IMAGINE if, in the presidential election of 1944, the can didate opposing FDR had in sisted that we were losing the Second World War and that, if elected, he would begin to withdraw American troops from Europe and the Pacific. We would have called it treason. And we would have been right.
In WWII, broadcasts from Tokyo Rose in Japan and from Axis Sally in Germany warned our troops that their lives were being squandered in vain, that they were dying for big business and "the Jew" Roosevelt. Today, we have a presidential candidate, the conscienceless Sen. John Kerry, doing the work of the enemy propagandists of yesteryear. Is there nothing Kerry won't say to win the election? Is there no position he won't change? Doesn't he care anything for the sacrifices of our troops in Iraq? And if he does care about our soldiers and Marines, why is he broadcasting remarks that insist — against all hard evidence — that the terrorists are winning?
Has he seen the situation with his own eyes? I'll gladly tell him how to get there. I'll even be his guide. And he can smell what remains of Saddam's mass graves — with new ones still being discovered. He can taste the joy of freedom among the Kurds. He can see the bustling commerce throughout the country — despite the violence that alone makes headlines. Above all, he could see the magnificent performance of our troops, their dedication and professionalism. And their humanity, their goodness. But Kerry doesn't want to see those things. He's reverting to form. Just as he lied about our troops three decades ago, encouraging our enemies of the day and worsening the suffering of our POWs in North Vietnam, today he's pandering to a new enemy.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
09/23/2004 11:21:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow! I want some of whatever Ralph Peters had for breakfast this morning.
Posted by: Tibor ||
09/23/2004 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
During the American Revolution when things were going badly for us, more Americans were against the war then for it. I'm sure glad our founding fathers stayed the course and didn't cave to the political whinings of the day. Many of today's politicians seem like such pussies in contrast.
#3
They LLL has nothing left to define it but sneering contempt for those who are not "as nuanced as themselves".
It's kind of pathetic to see aging joe-ordinary boomers, still clinging to days gone by - aligining themselves with the NY, Hollwood limo set and saying, "hey brother - you and me!"
BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON
These are surreal times. Americans in Iraq are beheaded on videotape. Russian children are machine-gunned in their schools. The elderly in Israel continue to be blown apart on buses. No one--whether in Madrid, Istanbul, Riyadh, Bali, Tel Aviv or New York--is safe from the Islamic fascist, whose real enemy is modernism and Western-inspired freedom of the individual.
In response to such international lawlessness, our global watchdog, the United Nations, had been largely silent. It abdicates its responsibility of ostracizing those states that harbor such mass murderers, much less organizes a multilateral posse to bring them to justice. And yet under this apparent state of siege, President Bush in his recent address to the U.N. offered not blood and iron--other than an obligatory "the proper response is not to retreat but to prevail"--but Wilsonian idealism, concrete help for the dispossessed, and candor about past sins. The president wished to convey a new multilateralist creed that would have made a John Kerry or Madeleine Albright proud, without the Churchillian "victory at any cost" rhetoric. Good luck.
The real problem with the U.N. is that it exists in a cocoon. These guys are diplomats and stafffers, and they live in a different world without real-world problems of daily life. It's easy to talk about resolutions, and conferences, and grievances, because no one there does any real heavy lifting -- not professionally and not in their own lives.
Best thing for the U.N. would be to move it to Dar-el-Salaam or to Lagos. Don't exile it to Paris or Geneva or Rome. Drop it into a real third world country with teeming multitudes all hoping for a better life. Make the diplomats and staffers live in a city where electricity is spotty, sanitation is worse and the air smells of diesel, charcoal and cooking fires. They'd have to ditch the designer suits and the snooty attitudes and maybe, maybe, just maybe, they'd start to understand that much of the world just plain sucks. Then there's actually a chance that the U.N. might evolve so as to be worth something.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/23/2004 5:21:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hearing Kofi talk about legality makes me seeth. A properly accredited UN diplomat could shoot his/her assistant, rape the secretary, mug the next person, and kidnap the nearest child without breaking any laws. Yes, these things are perfectly legal in downtown Manhattan on sovereign UN property (whatever that means).
#4
If only I were King for a day: the UN would be transformed into rent control housing, the 'diplomats' would be deported to whatever cesspool of a country wants them, and we would save hundreds of billions of dollars. Why do we pretend that this is still an honorable body of nations geared toward the betterment of mankind? No they are a loose association of rogue nations that closely resemble the Italian mafia in words (only without the muscle to back it up). Paying them is like paying tribute to an enemy so they you can still sit down and be abmonished why you don't do more for their personal comfort. END RANT!
#5
Re #1 (phil_b): Hearing Kofi talk about legality makes me seeth.
Did you really hear Kofi talk? Anyone who heard the actual interview knows that the interviewer persistently attempted to put the words into Kofi's mouth. The interviewer asked about five times: "So, is the US invasion of Iraq illegal?"
Each time, Kofi evaded the question, answering that he thought only that it was not in compliance with the UN Charter.
Finally, in response to the fifth attempt to put the word "illegal" into his mouth, an apparently exasperated Kofi answered something like: "If your definition of 'illegal' is not being in compliance with the UN Charter, then it's illegal."
Everyone who has been critical of Kofi for this statement should be aware of that entire context.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Even if that is true, Mike, Kofi, as the head of the UN, has a responsibility to be LEAD the UN. He is a craven coward when it comes to holding Arab states to their obligations under the charter. If misdeeds are done by Arabs/Muslims, he will not address them. It's time for him to go-and the UN, too.
#7
Gee, Mikey defending Kofi the Kriminal? Whouda thunk.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/23/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Gee, Mike, Kofi is incapable of saying "no, and you can quote me on that"? That explains how he and his kid were "duped" into getting rich along with Saddam, the Phrench, the Russians, et al. It wasn't his fault!
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/23/2004 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Re #6 (Jules): Kofi, as the head of the UN, has a responsibility to be LEAD the UN.
Kofi is the UN General Secretary. He mainly implements the decisions of the Security Council. He also insures that proper procedures are followed when the UN conducts its business.
If the Security Council decides, for example, that UN troops will be placed into some location, then he puts UN troops there. He does not decide that it will be done, nor does he lead the Security Council members to decide that it will be done.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Re: #7 (Robert Crawford): .... Kofi the Kriminal?
Why is he a criminal? Food for Peace? Something else?
I placed his comment about Iraq being illegal into its proper context. Now that you know the context, do you think it was criminal? Do you think that I aided and abetted some criminal activity?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Mike-Are you trying to argue that the UN has behaved admirably in this WoT? Are you trying to argue that there is no double standard under Kofi with regards to aggression against innocent people?
Does the Secretary General of the UN have an obligation to address genocide committed by Arabs? Has he done so forcefully? No.
Does he have an obligation to address the corruption within the UN itself, which resulted in the graft of billions of dollars from Oil for Food? Don't you imagine a lot of people died as a result of that UN-abetted corruption? What do you recall about his addressing Oil for Food forcefully? Weak, boneless promises to investigate, inspired by a familial urge for self-protection.
Deadly serious violations of the UN charter MUST BE ADDRESSED by the leader forcefully, without providing a double standard that benefits Arabs/Muslims members while throwing hyperbolic chrages against the US, who is one of a HANDFUL of member states that acted to ensure that the integrity of the UN was upheld. Let's not get myopic about what he can and can't do. He is the leader of that body.
#12
Why is he a criminal? Food for Peace? Something else?
What the hell is "Food for Peace"? Perhaps you mean "Oil for Food"?
But, yes, let's start with Kofi's Kriminal Kapers:
Rwanda, where Kofi blocked actions to stop the slaughter
Iraq, where Kofi aided and abetted the corruption of a relief effort, including the possible funding of terrorist groups. This is the case in which he's most obviously criminal, since some of the cash most certainly ended up in his own pocket.
Sudan, where Kofi drags his feet while the slaughter continues
Iran, where Kofi's UN refuses to do ANYTHING about the mullah's nuclear ambitions
Kofi's biggest flaw is that he takes the UN seriously. If he realized that he's the highest ranking crook in an organization largely made up of crooks, thugs, and despots, then he might have a glimmer of humanity. Instead he parades around, proud as a peacock, claiming the mantle of a man of peace.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
09/23/2004 10:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
#11 (Jules): Are you trying to argue that the UN has behaved admirably in this WoT?
I wrote only about Kofi Annan.
Are you trying to argue that there is no double standard under Kofi with regards to aggression against innocent people?
I wrote about an interview in which Kofi Annan was quoted as saying that the US invasion of Iraq was illegal.
Does the Secretary General of the UN have an obligation to address genocide committed by Arabs? Has he done so forcefully?
I think he has, but perhaps not as "forcefully" enough to satisfy you. You go fetch his statements about Darfur and report back to us.
... while throwing hyperbolic chrages against the US ...
What hyperbolic charges did he throw against the US?
He basically said, if you (the journalist) say that your own definition of "illegal" is being out of compliance with the UN Charter, then you can say that the US invasion of Iraq is illegal.
The journalist was presumptious and tendentious. He did not intend to report Kofi Annan's own statements. He intended to put his own words into Annan's mouth an then to report that.
Since when have all these Rantburgers become big defenders of presumptious, tendentious journalists who misquote people they interview?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 10:33 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Since when have all these Rantburgers become big defenders of presumptious, tendentious journalists who misquote people they interview? This is what I mean by myopia. You have lost sight of the big picture, Mike, by making journalism the focus of your rebuttal, rather than a.) the UN and what it stands for, b.) what responsibilities Kofi Annan has as the Secretary General of the UN. I could give a crap about the interchange with the journalist. There are bigger problems at hand.
Rwanda, where Kofi blocked actions to stop the slaughter
Blocked what actions? What was he supposed to do? Did the Security Council order any actions that he blocked? What do you, Robert, personally think that the UN should have done in Rwanda when the massacres began?
Iraq, where Kofi aided and abetted the corruption of a relief effort, including the possible funding of terrorist groups. This is the case in which he's most obviously criminal, since some of the cash most certainly ended up in his own pocket.
How did he aid and abet that? How much cash ended up in his pocket? Why are you so certan about this? What's your evidence that he personally benefited?
Sudan, where Kofi drags his feet while the slaughter continues
What specific Security Council decision is he dragging his feet to implement?
Iran, where Kofi's UN refuses to do ANYTHING about the mullah's nuclear ambitions
What specific Security Council decision about Iran has he refused to implement?
Kofi's biggest flaw is that he takes the UN seriously. If he realized that he's the highest ranking crook in an organization largely made up of crooks, thugs, and despots, then he might have a glimmer of humanity. Instead he parades around, proud as a peacock, claiming the mantle of a man of peace.
Whatever.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Re #14 (Jules): You have lost sight of the big picture, Mike, by making journalism the focus of your rebuttal
I didn't intend to address the big picture. I intended to place Kofi Annan's recently quoted remarks into proper context. Because of that, I have basically been accused of defending genocide all over the world.
If some journalist used the same methods to interview President Bush, all these same Rantburgers would be attacking the journalist, not President Bush. In this case, though, the victim of the presumptuous, tendentious journalist is being blamed. Didn't seem right to me.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#17
I think all Rantburgers can appreciate that journalists can be pushy folks who can twist words, but the "context" you are trying to lend to the thread is devoid of any criticism of Kofi. Are you his agent?: )
#19
"Each time, Kofi evaded the question, answering that he thought only that it was not in compliance with the UN Charter."
-which means what? Have the nuts to call it as it is according to your view Kofi. If being in violation of the UN charter is a violation of intl law then that's illegal right? If so, say so, if not - then stfu. Kofi got caught nuancing.
The issue here is the UN's, and therefore Kofi Annan's, credibility. For example, the UN passes resolution after resolution condemning Israel for reasonably reacting to events that are objectively terrorist in nature. It's motives are clear: appeasement of the oil-rich arab states. After all, it's an easy thing to do, garners an incredible amount of support by America- and Israel-hating factions and has few negative consequences. It is also unjust. This so-called center of world justice and evenhandedness cannot maintain credibility when it plays obvious political games. Add all these sorts of events up (Israel and others), compound it with known corruption (even Kofi's son is in on it) and you are left with an organization that does more harm than good.
And Kofi leads that organization. What's worse, is he doesn't seem to be motivated to change it for the better. It is his job to do so.
Kofi's latest remarks need to be considered in the context of all that he has done and has not done. In that regard, he is, in fact, inept at best or dishonorable and evil at worst.
#21
# 19 (Jarhead): If being in violation of the UN charter is a violation of intl law then that's illegal right?
Not necessarily. I think Kofi Annan think there's a distinction and that he answered the questions the way he did for that reason.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Re #20 (PlanetDan): the UN passes resolution after resolution condemning Israel for reasonably reacting to events that are objectively terrorist in nature.
The US vetoes those proposals, and so they do not become UN resolutions. If Kofi Annan to blame resolution that is proposed and not approved?
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 11:54 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Rwanda, where Kofi blocked actions to stop the slaughter
The Rwanda genocide took place in 1994. Boutros Boutros-Ghali was the UN guy until 1996.
I'm not fan of Kofi but he's clean on Rwanda from what I can tell. Are you refering to a different Rwanda problem (helping rebels in the Congo in 1998 perhaps?) or was this just a slip.
#24
You are right, Mike-Kofi is not to blame for US vetoes; the UN body is. Tbe bigoted UN is responsible for a double standards (i.e., they pass resolutions condemning Israeli military responses to terrorist actions, but silently nod approval at Islamic/Arab suicide bombers who INITIATE THE KILLING of Jewish/Israeli citizens). I am glad we are at least back to focusing on the problem with the UN again.
#25
RJSchwartz, I believe Kofi Annan was the
chief UN diplomat on the ground in Rwanda as events were building to a head. The head of the Blue Helmet force there appealed to him for more men to prevent the upcoming massacre, but Annan refused to forward the request to the Security Council, or even to report on the implications of the changing situation.
#26
The UN is a place where the USA is dragged down by the rest of the world. But it is also a place where the rest of the world is pulled up by the USA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#27
...Finally, in response to the fifth attempt to put the word "illegal" into his mouth, an apparently exasperated Kofi answered something like: "If your definition of 'illegal' is not being in compliance with the UN Charter, then it's illegal."
Everyone who has been critical of Kofi for this statement should be aware of that entire context.
Agreed. But that tactic has been around for decades, if not a century or two. Mr. Annan has a wee bit share of the blame. A career diplomat and bureaucrat should be somewhat aware of the tactic.
#28
Kofi, Schmofi. The problem is that the UN concept doesn't work. Too much riff-raff in the membership to do any good. Like letting the Russians into Nato circa 1975. I heard an idea here a while ago that stuck with me. Bag the UN; start a new international organization with actual principles - a) regularly elected government (none of this elected for life shit) b) committed to freedom for all peoples
c) no theocracies
Would it create polaraization between those who were in and those who were out? You betcha - at least the natural enemies of democracy would be on the outside.
#29
Mike Sylwester wrote in #26: The UN is a place where the USA is dragged down by the rest of the world. But it is also a place where the rest of the world is pulled up by the USA.
Are you serious? The UN is a hive of scum and villainy. Which dictator--and there are loads of them--wants to be "pulled up" by the USA?
#30
Re #29 (eLarson) Which dictator--and there are loads of them--wants to be "pulled up" by the USA?
Few or none of them wants to be pulled up by the USA. Nevertheless, their countries are pulled up by the USA because they are in the UN.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/23/2004 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#31
They will get it by osmosis ya see. Just being close to us and certain panache and nuanced sort of goodness will rub off on them. It's a good thing. Let's triple the funding.
The Nobel peace prize committee are currently undergoing secret discussions to choose the 2004 Nobel peace prize winner. Dr. Baradaie, chairman of the nuclear agency watchdog, is one of the most likely winners. If he did in fact win, Mr. Baradaie will be the fourth Egyptian to win a Nobel prize and the second to win the peace prize (the first was president Sadat). To tell you the truth, I firmly believe that this year's peace prize should go to Kofie Anan, the secretary general of the United Nations.
I reached this conclusion after hearing the great Kofie Anan speak in front of the general assembly meeting 3 days ago. His speech moved me tremendously and I was about to shed tears as a result of the powerful words he was uttering.
What a great man of peace. This humble man transformed the United Nations into an agency that spreads peace worldwide and prevents the hegemony of powerful countries.
Mr. Anan told his audience of world leaders who the war on Yugoslavia was "illegal" because it did not result from a security council resolution (NATO countries unilaterally took military actions because they were sure that Russia would have vetoed any resolution calling for tough actions). He added that no country is above the law and that the problem of ethnic cleansing in Kosovo should have been solved within the "world body". He indirectly condemned the unilateral actions that NATO members took to save the people of Kosovo. Mr. Anan also pointed out how the UN was so successful in ending the genocide in Rwanda and Sudan.
His speech reached a high emotional fever when he turned towards the Iraq delegation and with tears in his eyes he apologized for the sickening corruption that occurred in the food for oil program. He mentioned that he bore the responsibility for this huge scandal and told the Iraqi people that he is "sorry that the UN was involved in diverting billion of dollars away from the impoverished people of Iraq."
I believe this speech was so sincere andâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠâŠ.WHAT? WHAT? What are you telling me???? Mr. Anan didn't say the above words??? What did he say instead?? Ummmm, sorry folks, it seems that the stuff I sniffed on that day affected my ear drums.
. . . John Robb took at look at the September 11 network and analyzed its characteristics. The Mohammed Atta network had evolved under Darwinian pressure until it reached the form best suited for its purpose: to conduct strategic attacks against the United States of America. Robb concludes that a cell of 70 persons will answer to the purpose, yet be sparse enough to allow its members to remain in relative isolation. For example, no one member of Atta's cell knew more than five others. Moreover, the average distance between any two members was more than four persons. Crucially, but not surprisingly, this disconnected network of plotters maintained coherence by relying on a support infrastructure -- probably communications posts, safe houses, couriers -- to keep themselves from unraveling. Because security comes at a price in performance and flexibility, Robb arrives at an astounding conjecture: you can have small, operationally secure terrorist groups, but you can't have large, operationally secure cells without a state sponsor.
. . . A good starting point is to look at limits to group size within peaceful online communities on which we have extensive data -- terrorist networks are essentially geographically dispersed online communities. Chris Allen does a good job analyzing optimal group size with his critique of the Dunbar number.
His analysis (replete with examples) shows that there is a gradual fall-off in effectiveness at 80 members, with an absolute fall-off at 150 members. The initial fall-off occurs, according to Chris, due to an increasing amount of effort spent on "grooming" the group to maintain cohesion. The absolute fall-off at 150 members occurs when grooming fails to stem dissatisfaction and dissension, which causes the group to cleave apart into smaller subgroups (that may remain affiliated).
Al Qaeda may have been able to grow much larger than this when it ran physical training camps in Afghanistan. Physical proximity allowed al Qaeda to operate as a hierarchy along military lines, complete with middle management (or at least a mix of a hierarchy in Afghanistan and a distributed network outside of Afghanistan). Once those camps were broken apart, the factors listed above were likely to have caused the fragmentation we see today (lots of references to this in the news).
His last paragraph is crucial to understanding why the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein may have cripped global terrorism so badly. Without the infrastrastructure of a state sponsor, terrorism is limited to cells of about 100 members in size in order to maintain security. In the context of the current campaign in Iraq, the strategic importance of places like Falluja or "holy places" is that their enclave nature allows terrorists to grow out their networks to a larger and more potent size. Without those sanctuaries, they would be small, clandestine hunted bands. The argument that dismantling terrorist enclaves makes "America less safe than it should be in a dangerous world" inverts the logic. It is allowing the growth of terrorist enclaves that puts everyone at risk in an otherwise safe world.
Posted by: Mike ||
09/23/2004 6:55:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The recent report of the Palestinian girl boomer that was stopped by Israeli police is another case in point. Estimates are that an effective homicide boomer operation uses approximately 90 folks in the entire chain. This chain includes: the recruiter, religious savants and psychologists, technicians with boomer background, transportation, identification/permit providers, etc.
In most cases, the boomer is a singular event, one target-one boomer. When more than two are used, thereâs always the possibility the second in line will witness the first boomer turn to hash and chicken out. Hereâs where the backup comes in. If either the first boomer, or the second appear to be hesitant, thereâs often a cell phone actuated capability on the package, which will be initiated by the backup.
The best time to interrupt the event is in the reconnaissance and dry run stage. The participants will time the event over and overâ¦almost zombie like.
We hear of the obvious successes and failures, but never of the many that donât come off due to diligence by Israeli police. May God bless them!
#2
All the more reason to shift our focus away from Europe and toward the key frontline states, which will make or break us.
Wretchard's analysis suggests that our success depends mainly on vigorous and effective intel and other help from key regional powers in disrupting these networks. Israel, Russia, India and Pak, Indonesia, etc are vastly more important to us than NATO.
#3
I agree with the importance he gives to state sponsors.
But "understanding why the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the toppling of Saddam Hussein may have cripped global terrorism so badly" seems to me bizarre -- shouldn't he have first shown us global terrorism to have been crippled, instead of taking it as an assumption?
Global terrorism doesn't seem particularly "crippled" to me.
I'd have rephrased his sentence to say instead: "His last paragraph is crucial to understanding why the survival of the Surian and Iranian regimes have prevented global terrorism from being crippled"
It's *not* about "vigorous and effective intel". It's about destroying the regimes that support Islamofascist terrorism.
#4
Lex, dear, we got the message about our new allies. Please give that bit a rest now, ok? Stick to all the rest of your commentary -- its the new insights that you bring that will soonest influence minds. Thanks much!
Aris, perhaps by "may have cripped global terrorism so badly" he was thinking that the World Trade Center attack was the last spectacularly big action al Qaeda has taken? Even the 3/11 attack in Spain, while horrific to the victims, was merely annoying to the rest of the commuters heading in to the office -- at least until they discovered why the train schedule was all screwed up. 9/11 on the other hand, shut down a world financial center for a week, and cost New York City billions of dollars, and the U.S. even more so (anyone have actual amounts?) I realize that a.Q. certainly planned more spectacles, but they haven't been able to carry them off. Otherwise I agree with your revised formulation.
#5
"he was thinking that the World Trade Center attack was the last spectacularly big action al Qaeda has taken?"
If by "crippling global terrorism" he meant this then he is just stupid. It's the most parochial, shorteyed reason I can imagine. Not to mention its patently false.
Is Zarqawi nothing? Is Beslan nothing?
In the period before 9/11 nothing bad had happened either in America. Was Al Qaeda "crippled" then? This is a definition of crippled that nobody in their sane minds can use.
3/11 took down a whole government. Bombs in Iraq keep on killing police recruits and others by the hundreds. The Islamofascists have I-don't-know-how-many cities under their control. Sadr has been practically declared untouchable and he parades around as the new Saddam.
"9/11 shut down a world financial center for a week" ? Cost you billion of dollars? Frankly that's small potatoes compared to what's being accomplished done by terrorism since -- namely squashing the hope of Iraqi democracy to survive.
#6
You have to remember that in the period before 9/11 the techniques were being perfected almost always in Afghanistan. Remember the indian airline hijack which lead to the release of Masood Azhar, that should have been a real eye opener. For the first time since 70's a State (Afghanistan) actually hosted the hijackers allowed them to complete their mission and allowed them to escape. But at that time "IT WAS A PART OF CRAZY MIDDLE EAST NOTHING TO DO WITH US"
I thought of this driving home yesterday. A rumor needs to be started around Falluja, Sadr City, etc, that US forces are dipping all their ammo (bullets, bombs shells, etc) into pork grease or smearing them with raw pork.
Do you guys think that might have any kind of affect?
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
09/23/2004 10:58:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That''s the silver bullet! I saw a vampire movie where they used bullets that contained light to kill the vampires...
#3
There was an article posted here about 6 months ago about Blackjack Pershing and how he dealt with a Moro (muslim) bandit uprising in the Phillipines. He captured 50 bandits, had his troops dip their ammo on pig blood, executed 49 with the ammo and buried them in mass graves along with hog bodies. He then let the 50th bandit go. End of problem.
#7
They use to make an mre called "ham and motherf*ckers." Also, we have this vienna sausage mre warmly known as "the four fingers of death". I suppose you could rub 5.56 ammo on those things though it would prolly foul up your bore and chamber w/a nasty smell.
I'd prefer just to play psyops w/the muzzies on this one, they'll believe it either way.
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.
