IIRC this article was mentioned and excerpted in some comments, but here it is. Btw, the demography argument is spot on : it's a race against time, and the trends are not looking good for the "natives"... Also, Sarkozy is not the savior, he himself seeks out the muslim votes, though he's also looking after the right-wing votes, and he might change his mind after this (who knows?). As for muslim vote, Pascal Boniface, geopolitical analyst and ex-thinker of the socialist party once suggested that the party should switch from the jews to the muslims, since the first were 600 000 and the others 6 millions (more like 8-10). Clearly one of the great minds of this time!
From the desk of Paul Belien on Wed, 2005-11-02 21:12
This is from Sweden:
ââIf we park our car it will be damaged â so we have to go very often in two vehicles, one just to protect the other vehicle,â said Rolf Landgren, a Malmo police officer. Fear of violence has changed the way police, firemen and emergency workers do their jobs. There are some neighborhoods Swedish ambulance drivers will not go to without a police escort. Angry crowds have threatened them, telling them which patient to take and which ones to leave behind.â
This is from France:
âSarkozy says that violence in French suburbs is a daily fact of life. Since the start of the year, 9,000 police cars have been stoned and, each night, 20 to 40 cars are torched.â
This is from Brussels:
âThe police has been told [by the Mayor] that it is ânot expedientâ to patrol [in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek] and officers are not allowed to drink coffee or eat a sandwich in the street during ramadan.â
This is from Denmark (and it is hot news relating to the Muhammad cartoons):
If you want to know what is the matter with those that are described by the mainstream media as rioting âyouths,â read Theodore Dalrympleâs poignant analysis in the latest issue of City Journal. We are just witnessing the beginning of Europeâs problems: âThe sweet dream of universal cultural compatibility has been replaced by the nightmare of permanent conflict.â
Our mainstream media, in attempts to preserve the Leftâs chimera of âuniversal cultural compatibility,â hardly write about all this. Nevertheless, for some years now West European city folk and police officers have been familiar with the reality that certain areas of major European cities are no-go areas, especially at night and certainly if you are white or wearing a uniform. Three years ago, a French friend who had his car stolen learned that the thieves had parked the car in a particular suburb. When he went to the police he was told that the police did not operate in that neighbourhood and consequently would not be able to retrieve his car. This is Western Europe in the early 21st century.
Nicolas Sarkozy became Franceâs most popular politician by promising to restore law and order in the whole of France, including in the areas abandoned by previous governments. Since Sarkozy became Interior Minister he has insisted on more police presence in Muslim neighbourhoods. This triggered last weekâs riots in the Paris suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois, when policemen went in to investigate a robbery and two teenagers stupidly got themselves electrocuted while hiding from the police in an electricity sub station. Many French politicians now probably regret that the police had the audacity to investigate a robbery in Clichy. The result of the incident so far has been six consecutive nights of rioting that is now engulfing the entire Paris suburban area and might soon affect other parts of the country. Last night at least 69 vehicles were torched in nine suburbs across the Paris region. Officials say that small, mobile gangs are harassing police, sometimes even shooting at them. The gangs are setting vehicles, police stations and schools on fire throughout the region.
Though the world is taking no notice, the same is currently happening in certain parts of Denmark.
Bring in the Army
Sarkozy has referred to those whom the media call âtroublesome youthsâ as scum and rabble. âI speak with real words,â the minister says. âWhen you fire real bullets at police, youâre not a âyouth,â youâre a thug.â Unfortunately, it looks as if Clichy-sous-Bois might become Nicolas Sarkozyâs Waterloo because he seems to be losing the support of his colleagues in the government. Moreover, Sarkozy does not even seem to have the means necessary to fight the âyouths.â
The riots in France have been going on for a week now. During the second night of street fighting in Clichy, police officers already warned that they are not up to the task Sarkozy has set them. âThereâs a civil war underway,â one officer declared. âWe can no longer withstand this situation on our own. My colleagues neither have the equipment nor the practical or theoretical training for street fighting.â If there is, indeed, a war going on, Sarkozy cannot win it with troops that are mere policemen and fire fighters. As Irwin Stelzer pointed out last July when discussing the British reaction to the London bombings: In a war, use the army, rather than police. The latter, however, is unlikely to happen. If the politicians bring in the army they are acknowledging what the policemen, the fire fighters and the ambulance drivers know but what the political and media establishment wants to hide from the people: that there is civil war brewing and that Europe is in for a long period of armed conflict. This is the last thing appeasing politicians want to do and so they have begun to criticise Sarkozy.
The appeasers are found not only in the opposition parties but also within Sarkozyâs own party, where Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, who envies him his popularity, is eager to bring his rival down. Apart from political intra-party rivalry, however, there are two reasons why most politicians seem to be of the appeasing kind.
The first one is that the Muslim population in Western Europe has become so large that politicians fear what it might be capable of. Commenting on the situation in Britain, Theodore Dalrymple wrote in City Journal: âSurveys suggest that between 6 and 13 percent of British Muslims â that is, between 98,000 and 208,000 people â are sympathetic toward Islamic terrorists and their efforts. Theoretical sympathy expressed in a survey is not the same thing as active support or a wish to emulate the âmartyrsâ in person, of course. But it is nevertheless a sufficient proportion and absolute number of sympathizers to make suspicion and hostility toward Muslims by the rest of society not entirely irrational, though such suspicion and hostility could easily increase support for extremism. This is the tightrope that the British state and population will now have to walk for the foreseeable future.â It applies to all West European nations. Where, however, is the boundary between carefully walking the tightrope and falling victim to the Stockholm syndrome? The latter would mean that Western politicians act as hostages of the Muslim extremists.
A second reason why some politicians try to appease the Muslims is that these are now a substantial segment of the voting population. Demographics are deciding the fate of Europeâs democracy. Time is running out. If Sarkozy cannot win the battle today, it is unlikely that he or anyone else will be able to do so tomorrow. If Clichy turns out to be Sarkozyâs Waterloo, it will be a catastrophe not just for France.
#1
If Sarkozy cannot win the battle today, it is unlikely that he or anyone else will be able to do so tomorrow. If Clichy turns out to be Sarkozyâs Waterloo, it will be a catastrophe not just for France.
Nov 2, 2005 police described a sixth night of continuing fighting and rioting in the northeastern Clichy-sous-Bois suburb of Paris as "civil war", now branching out to other suburbs. Mainstream media has bent over backwards to prevent notification that the problems spring from the Muslim community, but truth can only be hidden so long. The rioting started after two Muslim young men accidentally electrocuted themselves running from police (after a robbery) by climbing a fence into an electrical substation. Police claim they were not in hot pursuit, but the Muslim communities have convinced themselves that French officials are responsible. As the melee continued, and for whatever reason (and we can be sure there was reason), the rioting led to a tear gas canister being fired into a mosque on the 4th night. Whatever the circumstances, one suspects that praying might not have been the only activity going on in the Mosque that night. Of course, however weak the pretext to riot was before, the Mosque incident now justified any and all forms of violence and destruction.
Youths hurled rocks, Molotov cocktails, and set fire to cars and trash bins in the poor/immigrant (read Muslim) area notorious for violence, injuring several policemen. A carpet factory has been torched, a primary school, along with over 69 vehicles. Several officers have been injured as police struggle to keep the area from becoming yet another European 'no-go' region where law enforcement is abandoned to Muslim gangs. Of course, liberals and Islamic apologists are shrill in their criticism of standard methods of law enforcement, and are demanding instead less 'repression'. Also on their list of demands are more education, housing, jobs, and increased direct support. In true dhimmi style, political leaders are beating a path to the feet of Muslim community leaders to beg for forgiveness and guidance. In case you missed the point, here are the demands of Frances Muslim community to the proud French people:
1. Should a Muslim decide to take the property of a Franco infidel, no non-Muslim may attempt to pursue or capture the alleged perpetrator, who is engaging in acts deemed halal (permitted) by the prophet Muhammad. (i.e. robbery, pillage, assault, murder, rape of non-believers)
2. Muslim communities shall have the right to run their own affairs in accordance with Sharia laws and self-anointed thugs, ...er âŠenforcers.
3. Law enforcement shall not enter nor impose any restrictions in Muslim areas. Violating this provision will subject the infidel imperial forces to any and all means to expel them.
4. In accordance to the principals of jizya, law abiding working French citizens and businesses shall provide adequate education, jobs, subsidized housing, and welfare payments which are rightly due to Muslims by infidels from now to eternity.
5. Civil rights and free speech shall be subservient to Islamic demands for respect and ultra-sensitivity to even the slightest hint of criticism.
Will the French be able to reach deep down and save themselves from their new Muslim masters, or will the white flag be produced yet again, signaling the beginning of the end to personal and religious freedoms, equality of the sexes, self-determination, and eventually, even French whine, âŠer âŠwine. French Muslims look forward to the day when French law is aligned with other Islamic nations and all female students are required to wear the hijab (head scarf), instead of the law forbidding it. Right now Islamic passion seems to be trumping the usual French grandiose sense of superiority, though a few well placed terrorist acts could change that equation. French intelligence just disrupted al-Qaeda plans as cell members delayed while they bickered between bringing down the British Embassy, or the Eiffel tower. Still, things could be worse. Young French girls walking to school do not yet have to fear the boogey man leaping out and beheading them as girls in Indonesia do, âŠfor a few years anyway. This latest display of tolerance and peace has been brought to you by devout members of the worldâs best religion. No one should gloat over the dilemma faced by the French; their plight today will be ours tomorrow.
Given the popularity of Mein Jihad, er, Kampf among the Muslim population, that's not a bad reference.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/03/2005 12:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
BEEB [the ugly aunt] is *still* describing Muslim rioters in Paris as
disaffected yoots.
Posted by: Red Dog ||
11/03/2005 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm putting my money on the French. I'm aware it's a bet I could lose, but I just think that we will see them push back and that it won't be very pretty. The government is corrupt, but I suspect that most of the people are not as yellow and weak-kneed as we like to joke about. Viva la Revolution!
The Americans weren't bumpkins unable to stand a little blood and the French aren't cowards either. Stereotypes are dangerous assumptions when planning for outcomes.
DeWinter is the leader of Belgium's far-right "Flemish Interest" party. Very anti-dhimmi, obviously very controversial in La Belle Belgie. This is a interview he gave to Jewish Week magazine. An excerpt:
Q: There are those who fear that first you will go after the Moroccans and then the Jews. How do you respond?
A: This is ridiculous. You could say the same about president Bush or Tony Blair: âFirst they are going after radical Islam, then they will go after the Jews.â As if Judaïsm were an extension of Islam. In our view, Judaïsm and Islam are absolute not two of the same kind. On the contrary, they are foes. One has to choose sides. Which side are you on in the âwar on terrorâ? The side of western democracy and western civilization, with its Judeo-Christian roots, or the side of radical Islam? The side of Great-Britain, America and Israel, or the side of Iran, Sudan and the Taliban?
Q: There are those who say Jews should not be voting for a party that espouses xenophobia. Your reaction?
A: âXenophobiaâ is not the word a would use. If it absolutely must be a âphobiaâ let it be âislamophobiaâ. Yes, weâre afraid of Islam. The islamisation of Europe is a frightening thing. Even distinguished Jewish scholars as Bat Yeâor and Bernard Lewis warned for this. If this historical process continues, the Jews will be the first victims. Europe will became as dangerous for them as Egypt or Algeria. So, I return your question. Should Jews vote for a party that wants to stop the spread of Islam in Europe?
Q: What do you think of Europeâs pro-Palestinian tilt?
A: It frightens me. Europe pays lip service to the great principles of human rights, democracy, and rule of law. Israel is the only democracy in that part of the world, the only constitutional state. Itâs the only nation that respect the freedom of religion, even for the Arab Muslim within itâs borders. Every decent person, every dedicated democrat should defend Israel tooth and nail. But the Europeans do the opposite. They betray all their principles. The European politicians are kowtowing for the Arab dictators, for leaders of rogue states, for terrorists. The European Union subsidizes the Palestinian Authority with billions of euros and big chunks of that money are directly transferred to terrorist groups. And itâs not the Palestinians alone. If the European Union had had his way, Saddam Hoessein and maybe even the Taliban would still be in power. The European Union repeats the mistakes Chamberlain and Daladier made in dealing with Hitler: they permanently try to appease dictators. They donât use that damned word âappeasementâ but thatâs the bottom line of their politics towards radical Islam. Appeasement towards Iran. Appeasement towards Hamas, Hezbollah and the Al Aqsa Brigades. And finally appeasement towards the rise of Islam in Europe itself.
France's extreme right leader Jean-Marie Le Pen on Tuesday accused the United States of working to destroy secular regimes in the Middle East, including those of Iraq and Syria. At a news conference in the Greek Cypriot port city of Limassol on the divided island of Cyprus, the leader of the National Front party reiterated his opposition to Turkey's entry into the European Union. Le Pen rejected the argument that Turkey was heading for a more secular stance, saying: "I say this is false. Turkey is on the path of re-Islamisation".
He added: "In reality it is the Americans who want Turkey to enter the European Union, yet it is they (the US) who have destroyed all the secular regimes in the Middle East." He cited as examples the secular regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq and said Washington now wanted to do the same with Syria. American policy was aimed at getting the Muslim world to excuse its unconditional support for Israel, he said.
Deploring that Europe today had become a clone of the Americans, Le Pen said: "It is evident ... that the Turkish people are not a European people, neither through geography, history or culture. Europe can only be made up of European countries."
Outside the hotel where Le Pen was speaking, a few dozen Cypriot protestors chanted: "Hitler, Le Pen, Never Again". Visibly stung by the chants which penetrated the conference, the National Front leader riposted: "These young people should be told to go and demonstrate in Ankara. "I was one of the youngest members of the French resistance ... I do not take lessons about anything over the struggle against the Germans," said Le Pen, who on Sunday visited the Turkish-Cypriot held north of Cyprus.
#5
The Front National is anti-US (it was said that FN supporters drank champagne during 9/11 news coverage), and Le Pen was a stout Saddam supporter (his second wife runs an org supporting iraqi children).
There are some ideological convergences between far-right and baathism, too.
Note that the FN is an hodge-podge (?) of movements only held by the charisma of JMLP, who's now very aged and runs the party like a private business, mostly for his personal benefit (my take is he's got an unspoken agreement with the establishment, he's their scarecrow and devil, so they can act like the saviors of democracy and get some legitimacy they wouldn't get otherwise, and in return he's got a political niche). They're not nazis nor fascists, they're just traditional right-wing, some conservative catholics, a few "reaganians", a few petainists, some "French Algeria" & pieds-noirs,... Pat Buchanan paleo-cons, actually.
Real problem is that almost all the french political scenery is anti-US and anti-zionist, from the far-right (it's a bit more complicated than that, but many there are pro-palestinian and anti-capitalist, for example) to the far-left... and "liberal" (european sense, free-market, small gvt) is a foul word for most of the people.
THe MSM and their incestouus complicity with the establishment don't help, of course.
Btw, it could be said I'm a right-winger, but in fact it's just that french politics are *so* shifted to the left (Shiraq, the "conservative" president is to the left of Scroder and Blair...), I'm a centrist liberal-conservative, a republican (that's what US pol quizz tell me, anyway).
The "right-wing" I belong to is mostly an virtual, "internet" one (IE anti islam websites, a few orgs,...) which is pro-US, pro-Israel, pro-free market, and not obligatory catholic and/or nationalist (though it helps).
#6
Good luck A5089--from what they're saying of France here on the 'burg, you just might get some reinforcements soon.
Posted by: mac ||
11/03/2005 5:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I'm a centrist liberal-conservative, a republican
Quite a few of us would fit into that description. Liberal on personal freedom issues. Right of centre on law and order, national defence and PC idiocy and its attendant social engineering.
#8
Le Pen pretends to have been one of the youngest resistents in France but AFAIK his "resistance" consisted in, alongide with his father, hiding the family gun when the Germans started collecting weapons. He did neither put it to good use nor delivered it to the nearest resistance group.
#9
Nazi Germany was secular, the Papal States a theocracy (I think). The terms mean nothing without more context. I prefer a distinction between dictatorship and democracy. All dictatorships suck, and those that love and coddle dictators are slime.
It's like a spy thriller. Institutional rivalries and political loyalties have fostered an intelligence officer's resentment against the government. Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. A vital question of intelligence forms the core justification for controversial military actions by the current leaders. If this agent can get in the middle of that question, distort that information and make it public, the agent might foster regime change in the upcoming election.
But the rules on agents are clear. They can't purposely distort gathered intelligence, go public with secret information or use their position or information to manipulate domestic elections or matters without risking their job or jail.
But their spouse can!
The agent realizes her spouse can go out on behalf of the spy agency, can distort information, go public with classified information and use all this spy-agency-sponsored material and credentials to try to pull down the current government, and it is all perfectly legal.
Suppose the spouse adds just one more brilliant, well-aimed lie: claim your foremost political opponent put the spouse up to the trip. As your spouse uses your agency's name to mount attacks, your enemy may fall into your trap. Will your enemy suffer your spouse's lies or take the bait and try to clarify his non-role? If he tells the press he didn't hire your spouse, the press will demand to know, "Then who did?"
Instead of you violating secrecy laws, it is your victim who is guilty because he tried to set the record straight. Heads, you win; tails, he loses.
It sounds unbelievable, a fiction, perhaps to be called "To Sting a King." But it is no fiction. This is the story behind Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and the Bush administration. And it appears that Plame and Wilson will get away with the biggest sting operation ever.
No one seems to care that our intelligence agency has crippled our president. Certainly not the media. They are determined to make Wilson a hero. Recall the dozens of times the Washington Post and The New York Times carried his lies on the front page, above the fold. The conclusive story discrediting Wilson was buried 6 feet deep, back by the obituaries.
To the media, it doesn't matter that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence says Wilson lied about what he did and with whom he met while investigating Iraqi attempts to purchase "yellowcake" uranium.
To the media, it doesn't matter that the CIA says what Wilson did actually find supported that Iraq was attempting to buy the uranium â a direct contradiction to Wilson's public claims.
To the media, it doesn't matter that he claimed the vice president assigned him to the uranium investigation when we all know now it was his wife.
Some absurdly claim that Plame had nothing to do with her husband's political activities against President Bush. But let it be clear. Plame could not have done what Wilson did and gotten away with it. Wilson could not have done what he did without Plame giving him a way to do it.
Something has to be done. We can't let the CIA become the domestic dirty tricks shop, with Republican and Democratic agents each trying to pull down their opposing presidents.
We need a Plame rule. Any family member of a CIA agent tapped to help out must live by the same rules regarding information disclosure and domestic political manipulations as those imposed on the agent. If the family member fails to live by those rules, the agent is terminated.
Clearly this will restrict the flexibility of the CIA. But who ever thought that the flexibility given to CIA agents would be misused to destabilize a U.S. president? No one â until Valerie Plame.
Zell Miller is a former Georgia governor and U.S. senator.
Posted by: Steve ||
11/03/2005 10:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
wow! I wish this man would run for President. I'd vote for him.
I've followed this story, but it always makes my eyes glaze over and I figured I wait for the Cliff notes version to understand what really happened. Well here it is. Thanks Zell.
#3
Everything I've ever seen attributed to Zell, including his massive slapdown of Matthews, has struck me as simple honest good sense. Oh yes, indeed!!!, would that he was a potential candidate - I would be willing to work hard for him and donate whatever I could afford. He's truly one of the few voices that never fails to cut through the crap and all the way to bone. His words harken back to the America of the Greatest Generation, which is missed greatly in my household.
Posted by: ed ||
11/03/2005 01:59 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11124 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So much for the lies that led to war. What we're left with is the lies that led to the antiwar movement. Good thing for Wilson and his pals that deceiving the press and the public isn't a crime.
From the LA Times?!? This actually pegs my surprise-o-meter.
#2
hmmm. This is registration only. But between the frantic "Secret Session", Zell Miller's piece and now the LA Times dumping Wilson out with the trash, I can't help but wondering if the CIA dirty tricks aspect of this story isn't about to get much more interesting.
Qaradawi is the driving thinker behind the conquest of Europe through dawa (he openly announces it), the muslim brotherhood in Europe and in France, and the organizer of the "axis of good" pro-terror muslim charities network. In a Der Spiegel Interview, and in a Denial on His Arabic-Language Website
On September 26, 2005, Sheikh Yousef Al-Qaradhawi gave an interview to the German weekly Der Spiegel; parts of the interview were published simultaneously in the Qatari daily Al-Raya. [1] The next day, the director of Al-Qaradhawi's office in Doha, Akram Qassab, denied some of the statements made by Al-Qaradhawi in the interview, and presented a different version.
In the denial, Al-Qaradhawi referred specifically to two questions in the interview: whether non-Muslims can enter Paradise, and whether bin Laden should be declared an infidel and brought to trial.
"Question: Last summer, one of the imams in Germany [uttered the] inciting [statement] that non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Paradise. What do you think of this?
"Answer: This is not accepted at all. There are restrictions and limitations in these matters. We believe that Judaism and Christianity are [monotheistic] religions, and we believe in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. Our Islamic faith is not complete unless we believe in every book that descended [from God] and in every prophet who was sent [by God]...
"But Islam is a universal message, and Muhammad was sent to all people, [as written in the Koran]: 'We sent thee not, but as a mercy [for all peoples]' [Koran 21:107], 'that he may be a warner to the peoples.' [Koran 25:1], 'I am the messenger of Allah to you all' [Koran 7:158]...
"The Muslims must make an effort so that Islam's message will reach the world in an accurate and attractive manner.
"A person who receives this message but refuses to follow this Messenger [Muhammad] â whose coming is heralded in the Bible and the New Testament â and whose refusal does not [stem] from doubt but from desire for worldly things and material interests â [he] will not enter Paradise."
Al-Qaradhawi further claimed that Christianity and Judaism, like Islam, maintain that members of other religions will not enter Paradise. But Islam places certain conditions upon this fate of non-Muslims: "... [One] condition is that the righteous way has been brought to the knowledge of the person and explained to him, [and despite this he rejected the message.] Allah said: 'If anyone opposes the Messenger [Muhammad] even after guidance has been plainly conveyed to him, and follows a path other than that becoming to men of Faith, We shall leave him in the path he has chosen, and make him enter Hell â what an evil end!' [Koran 4:115]."
"Sheikh Qaradhawi also holds the view that the Jews and Christians are unbelievers, just as the Jews and Christians hold the view that the Muslims are unbelievers. The Sheikh [wrote] a short epistle entitled 'The Position of Theological Islam on the Unbelief of the Jews and Christians.' [In this epistle], he did not introduce [any] innovations regarding the takfir [accusation of unbelief] of the Jews and Christians, but followed his predecessors [the Muslim scholars].
"However, when the Sheikh referred to the unbelief of the People of the Book â the Jews and the Christians â he mentioned several facts that cannot be ignored:
"1. The unbelief of the People of the Book is not like atheism... [which is worse].
"2. When we talk of the unbelief of the Jews and Christians, we should not address them [with the words] 'Oh ye unbelievers,' since the Koran did not use this expression at all, but rather [expressions like] 'Oh people' and 'Oh ye Children of Adam'..."
Bin Laden Should Not Be Declared an Unbeliever;
He May Defend Himself by Saying that He Has a Fatwa Approving His Deeds
"Question: After the war, Germany tried some high-ranking officials who were war criminals. Are there Muslim ulama who demand that bin Laden and his associates be prosecuted for the crimes they have committed?"
"Answer: This issue has not yet come up, but after things calm down, there may be a trial. However, there will be some conditions [for such a trial, such as] who the judge will be, when and where it will take place. He must be tried by an Islamic court consisting of Muslim ulama... Bin Laden [also] has the right to defend himself and say that he has a fatwa [issued] by sheikhs and ulama [which approves of his actions]."
"Question: Do the Muslim ulama condemn Osama [bin Laden] for [his] actions and say that he is not a Muslim?"
"Answer: The Muslim people condemn these actions, but do not say that he is not a Muslim or that he is an unbeliever, no. This issue is dangerous, since takfir is the basis of extremism. We do not want to be like bin Laden and his associates [in accusing others of unbelief]. But we [do] say: this action [bin Laden's action] is not permitted according to the Shari ' a, since Islam is very strict regarding the sanctity of human life, [and states that] human life is inviolable both in times of peace and [in times of] war. The Muslim ulama have not declared even the khawarij [4] to be unbelievers, even though they allowed the killing of other Muslims."
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.
