Iâve been trying to access Jihad Unspun since Friday afternoon, without success (if thatâs the correct phrase). What gives over there? Should we send them a get-well card?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/05/2004 1:13:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
I had the same trouble this morning - had the same thought as you - if you erase the /home.php part of the url, they have a lovely (that is, incredibly sickening) brand new flash intro - which runs into a message stating that they are currently offline for "system upgrades." damn!
Now we've got the lower end of the bell curve defined...
British people are ignorant of some of the most important events and people in this country's history, a new survey has revealed. As well as an inability to recall the dates of military victories and the personalities involved, there is also huge confusion about which characters and battles are fact and fiction.
I remember one of the conversations I had with a "social studies" teacher, who asked rhetorically what it mattered if the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066 or 1067. "How about 1492?" I asked. Then, being a smartass even then, I continued building on it: how Good Queen Bess and the Spanish Armada threw out the wiley Angles and their Saxophones, married King Arthur, and fought the Battle of Waterloo. She was testy the rest of the night, and soon stopped returning my phone calls.
One in 10 of the 2,000 adults questioned in the survey commissioned by Blenheim Palace thought that Adolf Hitler was not a real person, and half were convinced that King Arthur existed. Almost three-quarters did not know that the Battle of Blenheim took place 300 years ago, even though it is one of the greatest British military triumphs. Fewer than one in eight had heard of John Churchill, the first Duke of Marlborough, who led the British to victory against the French and for whom the palace was built by the nation as a reward. A quarter of the adults were unsure whether the Battle of Trafalgar was a real historical event, and more than half thought that Horatio Nelson commanded British troops at the battle of Waterloo. Similarly, one in seven Britons did not know that the Battle of Hastings was real. The lack of knowledge was greeted with alarm by historians.
Social studies teachers find nothing to be alarmed about, however...
Tristram Hunt, the historian and television presenter, said: "Perhaps more worrying is the apparent merging of fact and fiction. There has always been myth and legend in history, but these findings show that there is a real need for clear understanding. There is a clear challenge here for academics to engage with a popular audience." John Hoy, the chief executive of Blenheim Palace - the birthplace of Sir Winston Churchill - said that he was amazed that so few people had heard of the battle in whose honour the palace was named. "By defeating the forces of Louis XIV in the War of the Spanish Succession, John Churchill changed the history of Britain and Europe. It was such a momentous event that it led Queen Anne to bestow Blenheim Palace on Churchill as a gift from 'a grateful nation'. The problem for many people is that they associate history with dry and dusty dates and facts. Once they realise that history is about people - the way we used to live and the way we live now - it becomes more relevant and exciting."
Damn those dry and dusty dates and facts! On the other hand, Marlborough did have an interesting sex life. Not as interesting as Augustus III, mind you, and certainly not as interesting as Augustus II...
Researchers also found that respondents struggled with modern history. One in five believed that Harold Wilson was prime minister during the Second World War. Confusion about Britain's historical figures was laid at the door of Hollywood films, such as Braveheart, and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. Almost half the adults surveyed believed that Sir William Wallace was not a real person, and a quarter were convinced that Robin Hood was. One in 20 thought that Conan the Barbarian, a character played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, was a genuine person. Some also believed that Lord Edmund Blackadder and Xena Warrior Princess, characters from television series, were real.
One in twenty is the way nether end of the bell curve...
Children are similarly ignorant of British history. Thirty per cent of 11 to 18-year-olds in a recent survey thought that Oliver Cromwell fought at the Battle of Hastings. A similar proportion did not know in which century the First World War took place. However, Peter Furtado, the editor of History Today magazine, said that history teaching had been praised by inspectors as excellent. "There has been a greater emphasis in schools on dates and historical timelines," he said. "In a way, there is just too much history and the most we can hope is that pupils are inspired to learn more and continue with history study. People have always been inspired by fiction to learn history. Many historians talk about the fact that a rollicking good read or film caught their imagination. It means that some people are inspired to find out more. Inevitably though, some people will get the wrong end of the stick."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/05/2004 12:44:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Fooey. Conan the Barbarian is a real person. He is now governor of California.
Posted by: Rafael ||
04/05/2004 4:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As well as an inability to recall the dates of military victories and the personalities involved, there is also huge confusion about which characters and battles are fact and fiction.
Having taught in a couple of secondary schools in the UK I would say that's fairly accurate. I remember having to teach a class of able sixteen year olds all about WW2 and The Cold War - I was amazed they knew pretty much FA about either. At least they know when Divali is Hindu for Bonfire Night and that Eid is the Muslim Christmas. My country where have you gone??
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/05/2004 5:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ignorance in the modern world is the widespread norm. I have just heard a CNN reporter describe Buddhist monks as 'Hindus'.
#6
F*ck you. Robin Hood was real all right. aka "Robin of Loxley" - and Little John is buried in Hathersage, Derbyshire. So there.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/05/2004 6:14 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They are so ignorant they probably don't know that Xena and Conan actually married and had a child called David Bowie.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Don't feel bad my Brit brethren - it's prolly 5 in 10 for us Yanks concerning ignorant adults. I don't even want to think how much the kids are not being taught.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/05/2004 8:10 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Robin Hood was real all right. aka "Robin of Loxley"
Believe it or not I lived for a year in the village of Loxley west of Sheffield (and near Hathersage). No one there seemed to be aware of any Robin Hood connection.
#15
And while we are on the subject of English place names. There were two villages not far from where I grew up called Ugley and Nasty. And I swear this true! There used to be a sign on Ugley village hall - 'Ugley Women's Institute'. I don't recall a 'Nasty Women's Institute' and I sincerely hope they haven't subsequently combined. The villages are about seven miles apart on the Essex/Hertfordshire border if you care to check a map.
That part of history is a lot easier for the French.
No, it is the part about the defeats who is easy because there are few: take a map of medieval France and you will notice it was far smaller than now. Meaning that she won most of its wars as you will notice if you read a history book. And that is perhaps part of the problem: the French didn't develop the mental patterns to face defeat, recover and emerge stronger. 1940 broke their spirit.
#23
"and half were convinced that King Arthur existed."
Quite possibly he did, though obviously he'd not be as Geoffrey of Monmouth (or even worse, Mallory) portrayed him.
A contemporary to the time, Gildas, mentions a character he calls "The Bear" -- it's believed by many for example to be a reference to Arthur, given how "Bear-man" is "arth gwyr" ("arthgoour", "Arthur")
And a poem written in the 600s contained the line "although he fought bravely, he was no Arthur", which obviously signifies that a man with the name Arthur was very famous and well-thought of at the time.
Obviously he'd not be the kind of mythical king popularly known today, but just a Briton warlord of some fame. Quite possibly not even a king at all.
But I have no real doubt that such a person existed once.
#24
The French who invaded in 1066 were Normans or 'men from the north' - historically, vikings who the natural French unsurprisingly couldn't remove. I certainly don't remember the French engaging us militarily after 1815. The large number of Belgians present at Waterloo may be explained by the fact that Waterloo is in Belgium, although I would be only too happy to credit their part in the victory.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/05/2004 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Howard UK
Those "Normans" had become French for a few generations, were speaking French, didn't use Viking weapons, armor or tactics and didn't use Drakars. On your account the Saxons were Germans not British.
Oh, and it would be interesting to count how many of them were from Viking descent and how many of Frank or Gallo-Roman descent.
#28
Where ya been, mucky? Threads during the last few days would have given you a migrane! I even tried to fill in for you, but hey!
You da Man, Mucky!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/05/2004 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#29
And about Trafalgar and Waterloo, Trafalgar was a british victory but Waterloo? There were more Belgians than British in Wellington's Army!!!
Are you trying to suggest the Duke of Wellingtone was a Belgian, JFM?! About a quarter of the allied army at Waterloo were British, but they participated in a disproportionate amount of the action. British casulaties were over 50 %. And the Belgians? Many bravely ran away. Before the start of battle, Wellington made sure the unreliable Belgians were intermixed with British, Dutch and Germans to try to prevent their mass desertion.
This British-led motley crew still beat Napoleon's forces despite being outnumbered. ;)
#30
The Saxons were of German descent- Brits were/are Anglo-Saxon, I believe. Didn't Britain own parts of France until the eighteenth century? Go on then, JFM, describe France's greatest military moment in detail! Agincourt anyone?
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/05/2004 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#31
In JFM's defense, Poitiers or Tours was possibly France's greatest military achievement imho. Western Europe may be speaking arabic now for not the valor of Martel and some pissed off Frank warriors.
The English owned parts of France (aquitaine and Normandy) until the one Hundred Years War where they lost everything but Calais. They lost Calais under Elizabeth I ie 16th century
Crecy, Poitiers, Agincourt were monuments to French stupidity and indiscipline. At Poitiers the English had a very strong position on a hill but that hill had no water. So instead of launching a piecemeal assault on that hill, with unprotected flanks who allowed the British horsemen to wreak havoc on the French infantry just surround the hill and ensure soldiers drink copiously in full view of the English.
At Azincourt the British were short on supplies and the French were between them and their bases.
They just had to delay the action until the British starved. In case they decided to go to battle the narrow bottleneck at Azincourt was the worst possible place since it impede any turning movement by the French cavalry and forced it to crash on the English pikes. The weather was the worst possible one: very thick mud who forced the French cavlry to "charge" at the speed of a walking man ie lengthening the time spent under British arrows. Any commander with an IQ over 1 would have gone to battle in another place or at another time.
Now, I have spoken of Agincourt I eagerly wait for your accounts of Chatillon la Bataille, Fontenoy or the naval battles who preceded Yorktown. Or you could talk of how you managed to lose against the Zulus. I am unaware of the French losing against natives armed with mere spears.
#33
Yes, the French were just plain unlucky. Everyone knows the British army can't really fight and survives purely on the will of the Gods.(LMAO) To be fair, I think the incident with the Zulus was largely down to numbers. Chatillon la Bataille, Fontenoy - will research, sound fairly unimportant - certainly not defeats on the scale of the Zulu's otherwise they would have been etched on our national psyche in a similar manner.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
04/05/2004 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#34
At least the accents make them sound smarter than they really are! ;p
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
04/05/2004 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Bulldog
There was a reason Wellington distrusted the Belgians: most of them, even between the Flemish preferred to be French instead of being returned to their protestant Dutch masters. But most of them didn't flee at Waterloo and fought well, some outstandingly.
Now, how about stopping that silly thread? It happens I have little esteem for the French of 2004, it happens I am a friend of the British and the Americans but it also happens I am pissed when someone makes a disparaging comment over the French soldier through the ages (including the guys at Austerlitz or Verdun), even about the guys of 1940 whose main tort was to have a bad general and to not have Churchill.
#36
If they don't beleive that Hitler was a real person then how do they account for skinheads?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Howard UK
Being outnumbered was the norm in colonial wars and the British at Rourke's drift were outnumbered 30 to 1 and still won. But at Isandwana the British commander was of a stupidity of Azincourtian proportions and his troops were wiped out.
#42
I find this frightening, because we all know that in America, things deemed "offensive," such as slavery, are targeted by the left for neutralization in our schools. If we don't remember the history, they certainly won't - and they'll change it for their own demented purposes. Call me an alarmist if you will, but I genuinely fear that if this trend continues, we could see an "end of history" and a rewriting similar to the one seen in 1984 . . . and we would be doomed to repeat that history, because we would have lost the lessons of the past. Furthermore, with those "alternative histories" of other cultures that the PCers are always telling us to respect, you could have a complete perversion . . . and you wouldn't know the difference.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
04/05/2004 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Raj, does it matter???
Posted by: Rafael ||
04/05/2004 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Actually England took over most of France during the Hundred Years war, until Joan of Arc stepped in and motivated the masses in a way the French royalty could not.
I would be really interested in more details. Like how many of these 10% oppose the war in Iraq. How many of the 90% oppose the war in Iraq. Similar numbers for France and Germany. And of course how many were toying with the questineers.
The Saudi government has strongly opposed Pakistanâs move to announce general amnesty to foreign terrorists belonging to al-Qaeda specially of Saudi origin with whom Pakistan army just finished first round of bloody clashes in tribal areas. A source said the Saudi government wants Pakistan to give a loud and clear message to the Jihadi elements that "it meant business with them and on one would go unpunished for his crimes in the name of Islam." The source maintained the Saudi government is facing a dilemma since the events of 9/11 as in case these Jihadi elements get general amnesty and return to their country of origin, they could create problems in future at time because of their formidable training in terrorism and terrorists activities during the last two decade of fight against Russians in Afghanistan. Sources said the Saudi government has conveyed its deep concern over this announcement to the Pakistani authorities on the excuses that such extraordinary amnesty to foreigners could create troubles for the countries of their origins. A top level source confirmed that Saudi rulers have strongly expressed their fears that this amnesty would neither serve the purpose of Islamabad nor Riyadh because of rising concern of international community particularly of Americans against such deadly terrorists who were launching terrorists activities in the name of Islam.
Sources said issue of announcement of amnesty to wanted militants also featured during President Musharraf visit to Saudi Arabia last month when he went to perform Umra. The source said Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah raised the issue of amnesty for the wanted terrorists now fighting against Pakistan army and tried to convince President Musharraf on this tricky issue. Sources said that the Saudi government was totally against the idea of amnesty because it thought that such terrorist elements who had brought a bad name to Islam and their countries of origin and above all created huge problems for the Muslims world over did not deserve any mercy by any government in any circumstances. Sources said main worry of the Saudi government is that majority of wanted foreigners were of Saudi origin and Riyadh had already been pinpointed by the American media for its alleged links and sympathies for terrorists who had masterminded and executed the plan of 9/11.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/05/2004 12:32:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the Saudis are so concerned about the amnesty, they should just quietly threaten to cut off funding to the Paks. They will come to your fireside like a loyal hunting dawg. End of problem.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/05/2004 0:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is actually pretty funny stuff, IMHO. I offer 2 observations. Salt to taste.
1) The AlQ types, of the True Believer School, really do hate the Royals - some (most?) are prolly Mad Mullah associates - a convergence of interests. These are the guys that Nayef's Keystone Cops USED TO keep bumbling into inside SA. Ever notice that Nayef's clowns never seemed able or cognizant that they should secure the location before opening fire? Sure, they did end up with the weapons cache - and that's prolly proof that the guys they were chasing aren't all that bright either... but it seems some always got away due to the incompetence of Nayef's soft boyz. But we haven't heard so much of this lately, have we? Anybody think they've all left?
2) The PakiWakis bad guys & madrassahs & Kashmiri bonus-babie$ (cannon fodder paid to pull stunts in Kashir) depend upon Wahhabi money to operate. The PakiWaki Gov't depends upon Saudi Gov't money to operate. Nayef = Wahhabi. Abdullah = Gov't. Does anyone else find this to be hysterically schizophrenic? Lol! Only in The Magic Kingdom and PakiWakiLand could we have such a situation.
Why are the Pakis even thinking of making this offer?
I can only guess that:
1) the Waziri War that has, thus far, been one honest but over-hyped battle, was far more costly to Perv politically than he can take again. Why else do something as insane as this? This has to piss off every one of his foreign allies (including the US) -- and the only people who could love the mug of this idea are his Internal Enemies.
2) ...or he's gonna put on his game face and try to blackmail the Royals, heh.
#3
Dotcom and Paul, how reliable a source is 'Hipakistan?"
Because this story doesn't sound right...
Why would Pakistan want to give amnesty to guys they just had a week or more long firefight with, including casualties on both sides...some of which were the Paki soldiers AlQ was holding hostage and whose bodies they mutilated?
Something's up--like Musharraf trying to cover up and act nonchalant about his previously very cosy relationship with SA, IRT AQ being in his country in the first place.
We haven't heard the end of this by a long shot.
The ties between Pakistan, AQ, SA and Wahhabism are long and deep--one of these days Perv is going to have to choose between the Sods and the Americans.
Let's hope he chooses wisely.
Posted by: Jen ||
04/05/2004 2:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'll leave your question about source reliability to Dan!
I've given what I think above... feel free to rip, shred, tear, spindle, & mutilate!
#5
You're right about the Saud AQ problem, though.
OBL and his followers would like to get rid of the Sod princes almost as much as they want to kill Americans because they think they're corrupt and debauched (Correctomundo!).
So the Sods, by funding and supporting AlQ and other Wahhab movements, have basically sown the seeds of their own destruction.
What no one talks about much is that:
A. Pakistanis make up most of the army in SA.
B. The Sauds most probably are behind the funding of the Pakistan nukes and A. Q. Khan's lab.
Posted by: Jen ||
04/05/2004 3:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jen, Item A is at odds with what I know, I think. Pakis are, indeed, the largest (in number) of the SA workforce, but as far as I know, the SA AF, Army and National Emergency Force are all Saudis. Can you direct me to a source - or did I misunderstand your post?
The Saudis rely very heavily upon certain tribes for their police and military - and these tribes are very well taken care of for their loyalty to the Royals. (Side Note: Some of the AF's pilots are actually Royals - a warplane is very dangerous in unreliable hands - and it's the glamorous mil gig.) You get an odd feeling because all of the Police, for instance, look vaguely alike -- cuz they're all from same tribes.
When alerts were on, and that happened a lot my last year there, driving from Aramco to my compound I would go through 2 (or more) Police checkpoints - and you'd sometimes get a deja vu feeling due to similarity of facial features and body type. Weird.
#7
Dotcom, Google "Saudi Arabia army Pakistan" and feast on what it brings up (lots and lots and lots).
When I said that Pakis make up the SA army, this would be the actual "grunts" who would fight any war that SA would be involved in or maybe there's just an understanding for Pakistan to provide same. Or was before 9/11.
You know the Sods never do much actual work--they do have their pride.
Posted by: Jen ||
04/05/2004 3:43 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Let's remember that Pakistan or more exactly a country liknjked to fundamentalism, got nukes under the adminstration of Hillary's husband.
#9
Here's an article, from a very odd place as the URL shows, but it does cover the topic better than anything else I could find. You're lazy, Jen, lazy. I asked for a link, if you had it, not to spend all this time wading through all the shit that brought up!
National Recruitment Legislation and Practice
According to article 34 of the Constitution, "The defence of the Islamic religion, society, and country is a duty for each citizen". The government establishes the provisions of military service. Conscription has never existed in Saudi Arabia, however, and volunteers are relied on to fill the ranks of the services.[2] Anyone seeking a commission by attending a military academy has to be 18 years-old and a citizen by birth or a naturalised citizen for at least five years.[3] The minimum age for voluntary recruitment to ordinary ranks is not clear.
Plans to increase the size of the army and National Guard would seem to necessitate some form of compulsory service. On several occasions, Saudi officials have stated that a draft would be introduced, but conscription has not been implemented as it would most likely be unpopular and easy to avoid, and could draw unreliable elements into the armed forces. In June 1991, however, the Minister of Defense and Aviation declared that conscription was not a viable option because the number of volunteers was exceeding the capacity of military centres available to train them.[4]
In order to attract Saudi youth into joining the armed forces, the Ministry of Defense and Aviation has established its own high schools and colleges which offer subsidised education. The government also conducts advertising campaigns to entice young Saudi males to join the armed forces. Recruiting stations are spread throughout the country. The National Guard continues to rely on tribal levies to fill its ranks, recruiting from the tribes of Najd, reputedly the most trustworthy in the Kingdom.[5]
To augment its armed forces, Saudi Arabia imports officers from other Arab countries, as well as Pakistan. At one time, there were approximately 15,000 Pakistanis in the armed forces. However, the contracting of Pakistani soldiers was phased out due to a disagreement between the Saudi and Pakistani governments over the screening-out of Shi'a soldiers during the Iran-Iraq war.[6] So this is ancient history, now.
#10
It's not just Saudi Arabia, there are Pak soldiers used in other Gulf States too.
Ironically, General Zia, the man responsible for the Islamisation of the Pak Army, played a major roll in the slaughter of the PLO in the Black September incident. He was in the country training Jordanian troops (which might explain the Arab military skills being so similar to the Pakistani militaries skills)
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/05/2004 5:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
As far as source reliability goes, HiPakistan is generally speaking fairly good as a source of news information as far as what goes on in the country.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/05/2004 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
So sorry, Dotcom--on any other night I might have obliged, but I am moving today, it was 2:00 AM and I had to be up now.
At least I got you Googling...
Don't beats me, Massuh Dotcom!
DD, thanks for attesting to the value of HiPakistan's info.
Posted by: Jen ||
04/05/2004 9:36 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Yes, consider the source of the story. Let's say it's true, however. Just what kind of amnesty are we talking about? No prison in Pakistan, but the Saudi AQ's have to go home on a special charter? Could they all be rounded up in Pak and on the condition that they spill all they know, that they will then be given amnesty a la saoudienne? Public repudiations of terrorism and how the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques leads the way in moderate Wahibbism? Confinement to home? Ankle bracelets? Deprogramming? Going to elementary schools and disavowing terrorism?
.com sees the irony in this matter and so do I. 5 years ago, these guys were the vanguard of the Saudi state religion, and now Abdallah wants them dead? What does Prince Naive think? A definite hot potato that will be passed around among the princes. In any case, it's disconcerting, if article is true, that Musharref would want to give these guys a break. There's much to find out here.
Posted by: Michael ||
04/05/2004 10:17 Comments ||
Top||
#14
re: "You know the Sods never do much actual work--they do have their pride." This is reportedly changing. WSJ last week had a center column article attesting to a new desire from the populace that they be able to WORK. Even previously-unheard of labor such as mining is desired by young workers. Male flight attendants for the Saudi airline are now almost exclusively Saudis (and apparently very eligible because of the position--go figure!) If a generation is learning the benefits of meritocracy, and the royals continue encouraging and supporting the trend, there may be hope for longer term change in the M.E. (Understood that a foundation of capitalism/individual self-determination is just ONE facet of what needs fixin' with those countries & cultures.)
#1
"Theses are decisions of the court, judicial decisions, legal decisions that don't have to affect the extraordinarily good relationship that we have with the government of the United States, with the governors of the states," Fox said Sunday at his ranch in rural Guanajuato state, 170 miles (270 kms) northwest of Mexico City.
Extraodinarily good relationship? Yeah, we buy your oil for good money and you flood our borders with illegals and demand that we take care of them. Including convicted murderers. Pure symbosis, Vincente. I feel so warm and fuzzy about it all.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/05/2004 0:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sure, sure. We'll relook at all the cases involving Mexican illegal invaderscolonists "immigrants."
Then we'll send our collections agency down to Ciudad de Mexico to get the money.
#3
Now really, guys. I'm sure the government of the good Senor Fox goes out of its way to accomodate Americans imprisoned in its jails.
As everyone knows, Mexican jails are renowned for their commitment to civil rights and fair treatment. We really have a lot to learn from our neighbors to the south in regards to equal justice and human rights. Sarcasm off
EFL from WND
A popular Islamic online site, quoting a European sheikh, justifies the mutilation of the bodies of enemies when it is part of retaliation, reports Joseph Farahâs G2 Bulletin. The subject arose this week on IslamOnlineâs interactive feature on fatwas following the murders of four U.S. civilians in Falluja, Iraq. The Americans, who were providing security for food deliveries in the violent Sunni triangle, were killed by militants, their bodies dismembered, burned and hanged on display. Responding to a specific question about Islamâs view of mutliating bodies of enemies in wartime, Sheikh Faysal Mawlawi, deputy chairman of the European Council for Fatwa and Research, wrote "it is permissible to mutliate the dead only in case of retaliation."
So what were the goobers in Fallujah retaliating for?
"If any one cuts the ear of another, his ear is to be cut in return," wrote the sheikh. "If he inflicts any physical damage on anyone, he should be retaliated against in the same manner. In case of war, Muslims are allowed to take vengeance for their mutliated dead strugglers in the same way it was done to them." The sheikh cited the Quranic verse: "If ye punish, then punish with the like of that wherewith ye were inflicted. But if ye endure patiently, verily it is better for the patient."
"This verse was revealed when the polytheists mutilated the corpse of Hamzah ibn Abd el-Muttalib (may Allah be pleased with him)," the sheikh continued. "The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) swore to mutilate seventy corpses of the polytheists in retaliation for what they had done with Hamzahâs dead body." Other sheikhs offered dissenting opinions on whether mutilation is ever warranted or justified.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 12:24:54 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Please help me understand why these "clerics" are not being thrown out on their collective a****s and sent packing back to the desert?
#2
There's something about the name "Council for Fatwa and Research" that I find highly amusing. Maybe it's that their two stated goals are somewhat contradictory? After all, research would find that Islam isn't quite as brilliant as its followers seem to think; would you then have to issue a fatwa condemning whoever found this?
On the other hand, maybe it's more convenient to have the same body that oversees the "research" issue statements condemning and contradicting the findings they don't like . . .
This would be the Islamic way to do it, I suppose.
Posted by: The Doctor ||
04/05/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#3
European Council for Fatwa and Research, what type of research are they engaged in? Is AQ Khan the head of their research department?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Does this mean if he gets ripped out his car by a local nonbeliever, shot, dismembered, and his corpse dragged through the streets before being set on fire and hung from a bridge that it's okay, or is this one of those, "believers only, no infidels need apply" premises?
#5
Maybe he can focus his research staff on a justification for mutilation during an honor killing. I had thought that practice was more of a tribal custom rather than an actual tenet of Islam, but this guy really leaves that as an open question for me.
I wish Murat was around to explain how Moslems are going to effectively integrate in European society. This guy doesn't seem to be on the path to assimilation.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 15:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I had thought that practice was more of a tribal custom rather than an actual tenet of Islam, but this guy really leaves that as an open question for me.
Cee? It's just culture. And don't be whinning to me about how a culture influences religon, which in your tiny freeper minds would imply that the same culture which whipped up Molock would also be able to invent the peaceful religon of Allah.
Or did you just forget your "sarcasm" tags, Anti-Brain?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
04/05/2004 16:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Were I a Muslim, I'd want to visit with Sheik Mawlawi right away and begin mutilating him for defacing my religion.
However difficult it is for those outside of Islam to understand, the reason why Mawlawi can get away with espousing this sort of evil crap is the same reason that no death fatwa was ever decreed against bin Laden. Honorable Muslims refuse to employ the same extremist tactics that the Islamic terrorists are using. They do not want any reputation for that sort of violence and repression.
That said, the global Muslim community had better begin to rethink its drink pretty d@mn fast. There will be increasingly harsh and, finally, violent backlashes against any glorification of mutilation and ultra-violence. There's not a lot of time left on the clock for this to happen.
Fair or not, such discrimination will be a direct result of whatever inability or continued inaction shown by global Muslims as regards jihadist proselytizing. Civilized society will reach a limit in its capacity to absorb this sort of barbarity. At some point, mounting dissatisfaction will be redirected into halting Islamic agitation and woe betide honorable Muslims when that happens. Mosques will likely be shut down or burned while people of Islamic faith shall find themselves marginalized and isolated from social support networks. I am not advocating that this should happen, merely predicting that it will.
#9
Dumpster - "Honorable Muslims refuse to employ the same extremist tactics that the Islamic terrorists are using. They do not want any reputation for that sort of violence and repression."
What is honorable about their behavior?
Do they denounce the Islamists?
Do they denounce the violence?
Do they denounce killing of innocents?
Do they even COMPLAIN about Islam's hijacking?
Do they denounce DICK?
Do they DO dick?
No. There are so few "honorable" Muslims in any position of influence as to make no odds - i.e. it's moot. They're moot. They are without honor, without decency, without principles and without balls. I see ZERO honor.
Loan me that microscope you're using, my presbyopia must be getting worse.
While I'm checking, you go read the Qu'uran - both Suras & Haddiths - and find those "honorable" Muslim Clerics of Influence for me.
#10
I speculate that Sheik Mawlawi was worried about the consequences of being labeled a "moderate Iman." There must be an ongoing contest between European Imans on who can spew the most militant fat-ones fatwas as the one who is the most moderate when the music call-to-prayer stops will be left a head short.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 21:47 Comments ||
Top||
#11
.com, let me know when you outgrow your immature, ill informed and bigoted notions. There's the faint possibility you might actually be worth responding to at that point. Sick puppies like bin Laden love to quote your sort of bilious and narrow minded spewing during their recruitment drives.
-----------------
British Muslims are planning a mass rally in Central London to demonstrate against all forms of terrorism. The Muslim Council of Britain, the largest umbrella group of the 2.5 million Muslims in Britain, is urgently consulting its members and mosques on proposals for a rally to underline Muslim condemnation of the Madrid bombings and al-Qaeda violence.
-----------------
Washington, DC (September 9, 2002) â Several prominent American Muslims, organizations, and scholars issued the following statement denouncing violence and terrorism, especially in the name of Islam, a religion of peace and justice.
The statement was issued on the eve of the first anniversary of the tragedy of Sept. 11, and has been signed by 199 prominent American Muslims, and scholars of Islam from all over the world.
-----------------
The concept of jihad has many shades of meaning, but the way Osama bin Laden has applied it to political violence has moved beyond the bounds of Islamic teaching on warfare, scholars say.
"Everybody who has war experience understands that sometimes civilians are going to be killed during legitimate military action," says John Kelsay, religion chairman at Florida State University and the author of "Islam and War." "But direct, intentional targeting of civilians is just off the charts."
While bin Laden, Afghanistan's Taliban rulers and other Muslims have used the term jihad to mean "holy war," Cambridge University scholar Akbar Ahmed writes that "in fact jihad means struggle and there are various forms of it; physical confrontation is just one."
The phrase "holy war" does not appear in the Quran, (also spelled Koran), the Muslim holy book, says Jamal Badawi of St. Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Badawi contends the phrase does not even make sense because Islam regards war as a necessary evil, not something that is holy in itself.
-----------------
Muslims in Toronto and indeed across Canada today condemned the apparent terrorist attacks in New York and Washington and offered condolences to the families of those who were killed or injured.
In a statement, Syed Mumtaz Ali, President of the Canadian Society of Muslims said: "We condemn in the strongest terms possible what are apparently vicious and cowardly acts of terrorism against innocent civilians. We join with all Canadians in calling for the swift apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. No political cause could ever be assisted by such immoral acts."
-----------------
KUALA LUMPUR DECLARATION ON INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM
ADOPTED AT THE EXTRAORDINARY SESSION OF THE ISLAMIC CONFERENCE OF FOREIGN MINISTERS ON TERRORISM
1-3- APRIL 2002
1. In the name of Islamic solidarity, we, the Foreign Ministers of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), have gathered in Kuala Lumpur to state our collective resolve to combat terrorism and to respond to developments affecting Muslims and Islamic countries in the aftermath of the 11th September attacks;
2. We recall earlier measures adopted by the OIC in combating international terrorism, including the Code of Conduct for Combating International Terrorism, the OIC Convention on Combating International Terrorism, which, inter alia, provides a definition of terrorism, and the Declaration of the 9th Extraordinary Session of ICFM as well as relevant OIC Resolutions on combating international terrorism;
-----------------
The UK's mainstream Muslim community has publicly attacked a "tiny lunatic fringe" which has expressed controversial views on the terror attacks in the US.
Community and religious leaders say the small number of Islamic activists are endangering and embarrassing ordinary Muslims by supporting the atrocities.
They say the overwhelming majority of the two million Muslims living in the UK do not share the activist's extreme views.
Their criticism is aimed at a minority of Muslim clerics who have been widely quoted suggesting there was delight and support for what had happened in the United States.
After puffing up yourself, you provide text, not links. I suggest you go donate to the Rantburg tipjar for your transgression, as I just did, and do the links, next time.
If you think this piddling collection of impotent and widely-spaced press releases, the proverbial drop in the bucket, has an effect on what is said in the Moskkks (Go To MEMRI and LEARN WTF You blather about) then you are, indeed, the deluded twinkie I take you to be. Get a clue. You have no moral high ground and your puffy prose doesn't add substance - it detracts, in fact. You and others can pretend all you wish that you've discovered a flaw in AlQ - that they are attacking their own and, thus, they must fail. What the rest of us have figured out is that they are not like us and don't use Western logic. They use terror. They are pure predators. Kow-tow or die is their message to these Muslim Moderates - academics, really, like you. They will fold when the jihadi comes to visit, for they are cattle to the Islamists. These academics foolishly believe their limp dick statements are important, as you do with your lame impotent comments.
The apparent fact that you're retarded in the ways of the real world, infatuated with your puffery, and easily injured indicate you MUST be living in the lap of academia.
"Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.
Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.
As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."
Dumpster, you're an idiotarian. Now go hit that tip jar, son, you've used more than your fair share of RB resources.
1. Whether a "tiny lunatic fringe" support violent methods is an issue of fact. Merely to say that it is true doesn't make it true. I cite as evidence it is not true, the recent poll which showed paleostinians support for suicide bombings had dropped from the low 70s (percent) to the high sixties. So present your evidence!
2. The purpose of comments is to comment. Putting long quotes from elsewhere and of dubious relevance is bad form
3. .com may at times be intemperate but he has some important points to make. He is certainly not 'ill informed', and you are using bigoted as a perjorative insult.
4. .coms last post about the lack of denunciations of violence by muslims is correct. The fact you can dig out quotes by some muslims denouncing violence in no way lessens the truth of what he has said. And there is a whole issue of a culture that does not feel the need to align words with actions.
5. Yesterday I thought you were a troll. Today I think your habit of posting to dead threads and running away from people who dispute your opinions makes you just sad.
#14
The apparent fact that you're retarded in the ways of the real world, infatuated with your puffery, and easily injured indicate you MUST be living in the lap of academia.
Like I said, grow up, .com. My chip designs fly on the space shuttle and I've worked on America's stealth bomber, 300 mm diameter SDI 500MW FEL (500 Megawatt Free Electron Laser) monocrystalline optics plus assorted laser gyro circuitry and lots of other technology that helped America win the cold war.
Your tiresome use of personalities while attempting to discredit my opinions exhibits a distinct lack of forensic ability much less any real character or class on your own part. While that is your privelege, it doesn't cut much ice with anyone whose IQ is above room temperature.
Fair or not, such discrimination will be a direct result of whatever inability or continued inaction shown by global Muslims as regards jihadist proselytizing. Civilized society will reach a limit in its capacity to absorb this sort of barbarity. At some point, mounting dissatisfaction will be redirected into halting Islamic agitation and woe betide honorable Muslims when that happens. Mosques will likely be shut down or burned while people of Islamic faith shall find themselves marginalized and isolated from social support networks. I am not advocating that this should happen, merely predicting that it will.
was unclear?
I also feel that Muslims everywhere had better pick up the pace on ejecting terrorists from within their ranks. I just refuse to tar all Muslims with the same brush like so many others are willing to.
#16
I didn't comment on this quote. But now you mention it. The language is tortured and the meaning opaque. Prosleytizing is not the issue. Violent and coersive actions are the issue. I have no idea what 'jihadist proselytizing' means. At a wild guess you mean recruiting bombers.
There is no reason to burn mosques. A zero tolerance policy combined with deportation would work just fine. We just need to take the oil away from them first. It is the root cause of the problem. Largesse without responsibility!
#17
Dumpster - Wow. Is that what you wanted? Lol!
How about, "Well aren't you special?" Pfeh.
The 2nd baseman of a baseball team I coached is a chip designer, sonny. Perhaps you two should get together - though you're not as rare nor rarified as you imply. I was the coach. He did what I told him to on the field, because in that venue I knew more than he did. That's where our lives intersected. If we were in his lab, I'd follow his lead.
We're not making chips here in RB and your resume, which may impress you, does not qualify your opinions on Islam -- or anything else regards the WoT, the reason for Rantburg's existence.
Many of us here in RB are accomplished as well in our particular fields of endeavor - be surprised, Dumpster, you're not special except in the fact that you are an idiotarian with a deluded view of politics - one that is dangerous and foolish for everyone else in the Free World.
But our occupations don't necessarily intersect with the WoT. Mine does in the respect that it led me to live for over 4 years in Saudi Arabia. I learned a great deal about Islam, particularly Wahhabism, and Arabs. I served in the US Army and know a bit about war and killing.
I am qualified to speak to certain subjects due to my experiences. I steer clear of areas I don't know about. I endeavor not to post obvious re-statements of what others have already posted. I definitely avoid posting "Mee Too!" drivel. I work hard to post original thought - truly new ideas - and I don't think I do badly in this regard, but that's for others to judge. I certainly try. If they told me I was full of shit, I'd certainly listen and try to figure out why, rather than just spew and fume. I know I show far more restraint than you have, thus far, in posting pointless re-statements of the obvious and grandly assuming you understand the enemy's mind - when you have probably never even met anyone of his ilk.
When you get over yourself the benefit will be yours. It has no bearing upon me, so I couldn't care less. I only engaged you because your stated political position is disingenuous and your posts are often specious. You are, indeed, a buffoon prone to puffery and pedestrian commentary. Now we can add self-flattery while we await your ClueBat encounter or demise, whichever occurs first. If I could kill-flag your wasted and inflated "mee too" posts, I would.
When you grow up and accept reality, such as the facts about the elections process and associated dispute remedies, and the fact that our constitution is safe and sound, and that your understanding of President Bush and his achievements is a myopic act of self-delusion and asinine in the extreme, etc., you might become a person worth knowing and engaging. Sadly, 'tis not so, now. I'll forego the lure of playing with you in the future. You're really just a spoiled little jerk with a very big chip - on your shoulder.
In the 52nd chapter of his ââDecline and Fall of the Roman Empire,ââ Edward Gibbon posed one of the great counterfactual questions of history. If the French had failed to defeat an invading Muslim army at the Battle of Poitiers in A.D. 732, would all of Western Europe have succumbed to Islam? ââPerhaps,ââ speculated Gibbon with his inimitable irony, ââthe interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.ââ
When those words were published in 1788, the idea of a Muslim Oxford could scarcely have seemed more fanciful. The last Muslim forces had been driven from Spain in 1492; the Ottoman advance through Eastern Europe had been decisively halted at the gates of Vienna in 1683. Today, however, the idea seems somewhat less risible. The French historian Alain Besancon is one of a number of European intellectuals who detect a significant threat to the continentâs traditional Christian culture. The Egyptian-born writer Bat Yeor has for some years referred to the rise of a new ââEurabiaââ that is hostile in equal measure to the United States and Israel. Two years ago, Pat Buchanan published an apocalyptic book titled ââThe Death of the West,ââ prophesying that declining European fertility and immigration from Muslim countries could turn ââthe cradle of Western civilizationââ into ââits grave.ââ
Such Spenglerian talk has gained credibility since 9/11. The ââ3/11ââ bombings in Madrid confirm that terrorists sympathetic to Osama bin Laden continue to operate with comparative freedom in European cities. Some American commentators suspect Europeans of wanting to appease radical Islam. Others detect in sporadic manifestations of anti-Semitism a sinister conjunction of old fascism and new fundamentalism. Most European Muslims are, of course, law-abiding citizens with little sympathy for terrorist attacks on European cities. Moreover, they are drawn from a wide range of countries and of Islamic traditions, few of them close to Arabian Wahhabism. Nevertheless, there is no question that the continent is experiencing fundamental demographic and cultural changes whose long-term consequences no one can foresee.
To begin with, consider the extraordinary prospect of European demographic decline. A hundred years ago -- when Europeâs surplus population was still crossing the oceans to populate America and Australasia -- the countries that make up todayâs European Union accounted for around 14 percent of the worldâs population. Today that figure is down to around 6 percent, and by 2050, according to a United Nations forecast, it will be just over 4 percent. The decline is absolute as well as relative. Even allowing for immigration, the United Nations projects that the population of the current European Union members will fall by around 7.5million over the next 45 years. There has not been such a sustained reduction in the European population since the Black Death of the 14th century. (By contrast, the United States population is projected to grow by 44 percent between 2000 and 2050.) With the median age of Greeks, Italians and Spaniards projected to exceed 50 by 2050 -- roughly 1 in 3 people will be 65 or over -- the welfare states created in the wake of World War II plainly require drastic reform. Either todayâs newborn Europeans will spend their working lives paying 75 percent tax rates or retirement and ââfreeââ health care will simply have to be abolished. Alternatively (or additionally), Europeans will have to tolerate more legal immigration. But where will the new immigrants come from? It seems very likely that a high proportion will come from neighboring countries, and Europeâs fastest-growing neighbors today are predominantly if not wholly Muslim. A youthful Muslim society to the south and east of the Mediterranean is poised to colonize -- the term is not too strong -- a senescent Europe.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/05/2004 11:28:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Scary stuff, but thought-provoking - if only the Euros would listen . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
04/05/2004 12:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think continental Europe's screwed.
Time to save Mother England: sink thousands of stout pylons deep into bedrock along the U.S. Eastern seaboard, and all across Britain. Then stretch block and tackle between here and there, and start ratcheting.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/05/2004 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The English finally discovered the joy of a metric money system.... if they learn to drive on the proper side of the road I'll be on my way.
#5
Cheez, Dave, no need for that. If the Brits can build the Chunnel, we can build version 2.0 from Liverpool to Boston. It could even tie into the new expressway there. I suppose our friends to the north would want a branch tunnel to Halifax, seems only fair.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/05/2004 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
As a native, I claim the right to attach (merrie olde) England to New England. Apart from the many historical and cultural reasons, our weather is a good match :)
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
04/05/2004 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
SteveW, is the Chunnel v. 2.0 what they mean by the "Big Dig"?
#8
It is inevitable. As people and cultures struggle for, and eventually achieve a better existence, they loose the raw, emotional passion of the original struggle. Having is not always as good as wanting. Muslims have that fire in their belly. Hah!..the joke's on them! Wait until they get what they want!
#10
Steve White: you want it to go from Liverpool to Boston????? That's a helluva expensive proposition, for two reasons:
First, Boston is Teddy Kennedy turf. It would take hundreds of billions of dollars just to build the tunnel entrance ramps.
And second, the westernmost thousand miles or so of that tunnel will have to be built with a breakdown lane for Bostonians to drive on during rush hour- otherwise they won't know how to cope.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/05/2004 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Yep, that article pretty much sums up the EuroStan that is developing before our eyes.
Shipman---that transatlantic tunnel sounds like quite a challenge. Frank and I will design in in our spare time. An especially challenging part will be an expansion joint along the mid atlantic ridge, where seafloor spreading occurs. It will have to withstand 6000 to 9000 psi, too. No problem.
Posted by: Alaska Paul on the Road ||
04/06/2004 0:04 Comments ||
Top||
#12
A few nukes launched to the Mideast would cut those nasty demographic numbers.Unfortunately,we have to exterminate these rats.They called the terms of war,Islam or death...they will get death.
Via Lucianne:
The French government offered a surprise compromise to the US president, George Bush, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, according to a detailed investigation published in Vanity Fair this week. The report undermines the public perception of France standing resolutely against the US and Britain in the United Nations security council as the two countries tried to win a second resolution in support of war.... In an effort to avoid a bitter US-French row, the French officials suggested that if the US was intent on war, it should not seek the second resolution, according to highly placed US sources cited by Vanity Fair. Instead, the two said that the first resolution on Iraq, 1441, passed the previous year, provided enough legal cover for war and that France would keep quiet if the US went to war on that basis. The deal would suit the French by maintaining its "good cop" status in the Arab world and safeguarding Franco-US relations. Always thinking of us, how nice.
But the deal died when Tony Blair led a doomed attempt to secure a second resolution to try to satisfy Labour MPs and government lawyers who questioned the legitimacy of the war. France ultimately vetoed the resolution.
Posted by: Anonymous2U ||
04/05/2004 12:21:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Complete crap from a leftist fairyzine written by and for french loving queers. There was no second resolution for france to VETO. France ultimately VETOED nothing. We know NOW, Chiraq was telling his butt-buddy Saddam to keep the BRIBE MONEY rolling into France and the UN, do not worry about abiding by UNSCR 1441, and Chiraq will prevent President Bush from putting a boot in his Saddamite ass. There should be a rule: NO postings from FAGAZINES.
#2
Anonymous, yeah there are too many pictures of pretty boys in the mag, but I first read of Clinton's refusal of OBL from the Sudanese in Vanity Fair. That article has given me lots of ammo to show Clarke's credibility gap. Don't toss out the baby with the bath water, or however it goes.
Posted by: Michael ||
04/05/2004 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
There is one thing I agree with in the article: 1441 was plenty good enough to go to war.
#4
Well it turns out my right deviationist elders also had a secret plan with the U.S. Namely that each side would save 50 city busters (In the U.S. Case Titan IIs) in our case SS-18s to use on France if we ever went to war with each other. This was a solemn pledge to save the world from Paris after a major nuclear exchange.
#5
Except for JFM's safety (you'd have to let him in on the secret phrase, freq, and time of broadcasts) I'd say this is the most intelligent thing posted today! Lol! Thx, Gorby!
#2
I have a better one for you, Dumpster, explain this position again for us, providing proof:
"Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.
Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.
As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."
I find you to be a pointless poster. Your antipathy toward Bush is dangerous for America and the Free World. Your position makes all of your anti-terrorism comments purely disingenuous blather - for your "President" Gore and your obvious support for Skeery would empower people who have no clue and would leave us open to the terror you claim to eschew. It's a position that outweighs the value of your comments manyfold. You're simply a dangerous idiotarian.
#3
As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."
Furthering com's comment with this quote.... I need some help here. Explain please, what "enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law" really means. Which part of the constitution do you refer to? I seem to be totally enjoying all my constitutional rights. Haven't had anyone ringing my doorbell, or banging down my door lately, hauling me off to jail for no reason. Just ain't happening!
And this part: "This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office." Huh? You got some down to earth examples, or, are these just some big "words of the day" you gathered from a hat and strung them together?
Hey, I'm plain spoken here. Get specific, and maybe I can begin to study your side, maybe even finding some merit in it. But, until you give me something to really chew on, like facts... well, I, too, know how to use a Thesaurus!
#4
for your "President" Gore and your obvious support for Skeery
.com, you need to show specific instances to back up your claims.
Sherry, the DOMA is discriminatory and represents Biblical interpretation being paraded around as law. Attempting to integrate this into America's secular constitution is in direct conflict with anti-discrimination laws already on the books.
The "Office of Faith Based Giving" represents a significant blurring of church and state.
America came to greatness without this sort of parochial legislation or institutionalizing of religion in government. I'd like to see it kept that way.
#5
America came to greatness without this sort of parochial legislation or institutionalizing of religion in government. I'd like to see it kept that way.
No. Just plain no. The founders of this nation were prolific in their mention of God Almighty and the Judeo-Christian Scriptures. NOTHING is spoken in a vacuum, and the founders' world was full of religious meaning and portent. In fact, it was the fervent religious teaching of the 1600s and 1700s that gave way to the cry for liberty from tyranny in 1776. Every word of the US Constitution, every word, must necessarily be read from the point of view of the framers and the populace at large that adopted that Constitution as the moral and political blueprint of this nation. We have religious liberty enshrined in the US Constitution only because religious liberty is an inherently Judeo-Christian concept.
Slow news day... Teresa Heinz Kerry is a millionaire philanthropist and a popular public speaker (?) for her husbandâs presidential campaign. Now she can add scarf designer to her resume. Quite the dilletante, isnât she?
Heinz Kerry has been draping a new red, white and blue silk scarf around her neck that she helped design for her husbandâs campaign. The scarf is covered with little flags and her husbandâs initials and says "John Kerry for President 2004" in script at the bottom. Let me guess... what European country shares those same colors in their flag?
Heinz Kerry worked on the design with professionals at Vineyard Vines in Greenwich, Conn. Vineyard Vines spokeswoman Demi Wasilko said Kerry usually wears the companyâs $65 neckties, favoring bright pastels. WWMT (What Would Martha Think)?
The Vineyard Vines owners worked with the campaign staff to design a John Kerry for President tie, Wasilko said. And after that, maybe a few policy positions with detail and substance...
The campaign tie and scarf â both 100 percent silk â are not available for sale. Just 100 of the scarves and around 400 of the ties were made for the campaign to give to donors. And verrry French!
#8
It is too bad they don't believe in what the flag stands for. I wonder if the "little flags" are displayed upright or upside down like on Ketchup Man's book New Soldier?
Anyone who hasn't seen this despicable picture EMAIL me I'll send a copy on.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
Found via Drudge...
After months of attacking President Bushâs policy on Iraq, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy turned his focus to domestic issues, saying the administration has misled the public about the economy, health care and education. ``As a result, this president has now created the largest credibility gap since Richard Nixon,ââ Kennedy said in a speech Monday at the Brookings Institution, a think tank. ``He has broken the basic bond of trust with the American people.ââ No.. I think Clintonâs Cigar has that honor.....
The senator said the government has cut unemployment benefits, failed to pay for education overhaul and is spending $134 billion more than expected on a Medicare plan. Kennedy has been taking on Bush as one of the most fervent supporters of John Kerry, the Massachusetts senator who is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president. The attack on the administrationâs domestic agenda comes after several high-profile speeches in which Kennedy called the war in Iraq a ``fraudââ and said the plan to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was devised to help Republicans in the 2002 and 2004 elections. Uhhhh Ted... what the hell have you been drinking lately??
In the Brookings Speech, Kennedy branded Iraq as ``George Bushâs Vietnam,ââ but added that the military campaign diverted attention from ``the administrationâs deceptions here at home.ââ The pattern of deception and the administrationâs efforts to dismiss any critics, he said, has polarized and paralyzed Congress and is undermining the publicâs trust in government. ``Saying whatever it takes to prevail has become standard operating procedure in the Bush White House,ââ said Kennedy. ``In this administration, truth is the first casualty of policy.ââ Evidence? Oh thats right... this is a Kennedy....
I think Kennedy and Kerry are projecting ...
#3
In the Brookings Speech, Kennedy branded Iraq as "George Bushâs Vietnam," but added that the military campaign diverted attention from "the administrationâs deceptions here at home."
Check back in nine more years, Tubby, if you're still around then.
#5
I know Raj (You're our long suffering Mass guy, right?) won't appreciate it, but why is California so regularly lampooned for being Looney Heaven when Mass has been at least as Looney for the last hundred years or so? Who else would elect BOTH Toddy and Skeery? Simultaneously! That's pretty fucking looney no matter how you slice it.
And speaking of slicing it, I used to think that if you cut California and Louisiana from the US that you'd eliminate 50% of the fringe extremes of the country in one shot. Nowadays I'm of the mind that I'd miss Pascale's Manale and Jackson Square too much - keep Lousiana and toss Mass in with Laficornia and just whack the LLL extreme. I love Ahnold, but... Nobody in Mass to miss 'cept Raj - and we'd throw him a lifeline, methinks. ;-)
#7
Raj - You're welcome anytime in "fly-over" America, y'know!
tu3031 - Sorry! I didn't know, honest! 2 for 1 sounds great to me!
You guys listen for the "secret phrase" during the Rush Limbaugh shows, K? Remember, it's "The snows of winter will pass with time. HAUL ASS! Patience and preparation will bring a lovely Spring." When you hear Rush casually toss this into his normal show, you'll know you have 12 hours before the first mushroom cloud. Cheers!
#8
"The pattern of deception and the administrationâs efforts to dismiss any critics, he said, has polarized and paralyzed Congress and is undermining the publicâs trust in government."
No, Ted, YOU are undermining the public's trust in government. And you're doing it with deliberate intent, in wartime, for political gain, and you know damned well that what you are doing is jeopardizing your country's very survival.
Not only are you a murderer, a liar and a drunk, you are a traitor as well.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/05/2004 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
We want Ted front-and-center, on the road giving speeches every day between now and November. Target Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania next, Ted. Be sure to tell 'em that you and Kerry agree on just about everything.
Posted by: Matt ||
04/05/2004 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Don't blame me, I'm from Massa- ...er... never mind. I did my part to keep Skeery out of the Senate, but the (R)s didn't even field a candidate: (D) victory by forfeit. Living here long enough, the Free Staters infiltrating NH look more appealing all the time.
#12
I have a tendency (obession) to joke about the senior senator from Mass... Scuba jokes, driving jokes, law enforcement jokes, DA jokes, sealed record jokes. But she's still a corpse and the Senior Senator from Ma. ought to do at least weekend visits to the state pen.
#14
They already are a major inspiration. Everyone from Annan to Zapatero, from the Mad Mullahs of Iran to Yassir Arafart, smells the sweet scent of weakness. And they love it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/05/2004 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#15
If this is a "Vietnam" then it is all our Vietnam. Thanks to the Dimwit left again to remind us of Nam.
Their satisfaction, whether intentional or not, is to run this country into the ground. I'm sure all the troops appreciate that drunk bastards rantings everytime he speaks. GWB won't let that happen again. Powell would "rough" him up before he would allow that.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Actually he originally said "Iraq is George Bush's Chapaquitic" but a senior aide told him that "Vietnam" would have a little more punch to it.
#18
Thanks for watching out for me, Raj.
Yeah, .com. Whenever I go around on vacation, we always get the question when we're "exposed". "What's wrong with you people up there voting for those friggin idiots?"
Then my wife brings up the interesting point that Fat Boy was elected on the day she was born. He's been in the Senate as long as she's been alive.
That makes me ill.
#19
tu / Raj - I'm just funnin' with ya. You have my deepest sympathies - no shit. It's really easy to sit somewhere else and make fun... it has suck to know you're powerless to stop the mad music. Best Regs to you both - and good luck: Your State Law must suck, too, given your neighbors. 8^(
Posted by: Man Bites Dog TROLL ||
04/05/2004 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#21
well, from Sunny San Diego I can say anyone trying to disassociate this republican bastion from the states is gonna have to come through me, my Pendleton Marine neighbors, the (32nd st) Pacific Fleet, and MCAS Miramar - if you're man enuf? I don't think so...
California's a big damn state - you might wanna reconsider writing it off, based solely on our fruits and nuts
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/05/2004 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Frank G - Lol! In your best DeNiro Taxi Driver:
"You talking to me?
Lol! Hey I lived in Sammy Dago for the last 2.5 yrs before going back to SA - I LOVED Del Mar. But the State Taxes Suck! Hence Nevada, today. ;-)
#23
"No, Ted, YOU are undermining the public's trust in government. And you're doing it with deliberate intent, in wartime, for political gain, and you know damned well that what you are doing is jeopardizing your country's very survival."
Well said, Dave. Their words speak a tome of what really is important to the Demorats.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 21:59 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Ted makes an interesting point. What would have happened in Vietnam with Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Tommy Franks, the reserves called up, finacial backing by Congress...?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
#25
We in Colorado made the mistake of saying the "decent" folks from California were welcome to move out here and settle down. We were invaded by dummycheats, instead. We've spent the last ten years beating them down, keeping them at bay, and gradually re-educating them. It's been a long, hard fight, and a couple of times we almost lost it. Conservatism still isn't guaranteed here - the influx of "D"s that came to (mostly) Denver beginning in the late 1960's through the mid-1990's heavily tilted several state congressional districts. The one thing that disturbs me the most is that many of the people that moved here left California because of the "stupid laws", then tried to pass the SAME laws as soon as they got settled here.
Massaholitch has a problem - their politicians all belong to the same half-dozen families that have too much money, the same stupid ideas, and the power to squash anybody that tries to take their toys away from them. The only remedy is a combination of term limits and post-partum birth control for the terminally asshatted stupid.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/05/2004 23:41 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Old Patriot: I too, decry, the ruination of our state. Don't ya wish we would've said "git out and git gone!" twenty years ago? And I'm even a Boulder native. The Californians simply cannot learn our ways, and their ways suck. There's a lesson in there, somewhere, regarding the WOT, methinks.
#27
I asked my boss who's from Mass why the people there keep putting Teddy back in the senate and she hung her head and basically said because he has deep pockets and alot of power. And she's a liberal! She doesn't appear to be very proud of him.
Posted by: AF Lady ||
04/05/2004 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
Posted in full (such as it is)
Sen. John McCain yesterday unleashed an attack on his own party, saying the GOP is ``astrayââ on key issues and criticizing President Bush on the war in Iraq. Sore loser. Still got your eyes on the prize eh John?
``I believe my party has gone astray,ââ McCain said, criticizing GOP stands on environmental and minority issues. Actually, I think that one of our senators has gone astray.
``I think the Democratic Party is a fine party, and I have no problems with it, in their views and their philosophy,ââ he said. ``But I also feel the Republican Party can be brought back to the principles I articulated before.ââ This is a badly edited article but really, John, why the hell do you still have an R in front of your name? I really wouldnât object to you changing that to a D... just take Specter with you when you do it!
The maverick senator made the remarks at a legislative seminar hosted by U.S. Rep. Martin T. Meehan (D-Lowell) as he again ruled out running on a ticket with Democrat John F. Kerry. McCain has been insisting that he isnât going to do that a little too much lately. Again, we wonât miss you John.
The Arizona Republican took on President Bush for failing to prepare Americans for a long involvement in Iraq, saying, ``You canât fly in on an aircraft carrier and declare victory and have the deaths continue. You canât do that.ââ Well, he didnât, but since you are giving a speach to a bunch of Democrats I guess the truth is optional. Or maybe its like BYOB (bring your own beer) at a party.... BYOT?
McCain said the U.S. should seek more U.N. involvement in Iraq. ``Many people in this room question, legitimately, whether we should have gone in or not,ââ he said, adding that that debate ``will be part of this presidential campaign.ââ Probably not. The election will be about how well the economy is doing at the time of the election and, frankly, about how many votes Nader can pull from the left. Iâm guessing a lot.
#1
I've seen those exact same quotes in the exact same scenario over a month ago. Is McCain using the same lines in the same place or is this just old news being recycled for additional effect?
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
04/05/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Sounds like McCain is working up his nerve to join the Kerry team, either before the election or as a cabinet member afterwards.
#3
He's at least hedging his bets - just in case Skeery wins 2004. I do NOT believe he'll cross over - that would put off his chance to be prez til 2012 - and he's too old for that.
Looking down the road it's easy to see that if the sky falls and Skeery does win, the grief we'll suffer for having a paper-tiger as president will make 2008 a probable shoo-in for the Pubs, IMHO. Who did the Israelis elect when Intifada II was launched against them? Same Same here, methinks. When appeasement and MultiCulti BS fails for the US, as Spain is seeing up close and personal right now, the backlash will be strong. And who's laying down the "quote line" for that day? McCain may be a true prick, but he's a smart prick.
#4
"The Arizona Republican took on President Bush for failing to prepare Americans for a long involvement in Iraq..."
Say fucking WHAT????? Seems to me GWB has made it damn clear, a number of times, that we have a lot of difficult, dangerous work ahead of us; and that others in the administration have spoken of "a long, hard slog," I believe the phrase was.
Has our whole damn country been reduced to a bunch of ninnies with 15-minute attention spans? Doesn't anybody LISTEN anymore? Or they all too busy watching "Reality TV" or whatever silly, brainless substitute for reality is being pushed these days?
Jesus, I'm glad we aren't being called upon to fight WWII today...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/05/2004 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Anyone out there remember what happened to that "Recall McCain" effort from a while back? The last I heard, Arizona Republicans were rather ticked off at having him decide he was elected to represent the DNC...
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
04/05/2004 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
McCain is just preparing an "exit strategy" from the GOP in case the info gets out about what he really did in Nam.
#7
Well I guess the Kerry-Fonda ticket just ain't gonna happen.VP McCain. This is the Dims hope for this election. Mark it. Kerry-McCain. Won't matter to most Vets though. Kerry is dog meat.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 21:09 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Powerline blogged this this weekend, and I noted that McCain (along with Jon Kyl) is co-chair of the re-elect Bush campaign - how awkward would that be, to accept Kerry's VP offer (should it really happen). OTOH - he should learn when to STFU....perhaps if Karl Rove learned Vietnamese?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/05/2004 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#9
When is McCain's seat next contested?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
Several Navy officers who supervised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry when he commanded a swift boat in Vietnam are preparing to publicly question his war record - including the circumstances under which he was awarded three Purple Hearts - a noted Vietnam War historian revealed on Sunday. Burkett, whose 1999 book, "Stolen Valor," is considered to be the definitive history of of falsified Vietnam War claims, told WABC Radioâs Steve Malzberg that Kerryâs former commanders would allege that the top Democratâs Purple Hearts were awarded for "self-reported injuries that were virtually nonexistent."
"He never got a day of treatment, he never spent a day in a medical facility," Burkett said. "These were all self-reported wounds, which youâre going to hear from some swift boat guys in the future as to the nature of those wounds." Burkett said he had personally spoken to the Navy commanders who were preparing to go public about Kerryâs decorations. "Youâre going to get quite a showing [of those speaking out]," Burkett told Malzberg. "I donât know [the number] yet. Theyâre trying to get it to be unanimous of every swift boat guy who ever served." As to the timetable for the upcoming revelations, Burkett said that Kerryâs superior officers "were still discussing that."
"Youâve got some major rallys being planned against John Kerry by Vietnam veterans on the mall, at the convention - this type of thing," he said. "And weâre going to make America aware of John Kerryâs military record." This is long overdue.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 8:20:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the purple hearts were one thing
what about the silver star; is that medal in question also?
#2
It will be interesting to see what emerges on the silver star.
My understanding is that the actions for which he submitted his own citation were not directly witnessed by anyone else. However, I've not been following the details of this carefully - Super Hose, you have any comments???
Some people have analyzed the action leading to the Silver Star and found that the action was less admirable: in fact a series of blunders and bravado who put his ship and crew in nedless danger.
But now consider this: there were only four witnesses, all of them were subordinate to Kerry and all of them got a Bronze Star thanks to Kerry testimony.
"Some people have analyzed the action leading to the Silver Star and found that the action was less admirable: in fact a series of blunders and bravado who put his ship and crew in nedless danger..."
FWIW, Bill Clinton managed to get a CMOH approved for Theodore Roosevelt for the fight at San Juan Hill (Clinton's aim was to get the Roosevelt family, still active in Democratic politics in NY, on Algore's side for 2000). TR's actions that day - while brave - resulted in the loss of more than a few US soldiers. Seems he didn't want to wait for orders to advance and kept inching the regiment forward under fire. Had he not charged, the Rough Riders may well have been pushed back past their starting point.
Up until the last few days, I had never agreed with Kerry's politics, but I always had some respect for the man's service. It's now starting to appear that he emulated his idol Kennedy in more ways than one, right down to the decoration for getting his backside in a crack.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
04/05/2004 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I can't vouch for the truthfullness of this but according to 2 accounts I read about John Kerry's Silver Star award he apparently jumped out of his boat and shot a VC who had already been hit by 50 calibre machine gun fire. He claimed the VC was aiming his weapon at the people in the boat.
1. You did not leave your boat for any reason. This action puts not only yourself at uneeded risk but your crew mates as well.
2. I have seen first hand what happens to a human body hit by 50 Cal. fire and there is usually not much left. It just seems a bit hard to believe that a VC who had been hit could still get up.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/05/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Kerry's leather bomber jacket has a patch on it. Has he been doing mssions over Iraq?
I also heard that the 3 purple heart thing made his early exit out of VN possible. Not sure whether that rule was true or not. Anybody?
Two other points (but I warn they could be inspitred by Anti-Kerry passion).
1) Kerry was very well connected. An ambitious commanding officer could want to reward that mere lieutenant who was so close to influential Democrats to be admitted on John Fitgerald Kennedy's yacht.
2) At that time Kerry wasn't rich for the standards of his family ie the Forbes. But he
was rich compared to the four sailors who were the only witnesses in the action who got Kerry a Silver Star (and a Bronze Star for them).
Please, I have no proof and I reiterate I am biased. Just that my trust on medals is higher when they are awarded to Lieutenant Peniless Smith.
#13
Here is a copy of Kerry's Silver Star citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action while serving with Coastal Division ELEVEN engaged in armed conflict with Viet Cong insurgents in An Xuyen Provence, Republic of Vietnam on 28 February, 1969. Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY was serving as Officer in Charge of Patrol Craft Fast 94 and Officer in Tactical Command of a three boat mission. As the force approached the target area on the narrow Dong Chung River, all units came under intense automatic weapons and small arms fire from an entrenched enemy force less that fifty-feet away. Unhesitatingly Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered his boat to attack as all units opened fire and beached directly in front of the enemy ambushers this daring and courageous tactic surprised the enemy and succeeded in routing a score of enemy soldiers. The PCF gunners captured many enemy weapons in the battle that followed. On a request from U.S. Army advisors ashore, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY ordered PCF's 94 and 23 further up river to suppress enemy sniper fire. After proceeding approximately eight hundred yards, the boats were again taken under fire from a heavily foliated area and B-40 rocket exploded close aboard PCF 94: with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets, he again ordered a charge on the enemy, beached his boat only ten feet from the VC rocket position, and personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy. Upon sweeping the area an immediate search uncovered an enemy rest and supply area which was destroyed. The extra ordinary daring and personal courage of Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY in attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire were responsible for the highly successful mission. His actions were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.
Beached boats twice under fire and led a charge? I smell a fine ripe French cheese.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/05/2004 16:03 Comments ||
Top||
#14
As I said before, you don't beach your boat and go ashore. You lose all the advantages of manuver and become a sitting duck. Your boat can't leave until you are back aboard and if you become a casuality while ashore you expose the rest of your crew mwmbers to unnecessary danger. I don't remember exactly how many crew members a boat has but I don't think it's above 6 or 8.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
04/05/2004 16:18 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Agreed, Deacon. First order of buisness: clear the ambush. That's doctrine. You will probably be going back in, but not until the AF guys give it a good pasting. Napalmolive treatment.
#18
Well guys you could all write to your Congressmen. This won't stay under the radar forever. There are going to be a couple of large marches this summer by NAM Vets against Kerry. I'd love to see a hundred thousand turn out in DC and Boston. Yes I'm going before anyone asks.
Posted by: Bill Nelson ||
04/05/2004 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Late 2005, conversation overheard in a smoky bar: "who is this "Kerry" you speak of?"
ON September 13, 1987, two scrap metal scavengers broke into an abandoned radiotherapy clinic in the Brazilian city of Goiania. They broke open a machine containing a radioactive material, cesium chloride, and took a pile of scrap away by wheelbarrow.
By the end of the day, both men were vomiting and one had diarrhoea. They sold their scrap to a junkyard dealer. He began showing the "glowing blue powder" to family and friends. By the time the danger had been identified and contained, five people had died, 28 had suffered radiation burns, 249 were contaminated, and 112,000 people had to be tested for radiation.
This was, unwittingly, the Western worldâs first experience with a "dirty bomb", albeit a small and accidental one, and the message was dark. A recently published study, Dirty Bombs: The Threat Revisited, written by two scientists from the National Defence University in Washington, concludes: "Many experts believe an RDD [radiological dispersion device] is an economic weapon capable of inflicting devastating damage on the US. This paper is in full agreement with that assessment ..."
The report states that a well-placed RDD would ruin the heart of a major city. It could contaminate several hectares, requiring contaminated buildings to be razed and the debris and topsoil removed. A bomb isnât even necessary. Radiation could be released through smoke or aerosol, an attack unnoticed until after it had happened.
And the ingredients are available on the open market. "By far the most likely route for terrorist acquisition of intermediate quantities of radioactive material is open and legal purchase from a legitimate supplier," the report concludes. "Given the relatively weak and lax laws and regulations surrounding the storage, sale and shipment of radiological source material, coupled with the vast number of orphaned and unprotected sources located throughout Russia and former Soviet states, a determined and well-financed group easily could obtain even quite large sources openly."
Determined and well-financed sources have indeed been busy. In The New Yorker of March 8 the investigative reporter Seymour Hersh quotes a former senior American intelligence officialâs dismay at the lenient treatment of A.Q. Khan, the scientist who built Pakistanâs nuclear program and the man most culpable for the illegal spread of nuclear weapons technology: "Khan was willing to sell blueprints, centrifuges and the latest in weaponry. He was the worst nuclear-arms proliferator in the world and heâs been pardoned - with not a squeak from the White House."
Hersh describe a nuclear black market centred on Pakistan, implicating Pakistani intelligence, with main distribution points in Malaysia and the free-trade zone in Dubai. He quotes an unnamed official from the International Atomic Energy Agency: "I was absolutely struck by what the Libyans were able to buy. Whatâs on the black market is absolutely horrendous.
"IAEA inspectors, to their dismay, even found in Libya precise blueprints for the design and construction of a [450 kilogram] nuclear weapon. âItâs a sweet little bomb, put together by engineers who know how to assemble a weapon,â an official in Vienna told me. âNo question it will work ... Itâs too big and too heavy for a Scud, but itâll go into a family car. Itâs a terroristâs dream."â
Robert Gallucci, a former UN weapons inspector, told Hersh: "Bad as it is with Iran, North Korea and Libya having nuclear weapons material, the worst part is that they could transfer it to a non-state group. Thatâs the biggest concern. Thatâs the scariest thing about all this - that Pakistan could work with the worst terrorist groups on earth to build nuclear weapons. The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan, and second is Iran."
And letâs not forget the thirst for huge conventional bombs. Last Tuesday, 700 British police and MI5 intelligence officers mounted a sweep, codenamed Crevis, which picked up eight men and half a tonne of ammonium nitrate, the same fertiliser used in the bomb attacks in Bali. All were radical Muslims. Seven of the eight came from Pakistani immigrant families.
Two days before the raid an eminent analyst of the Islamic world, Professor Fouad Ajami, of Johns Hopkins University, writing for The Wall Street Journal, addressed the issue of why Muslims born in the liberal West would wage war and mass murder on the liberal West: "In the 1980s, terrible civil wars were fought in Arab and Islamic countries ... Defeated opponents took to the road: from Hamburg and London and Copenhagen, the battle was now joined. If accounts were to be settled with rulers back home, the work of subversion would be done from Europe. Muslim brotherhoods sprouted all over the continent. There were welfare subsidies in the new surroundings, money, constitutional protections and rules of asylum to fight the old struggle ..."
So many immigrants escaped, legally and illegally, from the economic stagnation of the Arab world that 15 million Muslims now live in Western Europe. Cultural fault-lines have opened up. Ajami writes: "Political-religious radicals savoured the space afforded them by Western civil society. But they resented the logic of assimilation ... You would have thought that the pluralism and tumult of this open European world would spawn a version of the faith to match it. But precisely the opposite happened ...
"Europe is host to a war between order and its enemies, fuelled by demography: 40 per cent of the Arab world is under 14. Demographers tell us that the fertility replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman. Europe is frightfully below this level ... Fertility rates in the Islamic world are altogether different: 3.2 in Algeria, 3.4 in Egypt and Morocco, 5.2 in Iraq and 6.1 in Saudi Arabia. This is Europeâs neighbourhood, and its contemporary fate."
The velocity of murder is increasing. On Saturday came reports from Spain that an al-Qaeda plot to bomb a high-speed train between Madrid and Seville, packed with Easter pilgrims, had been foiled by mere chance.
The Cold War has been replaced by a hot war. The murder and intimidation of "infidels" has become an end in itself. In this war, Iraq is a sideshow. The main front is the race for a dirty bomb, and the monumental amount of blackmail that comes attached.
Posted by: tipper ||
04/05/2004 12:10:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lets say you placed a dirty bomb at an intersection for maximum dispersion. Can't you just use fire hoses to wash the material into the sewers?
This is one of those threats that is overblown I think. Now the giant alligators that attack the city a year later, THATS a real threat.
#2
Everybody: Read this article! If anyone is still doubting that we're in a war, or that we should go home and forget it, this puts such to rest. And we better make sure we win.
Problem: I'm afraid many Americans and Westerners won't understand what's happening and support the appropriate actions until it's too late.
Excerpts:
"The most dangerous country for the United States now is Pakistan, and second is Iran."
The Cold War has been replaced by a hot war. The murder and intimidation of "infidels" has become an end in itself. In this war, Iraq is a sideshow.
If any of y'all out there have something encouraging to say regarding the info in this article, I'd like to hear it. The Fallujah thing certainly pales in comparison.
#3
I assume the jihadis are aware that a dirty bomb in, say, Trafalgar Square, Times Square, Red Square, etc. might result in similar treatment for a certain popular black monolith and a few other select desert attractions? Needn't even be anything officially sanctioned, of course.
#4
BD - This is a job for Stephen King's character "Trashman" from The Stand... Just send him on the hajj and tell him Randall Flagg, "his Lord", requires it.
#5
I assume the jihadis are aware that a dirty bomb in, say, Trafalgar Square, Times Square, Red Square, etc. might result in similar treatment for a certain popular black monolith and a few other select desert attractions? Needn't even be anything officially sanctioned, of course.
Why shouldn't it be "officially sanctioned?"
If these maggots want to wreak nuclear terror on the West, then we need to start glassing over and windexing their most precious Holy sites. Wanna play tough with world powers? Fine, just be ready to accept some unbelievably dire consequences.
"Jen, only when and if he is ever properly elected will I then be grudgingly obliged to address him as you wish I would. His intentional blurring of the separation between church and state while simultaneously attempting to constitutionalize discrimination gets nothing but scorn from me.
Thank goodness we live in a country where we can disagree on this matter. Please know that you indeed have the privilege to dislike me for what I say, that is entirely your right. Understand one thing though, I don't do this to intentionally anger or offend you or anybody else.
As a proud American I cannot abide the White House's ham-fisted tampering with both the duties of executive office or our beloved constitution. Whatever proper intransigence might be shown for terrorism (as is demanded of all worthy commander in chiefs) still in no way confers any right to enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law, especially not in a nation wholly founded upon secular ideals. This is what he's attempting and my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office. Hence my scorn."
Oh, Dumpster, you're a treasure.
What a load of juicy bullshit.
He IS the duly elected President of the United States, fucktard. Proof that all else you may say is at the very least suspect, if not outright total fucking bullshit. You're full of shit.
Your notion that he is "constitutionalizing discrimination" is truly insane. Proof? You're full of shit.
You provide no proof of any "ham-fisted" actions - or anything even remotely associated. You're full of shit.
As an atheist, I know he has not done anything that hasn't been done before for the last 30 years to "enshrine religious commandment as constitutional law". I most certainly would've noticed. You're full of shit.
The phrase "my own ethicality demands that I consider it to be nothing less than malfeasance of office" is so utterly asinine and disingenuous as to be breathtaking. You couldn't prove any aspect of that charge if your worthless life depended upon it. You're full of shit.
It is clear that you're one thoroughly conflicted and fucked up induhvidual - and given your comments, so anti-Bush that you'd remove him from office if you could. You obviously think President Gore is being denied his constitutional rights. You're fucking insane. It is not unreasonable to presume you will vote against Bush, therefore, so you are in league with the enemy - there is no sane RBer who could possibly believe Skeery would be worth warm spit in the Wot - your pathetic little aside about Commanders in Chief notwithstanding. You are unbelievably amazingly self-defeatingly massively full of shit.
#8
Another regular on Rantburg also has trouble with Zenster--told me he's not to be trusted. Remembesr he likes to call President Bush "Shrub." Hmm. Zendude, what say you?
Record-breaking multitudes over a span of many weeks have now viewed Mel Gibsonâs "The Passion of the Christ" in every major and far-flung U.S. locale, and not one American synagogue has been torched or Jewish cemetery vandalized by the Christian faithful who have seen the movie. Having been forewarned that in medieval Europe, passion plays and Easter sermons roused the public to immediate pillaging of Jews and their property, Americans should be proud that the warnings by Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League of anti-Semitic outbreaks did not materialize here.
I never had any doubts, since it has been obvious for decades that American Christianity embodies a warm and symbiotic attachment to the Jewish religion, believing as it does in a Judeo-Christian ethic with strong, literal emphasis on the Old Testament. Such did not prevail in pre-World War II Europe, which viewed the Jewish religion as basically illegitimate. Moreover, Americans, in contrast to Europeans, have repeatedly shown themselves to be philo-Semitic. In America, Jews are not considered "outsiders." ....
Anti-Semitism is a real problem in the world today, but it mostly arises from the Muslim world and the political left. Itâs easy to attack American Christians, schooled on love and forbearance, who will never requite these attacks with any sort of comparable intensity. It takes real bravery to confront the anti-Semitism of militant Islamists and left-wingers who have been inclined to physical violence.
The Muslim world may well use this Christian film to depict Jews as evil and further their anti-Jewish propaganda. They do so steadily with the fictitious and European-based Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and every week some state-sponsored Egyptian newspaper carries editorial cartoons depicting Jews as apes, devils, Nazis. Last week Reuters reported that " âThe Passion of the Christâ is all the rage among Palestinians, curious about complaints by Jews that it is anti-Semitic." Likewise in much of Europe, predisposed as it is to Jew-hatred, the movie may stir continued demonization of Jews.
In contrast, American Christian leaders will continue to use this as an opportunity to show friendship to the Jewish community, ignoring the taunts of Abe Foxman and the vulgarities of Frank Rich. To be sure, even in America there will be occasional incidents of anti-Semitism, as there were before the film, but in a nation of almost 300 million, they will be statistically insignificant.
The heads of American Jewish organizations ignited this world-wide controversy by implying that American Christians are but one movie away from attacking their Jewish neighbors. Now that the evidence is in, will they apologize?
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
04/05/2004 7:53:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But....but.....us Yankees are so violent! What do you mean we haven't been acting up and the Europeans might? Aren't they better than us?
I read somewhere that they are actually trying to ban the movie in parts of Europe because they think it will incite antisemitism. The sad thing is they might be right. And parts of the Arab world have been using the film to prove that Jews kill prophets (implying that they would have killed Big Mo if given the chance). I guess they're big fans of Jesus if it suits their jihad.
#3
You have to be taught hatred you are not born with it. It's only the Fringe right and the left that would conclude that American Christians are anti jewish. At mass this weekend we offered a prayer to Jews. Really vile hatred spewing there.
#4
Anti-Semitism is a real problem in the world today, but it mostly arises from the Muslim world and the political left. It's easy to attack American Christians, schooled on love and forbearance, who will never requite these attacks with any sort of comparable intensity. It takes real bravery to confront the anti-Semitism of militant Islamists and left-wingers who have been inclined to physical violence.
Too bad the courage of the IDF has not been matched by the lawyers and leaders of the ADL.
#5
1. My daughter reports a boy in her 6th grade class saying "jews suck"
America is the greatest country on earth, a damned sight better for Jews than ANY country in Europe, and MOST American Christians ARE followers of Christian ethics, and are NOT antisemitic. But antisemitism still exists here, and it is not unreasonable for the ADL to worry about it. They do a damned good job of it. And its not so long ago that antisemitism WAS more widespread here. Im not saying the movie in question IS antisemitic - but if an antisemitic film by a big director WERE shown here, i think that would be a cause for concern.
2. ADL supporters include people who visit Israel despite the danger, and who have relatives there. The ADL is quite aware of the dangers of Islamic violence and spends much effort on it, and on antisemitism in Europe.
TO get a better idea of what the ADL actually does take a look at its website.
#6
LH, do you agree that the large majority of the people who would go to see this are committed Protestants and practicing Catholics - two demographic groups that predominantly support Israel?
I'm sure there are anti-semites who support Israel, but there can't be many of them.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 15:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Could you imagine the Catholic Church making such broad statements about Jews, being publicly proven wrong, and not having a retraction and apology demanded? Sauce for the goose...
The ADL at least owes a public "I'm Sorry" to Mel Gibson and the Christian Community for tarring it with the idea that Christians would go after Jews as a result of this film.
Where's the Mea Culpa from the ADL and very vocal critics in the press?
By ANITA MILLER - News Editor
A gasp of disbelief, a sad shake of the head and a feeling of general disgust. Thatâs how San Marcos residents reacted Saturday morning at the sight of graffiti spray-painted on the still under construction Hays County Veterans Memorial. Sometime overnight, someone used yellow spray paint to write "Kill Bush" on a section of the memorial where names of local veterans are displayed on a sloping wall. The same slogan, along with others, was repeated on the back of the memorial. "Itâs very disgusting," said Robert Guerrero, who served in Germany during the Vietnam era. "I have a lot of friends right there who gave their lives for this country," he added, pointing to the portion of the monument where the names of soldiers killed in action - which wasnât vandalized - are displayed. "Itâs just disgusting." Comments of some others who stopped by the memorial Saturday morning are unfit for publishing in a family newspaper. Fortunately, Rantburg is not a family newspaper. Fuck these animals with a red-hot poker.
Santiago Villarreal, a Vietnam veteran whose name is not yet displayed on the wall, said his initial feeling was one of sadness. "These are all veterans who did for their country, some who gave all," he said. "Itâs just sad, sad that someone would vandalize something like this. Especially right now with all thatâs happening in Iraq, it should be bringing more people together."
"It was someone without a conscience or a heart, itâs terrible," said his wife Rose. "They gave no thought of what these men and women go through - what they sacrifice. Itâs too beautiful - the cost, the manpower. Whoever did this I pray that God will take care of it." The 26 bricks that were defaced represented military service from World War II through the Vietnam War and included members of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Richard Cruz, the Vietnam vet who has been spearheading the project since its inception years ago, believe the paint can be removed without damaging the engraved bricks. The graffiti scrawled on the back of the monument should be easy to remove because it is on areas that will be covered with dirt or stucco, he pointed out. "In the back of my mind I have always been concerned something like this might happen," Cruz said, though he never thought it would occur before the project was even complete. "Itâs hard, trying to complete a project like this being short on funds. Obstacles like this kind of set you back."
Cruz said although volunteers have been recently working on the memorialâs lights, they are not currently functioning. Had they been, someone passing by might have been more likely to see the culprits at work. "Right now itâs still kind of shady, dark. I think once we have lighting it may be a hold back for someone to commit this type of crime," he said, urging everyone in the community to report such occurrences if they see them. "Iâm angry," Cruz said. "This is to honor people who have served in the military for their service. I donât know what Bush has to do with this memorial. This wall here," he said with a sweep of his hand, "Bush wasnât even in office. I donât see the tie-in." The Villarreals noted that the memorial isnât just for honoring the past but the future as well. "Our 10-year-old son raised funds for this at DeZavala School. He was one of the winners of a poster contest and got to ride in the Veterans Day float. He was so tickled and honored and proud to be a part of this and now look," Rose Villarreal said. Donations to help complete the marker can still be made, and are indeed more crucial now as clean-up will add to the overall cost. Contributions can be mailed to: Hays County Veterans Memorial, P.O. Box 1503, San Marcos, TX, 78667-1503. For general information, visit www.sanmarcos.net/veteransmemorial or contact Cruz at 245-2502 or 393-8400. San Marcos has its own minor LLL nest. This is centered around some fossilized 60s-era draft dodgers on the faculty of Texas State University. Austin, a stronghold for really aggressive (that is, former redneck) retro-LLLs, is just 40 miles away but its left-tard parasites seldom if ever venture into the outside world.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy ||
04/05/2004 8:01:29 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Probably need to explain what I meant about the Austin hippies not venturing into the outside world.
The 60s counterculture is alive and well there, and it is probably one of the most narcissistic, self-contained, and self-important micro-cultures in the world.
A while back, I managed to convince a couple of 60s-throwback Anthropology TAs there that Lubbock had no internet access except on the Texas Tech campus and that there were only 11 channels on the local cable company.
The 'tards believed me, for real.
#4
Raptor, you forget to mention the shards of glass embedded in the cane.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
04/05/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Give them a Native American Rub with a Pakistani kite string.
Would it help if local legislation was passed to prevent anyone over 45 from purchasing spray paint within town jurisdiction?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
04/05/2004 11:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Don't forget the mix of Rubbing Alcohol and Brine to rinse off the blood and cleanse those deep seeping cuts!.... AC, I'll bet you also forgot to tell your friends about the Cement Pond and running water!
Posted by: Jack Deth ||
04/05/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
im liking 6th street in austin. lots of hot chick there.
#11
"Sometime overnight, someone used yellow spray paint to write 'Kill Bush' on a section of the memorial where names of local veterans are displayed on a sloping wall."
Advocating the assassination of a POTUS. Bad form.
#13
AP, how far can we dump a load of numbwits from "civilization" in Alaska, or should we ask the Danes for the use of a bit of Greenland tundra?
I don't want to soil my hands with these pieces of ambulatory fecal matter. I would rather just provide one-way transportation to a specific point on the globe, and let them find their own way home. I want it to be difficult, and if it takes a lifetime, so be it.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/05/2004 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
#14
O.P. Hell drop them off near the Afghan / Pak border - On some mountainside. Oh and make sure you make a *lot* of noise doing it.
LONDON, April 2 (Reuters) - Iraq's U.S.-led authority is planning to introduce a U.S.-style bankruptcy law which will increase protection for foreign investors, a consultant to the CPA said on Friday. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) -- headed by U.S. administrator Paul Bremer -- is currently passing up to 100 pieces of legislation ahead of a handover to an Iraqi-led government, timetabled for June 30.
One expected change will clarify creditors' protection under a new bankruptcy law. This is considered important in order to mobilise the billions of dollars of inward investment the country needs to regenerate its economy. "Whether the economy moves forward depends on the confidence bankers have that they will be repaid," Daniel Fitzpatrick told Reuters. "The new bankruptcy law will contribute towards the predictability of that process."
A group of Iraqi lawyers and foreign consultants worked on the amendments to the old bankruptcy law and circulated them among domestic and foreign agencies, including Iraqi bankers, judges and the World Bank. One of the most important amendments to the law is a clarification that secured creditors will rank first in the distribution of assets of a bankrupt company. Other amendments include softening punishments for managers of bankrupt companies -- which included imprisonment and prohibition from holding various jobs -- and encouraging negotiated work-outs between a debtor and its creditors.
"One of the goals of the legislation is fostering a more entrepreneurial, risk-friendly culture," said Fitzpatrick.
A troubled company will have protection from its creditors while it negotiates a reorganisation plan which the creditors can then vote on -- a process generally similar to the U.S. Chapter 11 bankruptcy procedure. Under other amendments, Iraqi courts will be authorised to recognise cross-border bankruptcy procedures, for instance when a multinational company working in Iraq gets into financial trouble.
The next stage for the law is consideration by the Iraqi Governing Council, followed by a formal signing by Bremer.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/05/2004 12:49:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds real messy! Will Iraqi's forgive someone's debt because he's filed for bankrutpcy, or ask for their children instead.
#2
Was it posted on this site that only Bremer's worth his salt, that W's put in sons of campaign contributors and they're making a mess of everything???
L. Paul Bremer, Iraq's civilian administrator, took another step Saturday toward fully restoring Iraqi sovereignty by a June 30 deadline, turning over control of a second ministry to the country's interim leaders. The education ministry became the second to gain its independence from the Coalition Provisional Authority, which has ruled Iraq since toppling the former regime on April 9, 2003. On March 28, Bremer gave interim health minister Khidr Abbas the key to his ministry, one of the 25 that form the transitional government in Iraq. ''As we look to the construction of Iraq's future, no ministry, no part of the government, is more important than the ministry of education,'' Bremer said at the hand-over. Interim education minister Alaaeddin Alwan said one of his priorities will be ''restoring Iraqi education to at least reach the level of the 1980s,'' which marked the onset of a decline. He said the ministry will train the 290,000 teachers in cooperation with the United States Agency for International Development and the U.N. agencies responsible for children and educational issues. The World Bank has agreed to give the ministry a $100 million grant for infrastructure projects and new books, Alwan said.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/05/2004 12:35:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
