umar ibn Khattab judged them to be kaafir on what was apparent, without to check their heart, and ... so Muhammad (saw) hugged him and said, "Allan Allah has purified you from the seventh heaven." ....
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/22/2004 9:47:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Well, how can you possibly argue about being qurba to Allah by performing takfeer on the kaafir?
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/22/2004 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sometimes-- such as when reading this kind of bullshit-- I think the war won't be over until Arabic is spoken only in Hell.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/22/2004 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Fair enough. I feel the Christians have left the Mooslim world in droves because they were tired of being Dhimmis and saw the rise of Islamofacism as an existential threat.
I have great affection for Christian Arabs. In the 1960's, I grew up in Soddi land and visited Lebanon often, meeting many fine Christians. I also have a good friend who is a Copt and he and his wife have both explained what it is like to be a Dhimmi. That is why they moved to the US and are happy Anericans, free to worship as they please and pursue their future.
#14
Gentle/6139, an excellent resource for non-Muslim Arabs is apostatesofislam.com.
You should hang out over there. You'd have lots to talk about, you being an Emirati national and all, right? And even if you're not, you can pick up jewels like this on their message boards:
بسم الله الخَبِيث الوَحْشِيّ
Translation: "In the name of Allah, the Evil, the Savage"
Transliteration : Bismillah Al-Khabees Al Wehshee
Posted by: Another Dan ||
08/22/2004 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
Opposition activists have brought many towns and cities in Bangladesh to a halt, the day after 18 people died in explosions at a political rally. Sheikh Hasina, who heads the opposition Awami League, escaped slightly hurt after an attack while she was speaking. About 200 people were injured by the grenade blasts at the rally in Dhaka. Awami League supporters accused the government of being behind what they called an assassination attempt, a charge the government denies. The calm follows overnight clashes between opposition supporters and police, when angry crowds set fire to buildings and cars and were beaten back by police. But the Associated Press news agency reports that a mob in the centre of the country set a train on fire amidst the protests. There has been no confirmation or word of casualties.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/22/2004 4:27:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
The Sudanese authorities have arrested seven people in Darfur for allegedly taking part in fabricated video footage of villagers being raped by soldiers, prosecutors said on Saturday. Five of the seven - two women and three men - have already appeared in court in the North Darfur state capital of El Fasher and confessed to their part in the forgery, the city's prosecution bureau said in a statement. They charged that the fake video was "organised by two drivers belonging a foreign organization," the statement said. It did not identify the organisation and acknowledged that the two drivers "have not yet been arrested." But it claimed that the video camera used to film the footage had been recovered and belonged to "one of the accused in charge of the information office in Milleet locality."
Ummm... No film at eleven, but show trial to follow shortly...
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 1:52:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
with everything that is going on in darfur and this is what the "authorities" are worried about?
#2
however small a woman's honor is to you, WE care.
Of course they followed it. What, you think that it is something that does not matter?
You do see what this proves, don't you?
If this was faked, what is to prove that any of the things said are true?
It's a setup, and rather a transparent setup at that. Why fake it in Sudan? Why fake it, for that matter, with Sudanese? Chad is next door, and there are other places where it could be done with even less chance of being caught.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Gentle, are you saying that arresting people for 'faking' a video is more important then stopping the actual real-life gang-rapes (sometimes of young girls) and murders?
The 'fake' video has much less to do with the woman's 'honor' (since 'the woman' who's honor you are so concerned about is a willingly participated who is acting the victim) then a real, actual, physical rape (where the girl who's honor you are less concerned about is unwilling to participate and is being violated against her will).
Several people have stated (and physical, medical, evidence has been reported) that they had been gang-raped by the militants of Sudan -- and that it is commonplace. There is the undeniable physical evidence of burned-out villages.
The Israeli Peace Now movement yesterday condemned a reported decision by the United States to modify its policy toward construction in Jewish settlements in the occupied territories. "The decision ... opens the door to a new momentum of building in all settlements," the settlement monitoring group said. "The decision severely harms the roadmap (peace plan) and could be the final nail in its coffin," a statement issued by the movement added.
The final nail in its coffin was when Hamas boomed the bus. From that point, it wasn't gonna happen. So now all bets are off.
The statement was a reaction to a report in The New York Times saying the US now approved construction within some settlements, if it did not expand beyond their existing built-up areas. Previously, the US had consistently called on Israel to abide by the road map peace plan, which demands an absolute freeze of all settlement activity, including that accommodating for natural growth. The paper quoted an administration official as saying that new US statements this week reflected "a covert policy decision toward accepting natural growth".
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 1:38:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Israel did what the world apparently wanted and made peace with Egypt. She did what the world apparently wanted and withdrew from Lebanon. Now Lebanon wont get rid of Syrian troops and wont stop Hizbullah from lobbing rockets into Israel, and Egypt wont stop arms smuggling into Gaza.
So the question, of course, is what Israel has to gain by NOT expanding settlements.
If it were left up to Peace Now and their ilk, Israel would cease to exist as a Jewish state. That would lead to the creation of yet another Arab terrorist state with a Jewish minority living in a ghetto.
In fairness, Peace Now does not want that scenario, but unfortunately they can't see further than their banners.
Not that they actually intend to do anything about it, of course. But they really, truly, honest to goodness feeeeear that it's so...
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 1:28:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, I am so relieved that the UN fears that the crisis is worsening. That means the hand wringing will begin, which is the precursor of debate at the General Assembly, which holds out hope for the security council, which will maybe produce a resolution, which means peacekeepers, and hercs and food and Blue Helmeted troops, AND WE ARE SAVED.......
uh
oh...
The dream is turning into a nightmare.....
The camera is shifting to the French delegate...
He is making a statement....
Damn! It is in French...
I don't know French....
OH NO!!!!!!! NO!!!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!
I don't know French, but his movement is
SEARING SEARING SEARING into my mind.
He just issued a VETO against the resolution!!
Damn him to HELL
Damn him to the basement of hell underneath Adolph Hitler!!!
Jeeze! We are DOOMED!!!!
DOOMED, I tell ya.
Maybe the Yanks will do it.
I know that they are busy,
Everyone is sh*tting on them.
Maybe the Yanks will save us...
Got...to...hold...on...........
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/22/2004 2:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
AP -- Bravo! Bravo! Encore! Lol! Terrific characterization!
#6
Sorry, I abridged it a bit. Left out the study groups, junkets, and committees. It would have gotten too long. It was like the decision for the movie Lord of the Rings when they left Tom Bombadil out of the plot......
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/22/2004 10:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It's just a ZIONIST PLOT to distract
the World's attention from the PALESTINIAN
CAUSE.
#8
Sorry, I abridged it a bit. Left out the study groups, junkets, and committees. It would have gotten too long. It was like the decision for the movie Lord of the Rings when they left Tom Bombadil out of the plot...
I am surprised. You left out the most cricial element of the UN springing into action:
The Three Day Conference with the opening banquent complete with fois gras and champagne. Hold it somewheres symbolic, like Daar Es Salaam.
A leaflet distributed over the weekend by a hitherto unknown group called Fatah — The Reformist Path called for replacing the Palestinian leadership and threatened to liquidate Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and many of his top aides.
Sounds good to me, as long as the Israelis don't do it. But I doubt it it'll happen. It's makes too much sense...
It's not clear who stands behind the leaflet, but some senior PA officials have pointed a blaming finger at former security minister Muhammad Dahlan. They said that when Arafat saw the leaflet, he cancelled a meeting planned with Dahlan last week.
He exploded with anger?
Dahlan has strongly denied responsibility for the leaflet, arguing that it was yet another attempt by his rivals to drive a wedge between him and Arafat.
"Nope. Nope. Wudn't me. Everybody knows how much I love the old bastard..."
This is the first time that a leaflet signed by a Fatah affiliated group calls for eliminating Arafat. Most Fatah leaders and activists who have been demanding reforms and an end to corruption in the PA have refrained from attacking Arafat personally, directing their anger instead at top officials in the PA chairman's entourage.
Even though Yasser's the problem, not the solution...
The leaflet, which is seen as yet another sign of growing tensions among the top brass of the PA, launched a scathing attack on a number of veteran Fatah leaders and PA officials, accusing them of stealing funds, lying, and collaboration with Israel. Among those mentioned are Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath, Interior Minister Hakam Balawi, Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, Fatah Central Committee members Hani al-Hassan, Abbas Zakariya al-Agha, and Sakher Habash, as well as Arafat and former PA prime minister Mahmoud Abbas. "They are all standing as an obstacle to development and are a heavy burden on Fatah," the pamphlet said. "They must all go away before they are killed, and we mean what we say."
"And we're Arabs, so you can count on that!"
It called for dissolving the Fatah Central Committee, which is dominated by veteran Arafat loyalists and for the establishment of an emergency leadership consisting of representatives of the young generation. The leaflet also called for forming criminal and political courts to try all those who have abused their power and embezzled public funds.
That'll happen when Yasser's decomposing, but not before...
One of the Fatah leaders whose name appeared in the leaflet told The Jerusalem Post that he was convinced that Israel and the US were behind it.
"Yup. Has to be them. Nobody in Paleostine can see the elephant in the living room."
"Israel and Washington are playing a filthy game with us," he charged. "Unfortunately, they have found some Palestinian puppets to assist them in their scheme."
Yep. We keep playing those filthy games. We should stick to baseball and lacrosse and leave them to their own amusements...
Another Fatah official said he did not rule out the possibility that Dahlan and some of his followers in the Gaza Strip were behind the leaflet. "Now that it is clear that Dahlan has failed in his campaign against the legitimate leadership of the Palestinian people, he is resorting to these cheap methods of slander and bad-mouthing, he added." Sources in Ramallah said the timing of the leaflet was "suspicious" because it came on the eve of a planned reconciliation between Arafat and Dahlan. The two were set to meet last week for the first time since Arafat aides accused Dahlan of launching a campaign to overthrow the PA leadership. Arafat called off the meeting after the leaflet was distributed in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. However, a source close to Arafat said on Saturday that the long-awaited meeting could still take place sometime this week.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 12:37:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Let the games self-immolation begin!
How many Jews are reading this article right now with barely suppressed glee? After all the mayhem and murder, I cannot blame them in the least. Terrorism, Arafat is thy name. May his stomach he roast in Hell.
However unseemly anyone might think it, I will celebrate when Arafat gets his brains scattered across Ramallah. That this might happen at the hands of one of his own goes beyond irony and into the realm of icing on the cake.
Jordan's Crown Prince Hamzah on Saturday urged reforms in Muslim thinking and criticized Islamic extremism, but said such fanaticism resulted from injustices and oppression being suffered by Muslims.
"Nobody suffers like we do!"
Hamzah, a half brother of Jordan's King Abdullah II and heir to the throne, told 80 scholars from 40 countries attending a three-day conference here that the Muslim world was facing "successive pressures and challenges ... (that) extend to every corner of the (Islamic) nation's potential and its sacred shrines." Hamzah did not elaborate on the pressures Muslims were facing, saying only that fanaticism was caused by a "deprivation, oppression and absence of justice" that "provokes hatred."
It's caused by Koranic interpretation by prestigious clerics who stand to run things if Islam does manage to conquer the world...
The prince said the extremist Islamic behavior resulting from such pressure is, then, "taken as evidence to convict and blame Muslims on the false assumption that these are characteristics of their morals, principles and even religion."
If they do it in the name of their religion what the hell are we supposed to think?
"But the truth is that Islam and the Muslims reject and condemn these exceptional cases as strange to their true religion and as a form of transgression," he said.
"Not very loudly or often, of course..."
Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States, many in the West cited a lack of freedoms and political and social oppression in the Muslim world for encouraging radical Islam and producing people like the 19 al-Qaida Islamic extremists who hijacked passenger planes and crashed them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Ummm... Yeah. That makes sense. You're living under political and social oppression, so you find a country where both are minimal and declare war on it. I don't think it was Arabs who invented logic, though I could be mistaken...
In the Middle East, many Arabs and Muslims blamed Washington's support of Israel in its conflict with the Palestinians and the presence of U.S. forces in the region as catalysts for anti-Western hatred.
"The fact that American forces were in the area as a result of saving one Arab country from oppression by another is beside the point..."
Many Islamic states and leaders have condemned acts of terrorism carried out in the name of Islam and supported the U.S.-led war on terror, but at the same time accused Western countries of comparing the entire Muslim world with militant extremists like Osama bin Laden. "Extremism has destroyed, throughout history, remarkable achievements in great civilizations, including our Islamic civilization," he said. "When hatred is dominant and hearts are closed, and when people do not resort to the rulings of Sharia (Islamic law) and reason, the tree of civilization withers away and societies cease to grow." Hamzah also blamed the media for "weakening the Muslim's energy and soul," and suggested that educational reform could remedy extremism and inform the masses of Islam's true meaning. "The road to proper education is rough and formative work requires a pure, protective atmosphere where sprouts are grown in suitable conditions," he said. "This protective atmosphere is provided by the family as well as the entire society."
I recommend against establishing madrassahs...
He urged scholars to take steps toward "self actualization" and said the image of Muslims abroad "cannot be rectified unless we address the imbalance we suffer from inside ourselves."
Not sure he should recommend self-actualization to the scholars, since lately that tends to mean making oneself shahid via premature explodulation.
Hamzah is the president of the board of trustees of the conference host, the Aal al-Bayt Foundation for Islamic Thought, which is dedicated to discussing challenges facing Islam, including extremism, and democracy in the Muslim world.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/22/2004 12:12:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yo, Kingy Thingy, Clues on eBay - cheeeep. Moron.
#3
They still haven't figured out the one most important basic fact - that 99.83546% of all Muslim "repression" is at the hands of OTHER Muslims. Until they understand that, nothing will change, nothing will "improve", and they'll continue to wander in circles, kinda like the Jews did for 40 years in the Wilderness, until all of the old folks who still remembered Egypt died off. Unfortunately, I don't see the Muslims getting a clue any time soon. It would take some place like Qom getting smacked with another iron meteorite before anything could POSSIBLY change.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/22/2004 6:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"...the Aal al-Bayt Foundation for Islamic Thought, which is dedicated to discussing challenges facing Islam, including extremism, and democracy in the Muslim world."
#7
Gentle, if you follow the news, especially on RB, you will learn that Islamofascists have declared WAR on us (i.e. the West). Get a quarter, buy a clue.
Because they say they are, and back it up with things like 9/11 and 3/11. As for fascism, Adolf Hitler has been a bestselling author among Arab Muslims for years. Egypt just did an entire big-budget miniseries based on the anti-Semetic forgery THE PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, spiritual father of the PLO, was an ardent supporter of the Nazis and a friend to Hitler...
...and the beat goes on.
Posted by: Ernest Brown ||
08/22/2004 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Gentle, you might want to tread very lightly with the word "fascist" here.
#13
Maybe Gentle, if you are what you say, YOU should see some threat to you: (found via LGF)
"On Sunday, August 15, a 16-year-old girl in the town of Neka, northern Iran, was executed. Ateqeh Sahaleh was hanged in public on Simetry Street off Rah Ahan Street at the city center.
The sentence was issued by the head of Nekaâs Justice Department and subsequently upheld by the mullahsâ Supreme Court and carried out with the approval of Judiciary Chief Mahmoud Shahroudi.
In her summary trial, the teenage victim did not have any lawyer and efforts by her family to recruit a lawyer was to no avail. Ateqeh personally defended herself. She told the religious judge, Haji Rezaii, that he should punish the main perpetrators of moral corruption not the victims.
The judge personally pursued Ateqehâs death sentence, beyond all normal procedures and finally gained the approval of the Supreme Court. After her execution Rezai said her punishment was not execution but he had her executed for her âsharp tongueâ.
#15
I have posted an article that should answer you.
Ernest B. :
Are you completley and totally out of your mind?
Saying that muslims love Hitler is like saying a mouse is a preditor!
Muslims hate Hitler. You think that as he killed the jews, muslims would go along with that?
He killed innocents, women, children.
He even killed the elderly and hanicapped.
how sick is that.
Oh and a news flash:
He was not a muslim.
What he did is more terrible, more horrific than anyone could imagine.
If you want someone who is against Islam in every way. The exact opposite of a true muslim; look at Hitler.
#19
You poor thing.
They weren't being nice, they were telling you they hate him.
I don't think many arabs at that time realized that "gutt' could indicate bravery.
Too slangish.
#23
"On Sunday August 15, 2004, a 16 year old girl by the name of Atefe Rajabi, daughter of Ghassem Rajabi, was executed in the town of Neka, located in the province of Mazandaran, for âengaging in acts incompatible with chastityâ. The execution was carried out by the order of Nekaâs âjudicial administratorâ and was approved by both the Supreme Court of the Islamic Republic and the chief of the nationâs âjudiciary branch.â
Although according to her birth certificate she was only 16 years old, the local court falsely claimed that she was 22.
Three months ago, during her appearance before the local court, fiercely angry the young girl hurled insults at the local judge, Haji Reza, who is also the chief judicial administrator of the city, and it is said as another expression of protest took off some of her clothes in the courtroom. This act by the young girl made the administrator so furious that he evaluated her file personally and in less than three months received a go-ahead from the Islamic Republicâs Supreme Court for her execution. The animosity and anger of Haji Reza was so strong that he personally put the rope around the girlâs delicate neck and personally gave the signal to the crane operator, by raising his hand, to begin pulling the rope.
It may be noted that although according to the Islamic Republicâs own penal laws the presence of an attorney for the defense [is supposed to be] mandatory, regardless of the defendantâs ability to afford one, nevertheless the girl remained without an attorney. Her unfortunate father, while tears poured from his eyes, went about the city beseeching the townspeople for money to hire an attorney who in the least would provide his daughter with a line of defense.
The young girl was buried the same day after her execution but during that same night her corpse was disinterred by unknown individuals and robbed. The theft remains unexplained and the Rajabi family has filed a complaint.
The 16 year old girlâs male companion, who had been arrested as well, received 100 lashes and, after the Islamic punishment was carried out, released."
#24
Yes I would, please.
I posted an article that will explain all this.
Just know:
If the story is true, then the judge should be punished for murder.
That is according to us muslims of course. I wouldn't know about you guys, since you threaten to blow up the Gulf every time you get angry at me.
#25
No Gentle, seems to me she got what she deserved. She brought shame on islam, the prophet, the judge, her father, the ummah, allah himself. Nope she's dead, by god, and a lesson learned by all.
#27
Gentle, the Iranian Supreme Court authorized it. Should all these judges hang?
And why can't you understand that we don't want to blow up the Gulf? We want these things to stop because you Muslims obviously can't or won't. Is that so bad?
Do you think Sharia is just? Do you think it's just that a couple engages in premarital sex, the boy gets 100 lashes and the girl is hanged?
Do you think it's fair that a girl needs 4 witnesses to be able to get her rapist convicted? (If she ever dares to bring it to court in the first place).
This Gentle, is what happens when you return to those pure values of Islam that the Wahabis and the Mullahs are touting.
#28
That is not right.
God, I'm tired.
Rape is the ugliest crime in the whole world, and you think that Islam would let the person off the hook?
Four witnesses are needed if a woman is accused of having an affiar, otherwise nothing can be done against her, and her accusers are punished.
See? The truth is diffrent.
#29
No Gentle, the ugliest crime on earth is defying the prophet. That could get you killed. You should know that. Your treading pretty close to apostasy.
Lots of ugly crimes Gentle. Child abuse, leading children to do murder in gods name, killing in the name of god. To name a few.
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.
