From MEMRI, excerpts from a Friday sermon at Finsbury Park Mosque in London, delivered by Sheikh Abu Hamza Al-Masri.
.... one should not pray for the souls of members of the security forces in our countries, if they are killed while fighting Islamists. One should under no circumstances pray for their souls because they fight for the taghut. They are fighting for ... the presence of Jews and Christians in the Arabian Peninsula. .... To pray for such people in mosques makes a mockery of the religion of Allah, because it misleads people and makes them believe that these are fighters for Allah, whereas they kill Muslim men and women unjustly. .... Those who fight for the taghut go to hell. Since they are in hell, then one should not pray for their souls, and one should not mislead people in this matter. ....
We find even among the Palestinian youth — the girls, the women, and the children ... — what unites all ... is their love of death for the sake of Allah .... The Prophet Muhammad said: '... I wish that I should fight for Allah and be killed and come back to life, and fight, and be killed, and come back to life, and fight, and be killed.' And he repeated that time and again. ....
Abu Dharr was among those who, when asked what they love best in this world, said: 'I love death.' He said, 'I love illness, I love hunger, and I love death.' The Prophet asked him: 'Why do you love that which by nature other people hate, Abu Dharr?' And he answered: 'I love hunger because when I am hungry my heart becomes gentle; I love illness because when I am ill my sins decrease; and I love death because when I die I shall meet my Lord.' ....
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/13/2004 2:00:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is it possible that Emmeline Grangerford was Palestinian? Here is one of her poems:
O no. Then list with tearful eye,
Whilst I his fate do tell.
His soul did from this cold world fly,
By falling down a well.
They got him out and emptied him;
Alas it was too late;
His spirit had gone for to sport aloft
In the realms of the good and great.
Sounds like she loved death as well.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/13/2004 2:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The Hookless wonder rides again.. Awww, I kinda miss him..
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/13/2004 4:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
That is touching.
You know some of you should visit a graveyard, it tends to soften your hearts. At least that is what I heard. and please don't crack any jokes about the graves of the 11/9 victims. That would be cruel, and so was thier death.
#4
Gentle - do you sympathise with all this talk of loving death, illness etc.? If it's so widely held amongst Muslim fundamentalists, does that explain Iran's seemingly suicidal belligerence towards the West? They actually want to be nuked? Do you, yourself, look forward to your own death?
#14
I'm agnostic. Based on my own life's experience, the only rational conclusion I can come to (which is, I'll admit, a fairly optimistic one), is that there is just no tangible proof of a divinity or higher power. That doesn't mean there isn't one, just that the evidence is lacking. No organised religion I have encountered or know of offers what I would consider to be anything approaching sufficient evidence to substantiate its claims as representing 'God' or 'gods'. Books alone mean nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the world's holy books probably spawned from as much genuinely divine inspiration as Das Kapital. They perform the same function, which is to attempt to capture, codify and sanctify memes proscribing acceptable conduct in a successfuly functioning society. Some work better than others, some are more malign and aggressive than others.
I apologise to any who take offence at this, but my attitude to religion is the same as my attitude to politics: sceptical. I take nothing on trust, and am only interested in evidence.
#17
Aye, soccer football jihad - it's the future I tell you.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/13/2004 8:02 Comments ||
Top||
#18
But I do have proof.
there are scientific facts mentioned in the quran and which are being discovered NOW.
Please take a look at this link:
www.it-is-truth.org/Index.shtml
By the way, muslims are clever. They too need proof that what they believe is the truth. There is enough proof in the Quran to convince even the most sceptical.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/13/2004 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Always be wary of explanations of the origin of the universe which don't use squiggly, incomprehendable algebra. Didn't see much truth their Gentle - In the beautiful nature there must be a Great Creator who makes these great pieces of art and produces everything for a special purpose in life
i.e. 'Because there must be...' Mmmm, all the proof I need, now let's kill some infidels...
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/13/2004 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I've studied molecular biology to a high level, Gentle. None of the 'embryology' revelations are convincing in the slightest. Perhaps Allah had spent (a short time) pulling Mohammed's leg something rotten...
I won't say that Muslims aren't clever, but it's pretty stupid and/or ignorant to take any of the material you linked to seriously.
#24
Wow Murat and Gentle in the same day. Where is Not Micheal Moore for a trifecta? Give up on Gentle folks, she is nothing more than a Liberalplatituditron.
"... However many Muslim are completely unaware that all of the information in the Qur'an about embryology had already been revealed many different times, centuries before hand. Furthermore, some of the information is scientifically inaccurate. But don't take my word for it, early Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. ..."
But basically, your contention is that Mohammed couldn't possibly have 'known' what he said without being informed by God. Why would God make errors (e.g. an embryo is not a 'blood clot' at any point, and flesh doesn't grow 'on' pre-formed bones)? And how come there's nothing new there that wasn't observed and contended by ancient Greeks?!
I really need to get myself a Koran for reference, but, Gentle, can you assure me that there's nothing along similar lines in the Koran that is just plain nonsense according to modern science?
#27
Damn--it's good to know that with all these death-loving Muslims we'll have enough reserves to keep the Goth movement going for several more decades.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/13/2004 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Can't you see burka-clad "Gentle" whispering in Paul Johnson's ear "Oooooh, Islam is about peace and Muslims are clever, too!" right before they sawed his head off?!
#31
Actually, individual Muslims love to talk about loving death. As to actually following through on their rhetoric, that's a totally different story. Based on North Vietnamese statistics, during the Vietnam War, we - along with our South Vietnamese allies - killed 80,000 Vietnamese Communists a year for over a decade. At any moment, they were fielding hundreds of thousands of troops in South Vietnam, even though their total population was about 30 to 40 million, at most. Islam has a population of 1 billion. It is putting in the field tens of thousands of combatants, losing perhaps 10,000 to 20,000 men a year, while killing US troops at the rate of about 600-700 a year. Compare this to Vietnamese troops, who killed 8,000 Americans a year, in exchange for staggering losses. The fact is that Muslims love to talk about sacrifice, but most of this rhetoric is aimed at encouraging other Muslims to die for Islam's irredentist goals. Here's another comparison - the Chinese lost about a million dead from 1950 - 1953, during the Korean War. That's over 300,000 dead a year. When have Muslim armies lost people at that rate and continued fighting? Iran, which is the one country with a government established by Islamic revolution - apart from Afghanistan, where the government has changed - cried uncle after a mere 250,000 military dead over 8 years - or about 30,000 a year, despite having a population twice that of Vietnam's. If Muslims want to impose "another Vietnam" on America, they're going to have to be brave like their yellow brethren in the Western Pacific, who let their actions do the talking*. And I see no sign of that happening.
* Muslims appear to see talk as a substitute for action.
#32
A much better explanation for the "blood clot" reference in the koran is that Muhammad was reflecting the Jewish view that blood is sacred (source of life).
#33
Given two polar opposite views on death-this one by Al-Hamza-
We find even among the Palestinian youth â the girls, the women, and the children ... â what unites all ... is their love of death for the sake of Allah ....
and, from Ayn Rand:
"...We are on strike against the dogma that the pursuit of one's happiness is evil. We are on strike against the doctrine that life is guilt...
...the world of today is the world they wanted; life is the object of their hatred. Leave them to the death they worship. In the name of your magnificent devotion to this earth, leave them, don´t exhaust the greatness of your soul on achieving the triumph of the evil of theirs..."
-I am glad I was born into the culture of the latter.
#34
I say the same thing about the korans scientific claims that I say when people make scientific claims for the Bible or Nostradamus' etc. If the writing is vague enough and someone worls hard enough, you can always find a way to make it look like it predicts something or knew something before anyone else. Its all crap.
Why do I trust the Bible, then? Because of what it says plainly. I could write a novel about what I see in it. But no book has a better knowledge of human nature, human abilities and human limits than it. No other book has a better prescription for what we need or a better vision of what we can be. Literarily no book is better written and its beauty and meaning are not lost in translation, like the koran. The Bible is stunningly beautiful and rich in meaning no matter the language it is written in. Its not dependent on its original language where one must apologize for it by saying that to really appreciate it it must be read in its original language.
I trust the Bible because its all about trust, what real trust is. When I realized that trust is the hardest thing in the world for us humans to do perfectly and that the Bible calls for a perfect trust in God from Genesis 1 to Rev 22 and leads one step by step through the process, that is when I came to trust it.
I feel very sorry for you, Gentle that you cannot trust and that you can only ever go as far as you can easily see and that you have defined for yourself a limited notion of what God and religion should be like and then chose a religion which fit your notions. You can only ever go as far as your limited intellect can take you. Christians like me have gone to our intellectual limit also but knowing the Bible's teachings, we have made the leap into the dark that those who depend on their own notions of reason can not make. All of us have been caught in the loving arms of God and all of us know what it is to trust and to "fly"
Everything else that we can want or desire and all that God wants and desires for us follows from that leap.
BTW,
Mohammed could talk and listen couldn't he? He travelled widely including into Greek areas and he talked to many people about religion before he had his so called revelations, right? Nothing about the koran indicates that it came from anywhere but mohammeds recollections and imperfect understanding of what he learned on his travels. There is nothing about his career that is any more extrordinary than that of other peasant generals and other founders of other religions and nothing which cannot be explained by science and psychology.
The only religious founder that he is not like is Jesus. Jesus is like no one else. He never did anything wrong or cruel of hurtful. But mohammed had 500 men beheaded and made their wives and children into slaves to just name one incident in his career. No amount of justification or so called scientific claims can justify the things that he did. To do so is to turn morality on its head so that what is wrong becomes a right if the motive is well intentioned.
But in the life of Jesus, wrong is always wrong and right is always right and this is just one of the things that his suffering and death teaches us. In light of this crucial teaching, all other claims simply fade away. In light of the truth, what mohammed did in the name of God or with good intentions, negates any claim that he ever made to being a prophet greater than Jesus.
Please, stop being fooled by the smoke and mirrors of islamic apologists who are trying to convince you that wrong doing can be excusable if its done with the right intentions. They are selling you a bill of goods and doing everything to distract you from the truth and to get you to alter your good God given conscience so that you will re-define what is right and wrong based on situation and intention so that what sometimes wrong can sometimes be less wrong or even right depending on the situation. They are trying to convince you of this because its the only way to get anyone to accept that Islam and mohammed are perfect. They want to convince you to accept something that is rotten and imperfect at its core by selling on all the shiny peripheral features and shiny whizbangs. They have swallowed a subtle poison in a shiny pretty wrapper and its warped their sensibility and now they want to convince you too that "everybody floats down here"
That reference is from Steven King's "It" by the way and I couldn't resist the opportunity to quote it here because it is so appropriate. Those who have been morally compromised can live in quite a state of denial because they aren't immediately destroyed, then they find justification for that compromise and then they must convince others to join them because that further justifies their posistions.
Sorry for the length, Gentle, and the rambling (I'm in an awful hurry) but I am only trying to help you begin to see.
#38
Those who fight for the taghut go to hell. Since they are in hell, then one should not pray for their souls, and one should not mislead people in this matter.
Umm. I thought it was only God who would judge ones location in the afterlife. Where does this bozo get his "inside knowledge"?
Now if I were to say that 19 hijackers were immediately sent to the lower regions on 9/11, I would be accused of making judgments too, wouldn't I?
But although God wishes us not to judge, He probably doen't get offended at idle speculation, especially under the circumstances.
#41
If those 9/11 hijackers didn't go straight to Hell to burn forever in the fires there as they condemned 3,000 people to burn in the WTC, then God and I don't have much to say to each other!
#43
I love the oldest books of the bible. I love the echo of thoughtful civilization, history from times before writting, the flood, the tower of bable, the times of Abraham. Whether you believe in god or not, the ten comandments are a special set of thoughts, they don't mislead, they are straight forward. I love the golden rule, that as far as I know isn't even in the bible, correct me please IIW. I love being able to talk to god, tell me I'm not, wont change my attitude, to many answered prayers.
Neat prose Peggy. I pray in Jesus' name. As my father did, but I'm not about to tell anyone how to talk to god. Only that you can if you want to, or not, your call.
I like Peter Green's lyric from Oh Well "Now when I talk to god, I know he understands, he says "sit by me and I'll be your god at hand, but don't ask me what I think of you, I might not give the answer that you want me to."
Gentle, knock yourself out, I'm in the Mohamed was a fake prophet, islam is fake, all the holy sites are fake, camp.Thats why islamic countries have to enforce islamic codes by force of threat. Fake bullshit gentle.
#44
im invokes begles law
ayan rand first mention and thread is per shit
and im not care if he boy or gurl
give us a break ima not sit around quoting thomas wolfe on yu
O! O! O! O! O! Lost and then found and O! O! O! O! Lost again, get me a tomatoer Luke an tell dad it his prostate
#45
Lucky, the Golden Rule was originally formulated by the Jewish rabbi Hillel in about 100 BCE.
The story goes that an obnoxious pagan came up to Hillel, demanding to be taught the sum total of Judaism in the time he could stand on one foot. Hillel said, "What is hateful to you, do not do unto your neighbor. All the rest is commentary -- now go and study." Jesus rephrased the injunction as a positive (Do unto others...) instead of the traditional negative (Do not do unto others...) which is one of reasons why Christians proselytize and Jews don't.
Rabbi Akiva, some 100 years after Jesus lived, was the first to summarize the Jewish Bible even more succinctly as, "Love your neighbor as yourself."
#47
trailing wife, Christians were commanded to proselytize by Christ himself in what is called the Great Commission:
"Go ye therefore and preach to all nations, baptizing them..."
(I used to know the verse; book of Luke, I think.)
Christ also said that the Great Commandment was to love God with all your heart, mind and soul.
The second Commandment is to love thy neighbor as thyself, which is closest to the "Golden Rule."
Also akin to this is the Lord's Prayer: "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."--this invokes the negative action you were talking about.
I didn't know about the direct command to proselytize, the other was good enough for me. Thanks! Jesus' Great Commandment is straight out of the Old Testament, part of the Jewish statement of faith, the Sh'mah. It starts, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One." The verse following is your Great Commandment (Deuteronomy 6:_); orthodox Jews recite this 3x/day. It makes sense that Jesus considered this important, as he was well trained in the Rabbinic tradition.
I have to disagree about the Lord's Prayer: I see both forgiving and asking for forgiveness as positive actions, not refraining from action. But that isn't a critical disagreement, I think ;-)
#49
#26
Bulldog said:
"I really need to get myself a Koran for reference,"
You should try my favourite online edition. It has all the giggle, or as Gentle might assert "unambiguous" sections noted. It's quiet a laugh in places and terrifying in others, when you realise what these moroons believe.
Especially useful for when you're bored and there is nothing other than a "true believer" mussie at hand to play mind games with.
#50
Rantburg U, no? Thx for the biblical clean, TW. I knew I was of balance there.
Look everyone, we know whats at stake. Even a limp prayer would help, even a blank stare prayer would help. Secular, reverent, no mater with this crowed. We have a common goal. We know whats up. We know how easily we are lead, how easily it is to be conflicted. How burdens aren't evenly spread. But this our forum to keep the fight going intelectually. I'm so impressed with this crowed, thats why I hang out.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/14/2004 8:19 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Shut up Frank.
I just saw the site. Its stupid.
What God decides to do is his choice alone.
I see you never questioned the fact that your God was KILLED by his own creatures!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/14/2004 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#56
Gentle,
Yes, you are an idjit if you think that anyone killed our God.
He offered himself for us. He surrendered himself of his own free will for our sakes so that we might come to know the fullness of his love for us, repent of our sins and re-enter a right relationship with him.
Jesus said that no man could take his life from him, but that he freely offered it up for us.
So you can't respect God and get off on worshipping him unless he conforms to your human understanding of strength?? You worship an idol made up of limited human thinking. Humans get off on following the biggest and strongest and most successful and most popular. We are venal that way. Your god is just like what a human expects of the strongest man. Your worship apparently DEPENDS on YOU being impressed with the picture the koran makes of God. You have contempt for a god who is so great that he can sacrifice his priveledge for his weak creatures.
You worship an invisible persian king in the sky. That is exactly where mohammed got his idea of what greatness is because in arabia the human idea of greatness was the persian king who never lowered himself to the level of his human subjects. persians could not look at him in the face. They had to grovel in front of him and praise his great qualities even when he was cruel and unjust. They would address their king by saying 'oh king most merciful and compassionate" even if the king ordered his village destroyed etc. A persian kings wives were not to be seen by the lower people because he was too high. This shows that mohammed only had a human imagination.
What is more is that he taught that greatness means only success the way that human beings understand success. So the strongest people can't be defeated. So we have the story that Jesus didn't die because he was too strong and beloved of god that he was rescued while someone weak and I guess not so loved by God was allowed to volunteer and suffer the most horrible death ever invented.
In Islam all the talk about the strong defending the weak breaks down into just that, talk not results because the strongest of all, God and mohammed are too strong so that weaker people must sacrifice themselves for the strong who don't sacrifice themselves.
Shouldn't the strongest of all sacrifice themselves first before scarificing the weaker ones?????
That is what Christianity says. God was not killed in the sense that human beings can be killed in that he ceased to exist. He suffered from the greatest sacrifice he could make and this was for him like death is for us only much greater because he is greater. His sacrifice was to suffer as we do and endure what we do and to put on weakness for our sake. He did not ask us to die for him before he died for us. He did not ask the weak to take his place nor did he allow the weak to take his place. In him, the strongest, he was able to endure all that we could not which is the true and full assault of evil as a consequence for the sins we have committed.
Rather than choosing to fight back which would have meant the strongest, in this case Jesus, attacking the weak, ie his creatures the Romans, he chose instead another option, a sacrifice of love for them a show of love so great that in 400 years the most brutal and repressive empire ever was Christian without a single battle being fought by Christians against the unbelievers. That is what true strength and success looks like, Gentle.
Jesus also did not ask a single follower of his to lay down their lives before he did. That is what true strength and success looks like, Gentle.
True success and strength and goodness and mercy is when the great lower themselves to live the life of the low for even a little while. Your god is apparently too great to associate with the low. Ours did come to be with us. He ate with us and suffered our inconveniences and indignities because that is what true greatness looks like, Gentle.
Our god came and fed, and healed, and rescued and never did anyone of us harm. This showed for all the true nature of his love and his greatness, Gentle.
mohammed was weak because he asked his followers to die for him when he didn't die for them first. As the supposedly strong one, he didn't die for them first. He couldn't succeed and survive without resorting to violence. He healed no one. He had dissenters murdered by his followers. He allowed the butchering of that Jewish tribe. Then he talked big about peace and not hurting trees etc.
That is what weakness and failure look like, Gentle.
#2
I checked this on Global Security. This part is an interesting idea: This improved reliability can be credited to differences in the XM8âs operating system from the one in the M16. For instance, a thin gas tube runs almost the entire length of the barrel in all of the M16 variants. When the weapon is fired, the gases travel back down the tube into the chamber and push the bolt back to eject the shell casing and chamber a new round. The XM8âs gas system instead is connected to a mechanical operating rod, which pushes back the bolt to eject the casing and chamber the new round each time the weapon is fired. So thereâs no carbon residue constantly being blown back into the chamber, reducing the need to clean the weapon as often. You donât get gases blowing back into the chamber that have contaminates in them. The XM8 also has a much tighter seal between the bolt and the ejection port, which should cut down on the amount of debris that can blow into the weapon when the ejection portâs dust cover is open.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/13/2004 23:00 Comments ||
Top||
From The New York Times
A confidential report conducted by the United Nations in cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security has found that airport inspectors with the power to summarily deport illegal immigrants have sometimes intimidated and handcuffed travelers fleeing persecution, discouraged some from seeking political asylum and often lacked an understanding of asylum law. ....
In conducting its study, United Nations officials reviewed more than 300 case files; interviewed dozens of inspectors, supervisors and asylum officers; and sat in on more than 100 interviews with asylum seekers at airports in New York, Newark, Miami and Los Angeles. The Department of Homeland Security granted the United Nations access to internal documents, staff members and asylum seekers on the condition that the report not be released to the public after it was completed in late October. The study was provided to The New York Times by a person unaffiliated with the United Nations who was concerned about the government's plan to expand summary deportations to the country's land borders.
In its report, the United Nations discovered that many inspectors held negative views of asylum seekers, viewing them as frauds trying to enter the United States under false pretenses. Such attitudes, the report concluded, resulted in instances where inspectors intimidated asylum seekers or treated them with derision.
At Kennedy International Airport in New York, asylum seekers were routinely handcuffed and restrained with belly chains and leg restraints. In one instance there, a Liberian asylum seeker was ordered to strip naked to determine whether he had scars consistent with torture. The inspectors then allegedly ridiculed him, using racial and sexual taunts. .... The study also described two instances in which inspectors encouraged asylum seekers not to pursue asylum claims. ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
08/13/2004 8:35:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The study was provided to The New York Times by a person unaffiliated with the United Nations who was concerned about the governmentâs plan to expand summary deportations to the countryâs land borders.
Yeah, right. Sounds like the reporter's illegal immigrant slave domestic servant 'fetched' the report from Koffi's assistant and provided it to the reporter.
This basically shows that the U.N. cannot be trusted to keep up its end of an agreement. They agreed not to make it public and, as a result of their (possibly deliberate) lack of security the report was leaked.
#2
Tough shit, UN. Inspectors have a right ot be suspicious of asylum-seekers. ANYONE can scream that they want asylum. Until someone can come up with a sure-fire way to determine whether someone seeking asylum is legit, I'll give the inspectors the benefit of the doubt.
#3
and the problem is...the US has let the world trample on our sovereignty for way too long..it is about time we get serious about our borders...
Posted by: Dan ||
08/13/2004 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As President i will only allow UN agents to patrol of borders and make all our enemies friends happy.
Posted by: John F. Kerry ||
08/13/2004 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You know, I wouldn't squeal too loudly if the next terrorist bomb in New York City hit the United Nations building. Anywhere else, it's gonna be brutal for Arab society, but the UN - I'd have to think long and hard...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/13/2004 12:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I wouldn't squeal too loudly if the next terrorist bomb hit a building housing IRS auditors...
#9
THE NEWEST HIPPEST TV GAME SHOW:
"How Can America Take Its Money Back?"
We join our show already in progress:
Pat Sejak: Ok, Kofi spin the wheel. The category is "Gratitude for the gifts of America".
Kofi, or some other UN guy: America is provoking blah blah blah...disrespecting phony asylum claimants...blah blah...blah
Pat Sejak: Oh, so sorry, Kofi, the UN just lost $1m in US funding. Would you like to spin again?
#10
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/iraq/956-tni.htm
ON SEPTEMBER 1, 1992, Ramzi Yousef arrived at JFK airport. He presented an Iraqi passport without a U.S. visa, was briefly detained (and fingerprinted) for illegal entry, and granted asylum pending a hearing. Yousef went to stay at the apartment of Musab Yasin, an Iraqi living in Jersey City. So too did Abdul Rahman Yasin, Musab's younger brother, who arrived in America from Iraq soon after Yousef. (Musab had an unlisted telephone number under an Israeli-sounding alias, Josie Hadas.)
Posted by: ed ||
08/13/2004 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
What I think is the most dangerous gambit is the persecuted ethnic minority gambit. The world is full of ethnic minorities. A person's membership in one of them is hard to establish or debunk, especially in countries like Iran where our government has no relations.
I am all for internment camps for assylum seekers. A very high percentage of the world hates us. While VISA holding visitors can be allowed to wander about within the restrictions of their VISA, letting undocumented folk loose on the streets is a security disaster. Allowing Kofi to cajole us into an action that works for him but is suicidal for us is a non-starter.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/13/2004 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Ptah are you aware that an individual tax payer is not allowed to take accelerated depreciation on onion seed? Are you aware of the penalties man? Do you have a clue? Yes? Did you report the Clue? Is the Clue improved? What aren't you saying?
Posted by: Federal Jones ||
08/13/2004 21:00 Comments ||
Top||
Breaking News! (well, at least to the NYT) Just a taste.
Since the fall of Mr. Hussein, the oil-for-food program has received far more scrutiny than it ever did during its six years of operation. Congress's Government Accountability Office, formerly the General Accounting Office, has estimated that the Iraqi leader siphoned at least $10 billion from the program by illicitly trading in oil and collecting kickbacks from companies that had United Nations approval to do business with Iraq. Multiple investigations now under way in Washington and Iraq and at the United Nations all center on one straightforward question: How did Mr. Hussein amass so much money while under international sanctions? An examination of the program, the largest in the United Nations' history, suggests an equally straightforward answer: The United Nations let him do it. "Everybody said it was a terrible shame and against international law, but there was really no enthusiasm to tackle it," said Peter van Walsum, a Dutch diplomat who headed the Iraq sanctions committee in 1999 and 2000, recalling the discussions of illegal oil surcharges. "We never had clear decisions on anything. So we just in effect condoned things."
Guess the Times couldn't ignore it any longer.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/13/2004 12:43:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
judging from the number of posts here, it appears they were correct in judging the length of time it would take for this story to be considered yesterdayâs news
Posted by: B ||
08/13/2004 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Seeing as how the WaPo scooped 'em on the SwiftVets coverage, they had to bring out a story they were holding for a 'special occasion'...
#3
Nothing like an impending implosion of the Kerry / Viet Nam house of cards to push other shocking "new" news to the fore, "Kerry? John Kerry? Nothing to see there but just LOOK at how awful the UN is!"
#4
...The UN that John Kerry wants to engage more closely, that is.
I think the story is remarkable for 2 reasons:
1) the New York Times actually carried it.
2) They got a named person on record as saying:
"Everybody said it was a terrible shame and against international law, but there was really no enthusiasm to tackle it. We never had clear decisions on anything. So we just in effect condoned things."
I'm confident my hair's growing back. If you look from just the right angle, you can see it...
Indonesia's President Megawati Sukarnoputri on Friday declared herself the favourite to win elections next month, dismissing as unreliable the opinion polls that predict she will lose heavily to a former military general. Mrs Megawati came in second in first-round elections on July 5 behind Mr Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, who was also her former security minister. Mr Yudhoyono failed to win a majority, so the two candidates must face each other in a run-off on Sept 20. 'My chance of winning is bigger,' Mrs Megawati told a group of foreign reporters. 'The reason is that the vote from my party is solid and we will also get the undecided voters.'
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2004 4:24:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Israel would not endanger its security by giving up the Golan Heights for peace with Syria, IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Moshe Ya'alon said in remarks published Friday, departing from the military's traditional view that Israel needs at least part of the plateau as a security buffer. Ya'alon spoke a day after Industry, Trade, and Labor Minister Ehud Olmert indicated that Israel will have to evacuate more Israeli settlements in the West Bank than the four mentioned in Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan of unilateral disengagement from the Palestinians. As part of the plan, Israel would withdraw from all of the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements by the end of 2005.
Israel has long argued that giving up the Golan, which it captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast war and annexed in 1981, could leave northern Israel vulnerable to Syrian attack. In failed peace talks with Syria, Sharon's moderate predecessor, Ehud Barak, offered to withdraw from virtually all of the heights, but insisted on special security arrangements and some border adjustments. However, Ya'alon suggested that from a military point of view, Israel could afford to withdraw to the pre-1967 lines, a key Syrian demand. "If you ask me, theoretically, if we can reach an agreement with Syria ... my answer is that from a military standpoint it is possible to reach an agreement by giving up the Golan Heights," Ya'alon told the daily Yediot Ahronot. "The army is able to defend any border. This is correct for any political decision that is taken in Israel," he said.
Responding to Ya'alon's comments, Ahmad Haj Ali, an advisor to the Syrian information minister, said Friday that Syria will not take seriously Israeli offers to pull out of the Golan Heights unless they are backed by moves on the ground or an open commitment to withdraw. Haj Ali was not impressed by Ya'alon's comment, telling The Associated Press: "We don't give such statements any weight unless they are associated with a serious move (toward peace) and with international guarantees. Whoever is willing to make peace should return the land to its owners and withdraw immediately or declare that openly and clearly." Other Syrian government officials could not be reached for comment Friday as it was the Muslim Sabbath. Haj Ali said he believed Ya'alon's statement was designed to "show Israel was the party seeking peace in order to look good in the upcoming American elections."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
08/13/2004 12:17:05 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is it me or is the concept of giving land back to those who lost it in a war (in exchange for what?) really, really stoopid?
#2
It's not you, Raj.
I wanna hear what Ariel Sharon thinks--but this isn't going to go down well with lots of Israelis and I don't blame them!
Why trust Baby Assad and as you said, why voluntarily cede land that was paired for with precious blood?
#3
the concent worked well in the case of Egypt - the absence of threat from that quarter has been very important to Israel. Netanyahu himself was willing to negotiate a withdrawl from Syria in exchange for peace,as did Barak. These never went anywhere because A. Syria insisted not only on every inch of the Golan, but took an expansive view of the border between the Golan and pre-67 Israel and B. Syria was reluctant to take an expansive view of peace - no cultural, economic, other relations.
#4
"The army is able to defend any border. This is correct for any political decision that is taken in Israel," he said.
There is part of me (I not an Israeli) that sez okay, back to the 1967 border ..... give it a year and get all the excuses and sealed waxed, red-beribboned paper necessary to overrun everything from Kurdistan to the Nile.
#8
I don't know but his comments are gone from every article I've seen in the last 20 minutes or so. Did someone do a global search/replace of everything he wrote?
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
08/13/2004 17:19 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Probably nothing. The trip wire could simply be that your IP address resembles one from a real troll. Just ask Fred to pull you out of the sink trap, AND DON'T FORGET TO SHOWER OFF!
#12
I told him that's what happens when you don't practice safe surfing. Always wear gloves I tell him; may be more typos, but you don't come home with somebody else's IP address. That's the kind of thing that stays with you the rest of your life. So I'll do the talking from now on.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/13/2004 18:03 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Vietnam 2: Revenge Of The Grunts "This Time, It's For Keeps!"
Starring:
Iraq as South Vietnam
Iran as North Vietnam
Syria as Cambodia
Afghanistan as Thailand
USA as itself
Special guest appearance by B-52's in their original role.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/13/2004 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#9
[Off-topic or abusive comments deleted]
Posted by: Mr. Davis TROLL ||
08/13/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Special guest appearance by Agent Orange. Oh, wait a minute. They don't have any vegetation in that part of the world!
#14
Actually, I nominate Iran as the new Laos. Let the bombings begin. Hell, I'll even go back on active duty and draw the boxes, like I did before... Only this time, NOTHING is off-limits (except Persepolis, which is only off-limits for ARCLIGHT strikes - we can still hit it with Agent Banana - a highly-effective, skin-absorbtive laxative agent).
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/13/2004 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#15
OP - So you drew those boxes with the diagonals over the Michelin plantations? Lol!
#1
The only good thing you can say about the article is that al least they are honest about the ROP. Unlike the likes of Gentle, who when faced with the homicidal reality of Islam, develop "cognitive dissonance" and escape into gaga land, so as to try and preserve their "sensitive" nature.
#1
Yuck! I feel as if my brain was wading waist deep in filth!
Gentle, come back after you've read the articles on this site, then tell us how Islam is a gentle and loving religion (nb: Hitler was especially kind to children and dogs -- at least those who belonged to "Aryans." The others he had turned into soap and lampshades because they were kufr.)
Chanting "Get out of Najaf, get out of Iraq," Iraqi-Americans assembled Friday to protest fighting in the Islamic holy city and demand sooner-than-scheduled elections in their native country. "Stop the guns from talking and let's negotiate!" Imam Husham Al-Husainy, leader of the Karbalaa Islamic Educational Center, shouted through a bullhorn while leading 50 men and boys as young as 5 in the peaceable, hour-long demonstration. Some held hand-lettered signs that read, "Occupation is not liberation" and "No puppet government in Iraq." A handful of black-clad women stood silently off to one side of the demonstrators outside the Shiite mosque. Al-Husainy led chants that alternated between English and Arabic, offered prayers for peace in Iraq and called for elections ahead of the Dec. 31, 2005 target date. The cleric, who strongly supported the U.S. invasion of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, also spoke directly to President Bush: "You are abusing the democratic values of America. Where are the elections you promised us? ... If you can't bring peace and democracy to Iraq, then you don't deserve to be re-elected."
Iraqi-Americans remain grateful that the U.S. military overthrew Saddam, but question the legitimacy of Iraq's interim government, said Youssef Fawaz, corresponding secretary for the Greater Detroit chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. "They're really agitated right now," he said. "Let's get (Iraqis) to be able to choose, not people chosen by the administration." Ali Haiber, an automotive engineer from Wayne County's Canton Township who attends services at the Karbalaa center, agreed with Fawaz that Iraq's current leaders don't have a valid claim to power. "They're just hand-picked. They're just puppets," said Haiber, a native of Pakistan who attended the demonstration with his two young sons. Friday's protest was the latest of several staged by Al-Husainy and other Arab religious leaders in the Detroit suburb of Dearborn. Southeast Michigan has the highest concentration of Arabs in the United States; in Dearborn, Arab-Americans make up about a third of the population.
#4
I'm with you guys...BTW, did you see where this Dearborn group of Moooslims complained until Charlie Daniels promised not to perform his "raghead" song there?
If these people can't behave and side with the US while they live in the US, it's either Manzanar time or time to gas up the bus for the airport!
#5
Yep, and these are the same assholes who live off are society & have no problem taking a tax incentive to start up a 7/11 or some shit in Dearborn.....they also have no problem making money in this country. I'm so glad I no longer live in Detroit and have to deal w/these douche-bags, if Iraq is so f*cking great why don't they just go back.
Posted by: ed ||
08/13/2004 20:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"50 men and boys as young as 5..... A handful of black-clad women.... corresponding secretary for the Greater Detroit chapter of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee..... a native of Pakistan...."
#9
Observations:
1. 50 Arab demonstrators in Deerborn is a pretty small percentage.
2. Any Conyers constituent could have been under the Aba's.
3. How do you differentiate an Iraqi-American from a Syrian-American who plays the pan-flute and comes out of a 30 minute session in the airplane washroom smelling of toilet chemicals - and I don't mean eau du toilet.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/13/2004 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yo, Imam. You wants to buy some rocket launcher?
That line of type, in a nutshell, is what propelled oil prices above $45 a barrel Thursday. That's nowhere near the $80 or so per barrel price (in today's inflated dollars) that was reached nearly a quarter of a century ago. But it's high enough to put a dent in consumers' wallets and impede economic growth. It's making everyone very nervous.
It's even leading Democrats to demand once again that the Bush administration stop filling the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would be a mistake. The reserve is meant to provide an emergency stockpile in the event that U.S. oil supplies are cut off. Using the reserve to attempt to mitigate high prices didn't work very well when former President Bill Clinton tried it and wouldn't work if President Bush tried it.
The worldwide oil market is being driven by factors that, at least in the short term, are beyond the control of the U.S. government.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/13/2004 5:29:17 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hey! What going on with Mr. D?
This doesn't sound too trollish... What am I missing? 1 Mr. Davis Blog post. I prefer the home grown Rantburg wisdom. 2004-08-13 3:53:24 PM
2 Mr. Davis Not Arizona, Caliphornia. And it will happen, democratically. 2004-08-13 3:47:31 PM
3 Mr. Davis That's a plus to her. 2004-08-13 12:21:38 PM
4 Mr. Davis Capsu78, ROTFLMAO. Even worse, supose all the lines are busy and they get directed to New Delhi. Imagine the reaction when they give the call back number. 2004-08-13 12:20:50 PM
5 Mr. Davis Cast: President Bush: Sylvester Stallone John Kerry: PeeWee Heman Tater Sadr: Al Franken Saddam Hussein: Walter Matthau Baby Assad: Tom Cruise 2004-08-13 12:05:23 PM
6 Mr. Davis Must have had them surrounded. 2004-08-13 12:01:37 PM
7 Mr. Davis A good start. 2004-08-13 11:58:40 AM
8 Mr. Davis LH, interesting then that Allawi authorized ISF and USMC to attack a Mosque. Perhaps he's testing the ice for the big one. Maybe the raid will give Sistani something to think about. 2004-08-13 11:55:04 AM
9 Mr. Davis It's a start.
(Soon $50! ...then even $60 or higher, contingent on numerous factors such as supply shortfalls caused by Islamic sabotage, possible civil disorder in OPEC's Venezuela, the upcoming winter season, plus over the next couple of months damage to Gulf of Mexico oil rigs due to tropical storms and of course energy trader speculation will jack up prices...and drop them as well.
For commodity traders recall this, what climbs this quickly, falls twice as fast. Keep those protective puts in place!)
==============================================================
SINGAPORE, Aug 13, 2004 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- Oil prices kept climbing past $46 in intraday trading Friday on concerns about vulnerable and stretched supplies.
Energy analysts said the uncertainty could be adding as much as $8 a barrel to prices, pointing to a continuing insurgency in U.S.-occupied Iraq, suspicions terrorists could again strike Saudi Arabia's production facilities, and unrest elsewhere.
Crude oil for September delivery rose 60 cents to $46.10 a barrel in afternoon trading Friday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, past the fresh record struck Thursday of $45.50. September Brent crude surged $1.16 to $43.45 a barrel on London's International Petroleum Exchange. The previous day's record high - not adjusted for inflation - was $42.29.
"The sentiment in the market is that there are more bad things going to happen to the market than good things," said Sam Dale, bureau chief at Energy Intelligence in Singapore.
"By 'bad things' we mean supply restrictions: Speculators are looking at things like an attack on Saudi Arabia, more disruption of exports from Iraq, civil unrest in Nigeria, strikes and civil unrest in Venezuela," Dale added.
Also, Russian oil giant Yukos is locked in a battle against bankruptcy in that country's courts over a disputed $3.5 billion back-tax bill.
"If any of those (bad events) happen, they take crude off the market," said Dale. "The problem with that is ... where is the extra oil going to come from?"
Oil prices have risen about 3.5 percent over the past week, pushing to a series of new highs. However, when adjusted for inflation, oil still costs about $12 a barrel less than it did leading up to the first Gulf war.
Heavy fighting in southern Iraq renewed fears of a disruption of Iraq's vital oil supplies, and traders said the tense situation would help keep crude prices high. Iraq exports 1.7 million barrels a day of oil, or about 2 percent of daily global consumption.
U.S. and Iraqi forces pressed on Friday with an offensive on the Iraqi city of Najaf to quell an uprising by militiamen loyal to Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
Al-Sadr loyalists have threatened to blow up oil pipelines and port infrastructure if an offensive is launched on the city's Imam Ali shrine.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/13/2004 5:08:52 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If we can get beyond the Dem asshats, we would be able to drill, not only in ANWR and the petroleum reserve near Barrow, Alaska, but many places in the states. The Republicans need to hammer the dems on this. Put them on the defensive. The dems will say that the extra production would be insignificant, BS. Everything is significant, esp with people talking about jousting with windmills, etc. When the price heads for $3.00 a gallon, the Republicans better get their heads out of their collective you-know-wheres and get out the word.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/13/2004 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Over $3.00 a gallon and the GOP is going to have to come up with counter measures to clam Kerry up.
One method removing the oil card away from the Kerry crowd would be releasing our strategic petroleum reserves, which technical should only done in extreme emergencies, not to simply lower prices which have been driven up of the most part by corporate oil traders, attempting to lock in 'lower' prices for the winter of 2004-5.
I agree that drilling in Alaska would be the logical thing to undertake, but when it comes to the power hungry Dems, we are not dealing with anything close to logic.
I do not like to even state this but..unleaded gas prices of well over $3.00 per gallon could very well transpire if things get out of control overseas. The Islamic enemy is cognizant of oil being a very soft target with dramatic damaging effects to the American & global interlinked economy.
Heating oil & propane should also be viewed at current levels as possible being 'cheap' because if we have a rough winter plus broad based sabotage, in retrospect today's price levels will indeed seem 'cheap'. Contingent of the price trending of the entire energy complex over the coming months, the likelihood of at least another 15% to 25% increase is strong.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/13/2004 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
How about reinstituting the oil depletion allowance for domestic producers in the tax code again?!?
#4
I would suggest that we hang onto the Strategic Reserves. I have 2 reasons to offer:
1) it's not there just to play extremely short-term political games (and I want Bush to win an much as anyone) - recall 1973 and look ahead at our growing divide with SA and total adversarial situation with Iran
2) if/when action is taken against the Mad Mullahs we will need it as a bridge during the market melee that will ensue
Will Bush give the Mad Mullahs an October Surprise, as some have speculated? I don't know, but if it looks like he'll lose, I sure as hell hope so.
If Kerry wins, expect all sorts of stupid, confused, absurdly nuanced policy decisions. And nothing substantial in the WoT or economic stability for at least a year. I figure it will set us back a decade, before we get back on track with the only strategic plan that makes any fucking sense at all in the current world (not the permanently 1969 world of the loonies): the Bush Doctrine.
#5
Gas prices are still holding steady here. Usually they go up on a minutes notice, and trickle down. As a matter of fact, they've been on a rather slow downward trend over the past couple of weeks.
#6
Roger that B*A*R, finally getting stations offering below $2 a gallon.. Quite an imrovement. Even then, I'd still like to see the mullahs get their surprise.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
08/13/2004 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
As one who trades oil, etc, I agree with the comments concerning 'oil depletion allowance comment, plus hanging on to our 'Strategic Reserves' since we may 'really' need them in times of 'real' shortages.
It's true gas station prices are holding steady...for now. If the price of crude holds firm in the mid to high $40's that will not be the case.
The real question is are we heading into a petrol-inflationary-spiral if prices remain in the $40's or low $50's per gallon?
America has already experienced this type of hyper-oil-inflation in 1973-4 & again when Iran was turned over to raving fanatics the first month of 1979? Back in the dark economic days of the Carter era the Fed ran amuck with horrific interest rates and banks were charging 20% or more.
Even though crude oil prices are greatly elevated, up over $15.00 per barrel at the current level of over $45, from the post-Saddam period of mid-2003 which saw crude oil plunge back into high $20's , from high $30's with perceptions of shortages from Russia, possibilities of oil shortfalls from chaotic Venezuela, an OPEC member, or dangerous Arabia or Nigeria another OPEC member . Of course Iraq has been exporting it's crude but Iranian backed terrorists continue blowing up Iraqi pipelines, which is by and large factored into market prices already..unless the damage becomes extremely broad based.
A real global petroleum shortage would be if al-Qa'ida terrorists we to breach Saudi security and sabotage it's main pipelines to the Gulf and or blow up oil storage tanks. Even though damage could be corrected quickly it's the perceptions which translate into heavy buying (or selling) to lock in prices, on not only the commodity markets, but the stock, currency & bond makets as well.
About a week prior to the Labor Day (end of summer) holiday I expect gasoline prices to climb another 5 to 7 cents a gallon which is typical.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/13/2004 19:10 Comments ||
Top||
#9
GM Diesel Cars = LOL ... nuff said!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/13/2004 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#10
the higher the price goes up and the longer it stays up, the sooner we will find better sources. Supply and Demand...babee
Posted by: B ||
08/13/2004 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Lets keep buying allah oil and putting some in the reserve... keep doing this and in 20 yrs the US is the producer of last resort.
#12
Mark, I think we are going to see a price spike from the Venezuelan situation. I beleive that Citgo is 100% Venezuelan crude.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/13/2004 22:49 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Last number I saw was that Venezuelan provides 15% of US supply - it'll hit us for sure - we weened ourselves of ME crude only to get Chavez. Sigh. Mebbe he'll get tossed - of course it will be messy, since he doesn't give a damn about democracy or Venezuela. I hope they have the stones to do it and to make this a hallmark in their history.
#14
Super & .com ...thanks for the Citco info and the other oil data.
The grade of crude oil the very anti-American Chavez controls is perfect for the various types of unleaded gas, plus the fact exporting crude product from northen Venezuela is rather close in terms of supertanker travel to the port of Miami & other Florida ports. (Although most of Florida is a mess after Charley stormed through.)
One point to recall. Mr Chavez was friends with Saddam and remains very close to Castro. He also works with a number of radical Islamist groups for the sole reason they, like him, hate U.S.
The sooner this over stuffed commie schlub is gone the better for all concerned.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/14/2004 0:08 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Mark, I used to read an on-line column by Gustavo Coronel. He is harder to read than the guys at vCrisis but he used to be an official at PDSVA. He wrote a while back that the replacement workers that Chavez has employed (surely some Cubans) have hurt quality enough that some shipments of refined products have been rejected.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/14/2004 0:18 Comments ||
Top||
Yeah. And beautiful wimmin are irresistably drawn to me...
Pakistani Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat on Thursday said that his country's capture of top Al Qaeda suspects has brought Islamabad closer to the arrest of the terror network's chief, Osama bin Laden. Pakistan has already penetrated the network, he said. "Undoubtedly, we have received some information and all the arrests at the Al Qaeda leadership level bring us closer toward reaching the desired objective," Mr Faisal told Al-Arabiya satellite television. He said Pakistan's objective "is not only the arrest of Osama and (his number two Ayman) al-Zawahiri, but also the final uprooting of this network and its collaborators. We have penetrated deep inside this network, and this is a big achievement for our security services. We will not spare any effort or capability to track down these elements and networks, in full cooperation with the international community. Some of them are important elements and some of them are wanted by the United States." The minister denied that Pakistan was under pressure from outside parties to pursue the search operations. "Pakistan is not under any pressure from any side, not even from the United States," he told the Dubai-based station. The remarks came as intelligence officials in Islamabad told AFP that two top Al Qaeda suspects, a Pakistani linked to attempts on President Pervez Musharraf's life and an Uzbek national, had been captured in Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2004 4:39:50 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah right. Gimme a call when you have him "surrounded".
On second thought, don't even bother.
Posted by: Carl in N.H ||
08/13/2004 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We're getting close to Osama: Faisal
At least they finally admit it. They've been "close to him" for waaaaaay too long as it is.
Posted by: US Marine ||
08/13/2004 20:37 Comments ||
Top||
Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraq's "dictatorial" interim government to resign and said he and his militia would remain in Najaf until death or victory, his spokesman said.
I'd hold out for death, myself...
The spokesman quoted al-Sadr as telling supporters at Imam Ali Mosque on Friday: "I advise the dictatorial, agent government to resign...the whole Iraqi people demands the resignation of the government... they replaced Saddam with a government worse than him."
Tater's Mom and Dad were close relatives, weren't they? That's the only thing that explains his mental processes. Unless they dropped him on his head when he was a tad...
Earlier, al-Sadr laid down a list of conditions for an end to clashes between his Mahdi Army and US-led occupation forces, according to a spokesman. Shaikh Ali Sumaisim spelled out the conditions - notably for the withdrawal of the US-led forces and the handover of Najaf to the Marjaia, the Shia religious authority - during a news conference at a hotel in the besieged city in central Iraq. If all multinational forces, Iraqi police and soldiers leave Najaf and the Marjaia agrees to take responsibility for the city, "the Mahdi Army would pull out from Najaf", Sumaisim said, while stressing the militia would not disarm.
"Nope. We'll just move on to the next holy place..."
All basic services must be restored in Najaf, and al-Sadr's Mahdi Army should be recognised as an ideological movement with its members allowed to carry weapons for self-defence, Sumaisim continued. Those jailed for supporting the resistance against the US-led occupation, all imprisoned clerics and other women must also be released, the spokesman added. Resistance fighters must no longer be persecuted and al-Sadr's organisation should be allowed to decide for itself whether it becomes a political movement, under the conditions. "All followers of al-Sadr's movement should be under a legitimate constitution written by a free, elected government," Sumaisim said. "Lastly, all efforts should be aimed at building a free, independent, unified Iraq," he added.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2004 4:14:17 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraq's "dictatorial" interim government to resign..
[...]
The spokesman quoted al-Sadr as telling supporters at Imam Ali Mosque on Friday: "I advise the dictatorial, agent government to resign...the whole Iraqi people demands the resignation of the government... they replaced Saddam with a government worse than him."
Earlier, al-Sadr laid down a list of conditions for an end to clashes between his Mahdi Army and US-led occupation forces, according to a spokesman.
This guy just isn't going to learn. Allawi needs to take a bold leap and allow the forces now in place to take this guy out PERMANENTLY. Not doing so and negotiating is only going to prolong a difficult period.
#3
Ugh. He wants to be killed in the shrine. I'm all in favor of a dead Sadr, but the sacred shrine dedicated to Islam's most famous martyr isn't really the place for it, ideologically speaking.
Borrow the Russian's knockout gas. The rest of the town is is mostly evacuated, and I can't think that you'd get the fuckwits out of that shrine with any fewer casualties by just charging on in... If we're lucky, Sadr won't be one of the unlucky asphyxiated, and he can be properly tried, convicted, and executed somewhere which isn't the Imam Ali Mosque, and at least gas won't leave unsightly holes in the building.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
08/13/2004 16:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hit 'em hard with nitrous oxide gas and videotape it. Bet the MSM won't show that one! Then when the history of the Iraq war is written, there can be a section on how humour won the war. Of course, we will violate the Geneva Convention section on gas warfare, but I am willing to take the heat.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/13/2004 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr urged Iraq's "dictatorial" interim government to resign and said he and his militia would remain in Najaf until death or victory, his spokesman said.
The spokesman quoted al-Sadr as telling supporters at Imam Ali Mosque on Friday: "I advise the dictatorial, agent government to resign...the whole Iraqi people demands the resignation of the government... they replaced Saddam with a government worse than him."
er, well i know i dont have the mideast bazaar haggling mindset, but I take it this means the negotiations arent going all that well??
#7
Seems to me there's an important lesson we need to learn about fighting the Moose Limbs: YOU HAVEN'T WON UNTIL YOU'VE MADE THEM SHUT THEIR F*CKING MOUTHS.
And, with only rare exceptions, that means killing them.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2004 17:05 Comments ||
Top||
Right on schedule...
Protests against the US assault on Najaf have broken out in Iraqi cities and Iran, with some demonstrators calling for the resignation of Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.
But natch...
In one of the biggest protests, enraged Iraqis in the southern town of Diwaniya on Friday swarmed over the local office of his political party, ripping down signs and throwing rocks.
Got some big-time seething going on there...
A military offensive by US and Iraqi forces on the Al-Mahdi Army of the Iraqi Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has inflamed passions among Iraqis and Muslims. Thousands of supporters of al-Sadr, who was reported wounded on Friday in the besieged city of Najaf, marched through Baghdad, saying they were willing to die as his martyrs.
Okay by me. Start any time...
The crowd set out from the Shia leader's stronghold in the northeast of Baghdad, Sadr City, for the heavily fortified Green Zone, which houses some government offices. The men chanted such slogans as "Saddam, we will defend you with our blood! We want to be martyrs for you, Muqtada al-Sadr" and "He's the bridge to paradise" while making their way through the centre of the city. "We want to hold a peaceful demonstration outside the convention centre" inside the Green Zone, said one of the protesters, who refused to give his name. The men held aloft a sea of flags and carried banners reading "Shoot Down American Planes" and "Leave Muqtada al-Sadr".
They keep those in their underwear drawers. It says you're supposed to in the Koran someplace. You could look it up...
The Najaf offensive has also infuriated residents of the Sunni-dominated town of Falluja, which has been a significant anti-US occupation spot.
And which should be coming to the conclusion right now that they're next...
About 3000 people marched in the centre of Falluja carrying pictures of al-Sadr and placards denouncing the US bombing of Najaf, where the cleric and his followers are surrounded. "Long live Sadr. Falluja stands by Najaf against America," the marchers shouted.
At least we know what side they're on. But then, we knew that...
South of Baghdad, in the small town of Kut al-Hayy, more than 1000 people - both Sunni and Shia Muslims - marched through the streets after Friday prayers to demand an end to bloodletting. Sadr's local representative, Ashraf al-Hussaini, called for an immediate end of the occupation and for the assault in Najaf to stop, as protesters held up a banner calling for the dismissal of the defence, interior and prime ministers.
... and their little dogs, too!
Thousands of Iranians marched through the streets of Tehran on Friday in protest against US military actions in Iraq after a senior hardline cleric praised the resistance of Shia Muslims in Najaf. Chanting the usual "Death to America" and burning US flags, the protesters flooded streets in central Teheran carrying banners proclaiming: "Death to the occupiers" and "American democracy = massacre of innocent people".
Got my vote...
Similar state-sponsored rallies were planned across the country. "They (Americans) want to fully eliminate Islamic groups from the Iraqi scene and give power to a secular group who are US agents," Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati told worshippers at Friday prayers in Teheran before the protest march started.
Sounds like a reasonable plan to me...
"I must appreciate those who are resisting around the holy shrine (of Imam Ali in Najaf) against the bloodthirsty wolves," he said. Jannati, who heads a powerful hardline constitutional watchdog, criticised Iraq's interim government for "giving the green light" to the US military to carry out raids against Shia fighters in Najaf. But he made no direct reference to al Sadr, whose supporters have been fighting US and Iraqi forces in Najaf for more than a week now. A statement read by the protesters expressed "hatred for the occupiers' presence in Iraq and our support for the innocent Iraqi nation". "Iran condemns the international community's silence on the crimes being committed by occupying forces in Iraq," it said. One protester, Mohammad, 53, said it was the duty of Muslims to confront the US military in Iraq. "America attacked Iraq and looted the country and now the Iraqis want to defend their rights," he said. "The Americans call them terrorists, but the Iraqi people are not terrorists, they (the Americans) are the real terrorists."
I guess it's all a matter of interpretation, isn't it?
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2004 3:38:48 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Once again, these demos show that a significant group is not wired to code. "Attacked Iraq and looted the country" is a statement totally out of line. But reasoning with these people does not seem like a viable option.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/13/2004 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Methinks these are pure Iranian agitprop - with liberal payouts... and with little strain we can see down the road what he prolly can't: Tater is supposed to be a martyr. Though it's obvious he's a classic coward, I have no doubt this is what the Teheran Puppet Masters have in mind.
#3
So, .com, we both agree that the BTs in Iran are keeping the Tater Troop show going in men, materiel, and funding. How will it play out? Tater won't play the martyr. He reminds me of a fish I caught last week: all mouth and no meat. His invincible troops have been wacked at least twice. The Iraqis will not touch him, so what happens next? Does the BTs put more men in the breech and let 'er rip? Or do we have do something covert to the BTs in Iran to double them up, so to speak. I wonder what our strategy is.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/13/2004 16:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If Sadr had any real support, these guys would be out attacking coalition forces and inflicting casualties instead of holding signs. Sounds like a bunch of jihadi talkers who love to talk about loving death instead of actively embracing it themselves.
#5
AP - Whoa - that's a book! I have no doubt the Mad Mullahs have pulled out all the stops, at least as they see it, and are hoping beyond hope that their game takes on a life of its own, but, and this is a response to ZF's excellent observation, I'd guess they didn't pay enough to get a real uprising going. They really are a bunch of clueless transparent dufuses in most respects.
Plan? I dunno if what's left of the CA (i.e. a POV that makes sense to us) will ever be on the same page as the Iraqi Govt. We've been sorta spoiled by relations with Saudi Arabia - they employ big$$$ PR firms to speak to us (via their pet think tanks and reporters - e.g. Thomas Friedman) in terms we understand... the rest of the ME doesn't and that causes many disconnects, as I complained about regards Western logic vs Arab customs. Sigh. To tell you the truth, the Sadr episode, assuming it tracks the negotiated settlement path, tells me exactly what I did not want to hear:
You're out. Thanks for getting rid of Saddam, now piss off. This is our show, now, and we'll do it the Arab Way. We'll repeat all of the same, comfortable and familiar, mistakes. We'll turn this opportunity into shit, just as every other Arab entity in history has done when handed their future, a free and clear title, on the proverbial silver platter.
They didn't work for it, so they don't appreciate it. The fact that they would never even think to achieve freedom themselves is part and parcel to the problem. Simply put, the "bad" punidts may have been right all along - Arabs are not up to handling Democracy - they don't get it (freedom), don't have a clue what to do with it, and will fuck it up if it's given to them. Every time.
#6
Sadr is useful as bait. If we let him live more Iranians will show up to fight for his cause. We can then kill them. They'll enter Najaf like a roach motel.
This will not only weaken the Iranians who will have to explain why these fellows rarely come back to Iran. But it will also weaken them in that the hardcore Islamist numbers won't be so high the next time the Students in Iran get vocal.
#7
The Iranians have been running these protests since they began after we went in there. Remeber the perfect signs with lettering in both Arabic and English (for the western MSM)? This was when the water and eletricity wasn't on. Despite the obvious Iranian connection the MSM just keeps lapping this up an paying attention to these idiots. It reminds me of a Jesse Jackson rent-a-mob.
Posted by: remote man ||
08/13/2004 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
dot com - pissed that John Burns was right:)
oops, sorry, i feel your pain, I really do. I just dont expect this to go forward western style linearly. I was more pessimistic a couple of days ago (well, not really, but i at least defended the NYT fuckwits) and im not as pessimistic now, having expected less.
I think maybe we're all following this too closely. One day they ok an attack, and hurray!! Next day they say theyre not after Sadr, and BOO! Next day theyre going into finish him off and YEAH!!! next theyre negotiating and boo!!!
Look theres simply too much we dont know. We dont know, and CANT know, what Allawis real negotiating position is - hell we dont even really know Sadr - I mean I DONT know if hes really willing to be martyred (his dad was, so its not out of the question) or if hes gonna run as most here think - and Allawi is a more nuanced character - lets not forget that the man DID work for the Mukbarat, and then for the CIA for years. The man certainly knows NUANCE, and not just cause hes an Arab. I dont know if Allawi really wants a democracy or is a CIA stooge who wants a pro-US dictatorship, as some of our lefty friends tell us. I dont know how he intends to play Sistani. I dont know if his short term goal is to get Sadr out of Najaf (and if so what he intends to do with that) to get Sadr into the political process, or to kill Sadr. I dont know what the state of the various Iraqi forces is. I dont know what the situation on the IGC is. I dont know to what extent this is all an attempt to get the goods on Iran.
Basically I dont know jack about the situation, beyond the obvious military stuff - and, i think neither does anyone else here. We can watch, and comment, but lets avoid the temptation to emotional reactions - we should have learned that from the events of the last 3 years.
#9
Yank - My Western mind loves what you said - and hope for. But it isn't happening that way, is it? And it won't. Allawi was an exile long enough to look good in a suit, but he's still the product of Iraqi society, lip service only to Western thinking, and to even consider negotiating with Sadr is all the proof we should require to "get it" - it's not our call anymore and your scenario, no matter how good and theraputic it probably was to write, just ain't happening.
So we have to get over it. The dipshits like Kerry who think you could've "planned for the peace" in Iraq and are successfully bashing Bush over the head with this nonsense - because Joe Average doesn't think Arab - will keep the water muddied for long after the election. Memes spring up quickly in LoonieLand - and die very fucking hard.
More on the topic of logic... look at AlQ - it has consistently defied Western logic over the last year or so. Shit on the living room carpet in the Jakarta bombings, sliced off heads and proudly displayed the videos, directly threatened Govts, the list goes on. Are they nuts? Yes, indeed -- by Western logic. And when it first started happening, I thought so too - just because it was costing them friendly Govt coverage and maybe even bases of operation. But that was my Western mind. By Arab logic, they are proving themselves to be pure, to be True Believers, to be worthy of being followed by the uncommitted, but equally devout, asshats - who are joining up to become (likely) martyrs. That's just the endgame of their entire world-view, so in their terms is pretty fucking glorious and good - no matter how whacked it seems to us.
It's weird, but it's obvious that State and the Pentagon are both totally fucking clueless. I know people with 20+ years in the ME, who didn't go Stockholm Syndrome, who could've played the truly essential role of BULLSHIT DETECTOR for them... and saved them TONS of grief.
Sorry, I'm rambling.
LH - I think Sadr's father was martyred - but I doubt he was a willing martyr. Regards Allawi, he and guys like Chalbi certainly had more influence than they should have, IMO. And we're back to BULLSHIT DETECTORS, no?
We'll just do what's in our national interest - at least Bush will. If Kerry is elected, I offer the simple opinion that we're seriously fucked - for a decade, at least. And so is Israel - these are not the Soviets, they're the Mad Fucking Mullahs. I say it's merely a matter of time - and intel. If Bush wins, we'll take out the nuke stuff as best we can - and maybe even topple the Mad Mullahs - the situation they've engineered leaves no other option under the Bush Doctrine.
As for the emotional thing - I'm just tired and in a skeptical mood. I'm not sure what you are trying to say... seems extremely presumptuous on your part, if I'm reading you correctly - maybe not. BUT... I don't require therapy or soothing - much less any finger-wagging, if that was your intent. If not, no sweat. If so, HAND - and keep you finger closer to home or I'll bite the motherfucker off, heh. ;-)
#10
LH - That was unduly harsh - I've re-read your comments a couple of times and feel I definitely owe you an apology. Sorry - I was over the line and stupid on my finger-wagging response. Peace, bro.
The Yeah! and Boo! cycles definitely skew what passes for debate - and mainly serve to create cynicism where it didn't exist before, and deepen it where it has already taken root.
Although it was like quitting crack (I assume) I swore off of instant messaging and IRC. I may do the same with blogging soon. At least those thread responses which don't type themselves... i.e. just the snarky stuff. Serious responses just don't seem to work out as they would in a face-to-face where 90% of the confrontational shit would never occur because of the myriad additional cues available. Sigh. Apologies.
#11
.com: And it won't. Allawi was an exile long enough to look good in a suit, but he's still the product of Iraqi society, lip service only to Western thinking, and to even consider negotiating with Sadr is all the proof we should require to "get it"
I think Allawi is talking about negotiating because he needs to run for elections to keep his job, not because of some Arab mentality. In fact, in the context of traditional Arab dictatorships and monarchies, negotiating makes him look weak. Saddam never negotiated - he just ran right over his opponents, because he never needed any popular approval, just the approval of his henchmen. (I suspect if it starts looking like GWB is going to lose, and Kerry is going to take power, Allawi will finally unleash the American military to do all kinds of things before Kerry pulls 'em out, regardless of the consequences). Right now, Allawi is just trying to avoid losing votes from people who may view the current government position as too provocative. He wants to give more opportunities for Sadr to make himself even more unpopular with the Iraqi people. And I think it's working - every day he continues breathing - the more Iraqis want to string him up from the nearest lamp post.
#12
Allawi IS a Shiite himself, don't forget.
These are his co-religionists, albeit extremists.
I hope our high command knows what they're doing;
I'm sure they do.
Everyone--especially Tater and his boys--have *got* to know that we could wipe them out if we chose to.
And it's not about whether Bush wins.
The secret is clearly to kill al-Sadr before FRIDAY.
Once they go to the mosque and get all whipped up by the clerics, oh brother!
And also, we need to get on with it before Iran can send in anymore reinforcements!
It's a real sticky wicket and I suggest Prayer for those of you who are religious.
We can lose the whole war starting here. Or maybe not.
How will this end???
Only God and perhaps Rummy know for sure.
#13
ZF - Has Allawi indicated he will run for the PM in elections? I have not heard this - and I'm not sure he would, but such an assumption makes sense - in both ways, heh.
Strength is, indeed, more impressive on average, but his Shi'ite background comes into play, as well, and a certain sensitivity must be part of his reasoning. I hope you're right that Sadr is looking more like an Iranian tool by his actions as time passes - that is Allawi's (and the entire Iraqi Interim Govt) "out" for acting against him.
I worked with 2 Iraqis and knew a 3rd in SA. Not political exiles, just regular guys. They were all Sunnis but not Ba'athists who finally got permission to be educated abroad - and then never went back, which hurt their families, somewhat. But it was a planned thing (and common - I knew 3 on the same path!) so that there was an escape from Saddam for the lot of them if they kept it quietly under the radar. In effect, the parents would never get to leave, but these guys were making a place for their siblings. All 3 of them were also united in their view of Iran: assholes and schemers. Some of this was nationalism over the war - and some of it was suspicion of the designs the Mad Mullahs had for uniting Shi'a Islam - an obvious anathema for these Sunnis. What I don't have first-hand knowledge of is what Jake Shi'a thinks of Iranian meddling. Sure, they love to march around and whack themselves on the head with swords and, generally, be remakably stupid little robots - but will they really rise up in favor of Qom and the Black Hats? I do not know and do not trust my ignorance to do more than just guess - basing it on observation, not knowledge.
#14
Here's the image I wasted 20 minutes looking for before I finally gave up and posted my last response... Shi'a observing something called Ashoura. Need I add: Fuckwits?
#15
"The Yeah! and Boo! cycles definitely skew what passes for debate - and mainly serve to create cynicism where it didn't exist before, and deepen it where it has already taken root."
I've been on pins and needles for weeks; and I've found for the sake of my own sanity that I have to force myself not to react to each and every bit of news-- good or bad. That manic-depressive shit is just too much. And I have to remind myself that the information in any of these reports is just too damn sketchy to draw any firm conclusions. So I've been trying to shoot for the "long view."
But I do know this: our lives do not depend on this "Arab Democracy Initiative" succeeding; it is **THEIR** lives which depend on it succeeding.
If the Iraq Experiment ends up yielding good results (and the results have to be assessed on a timescale of years, not weeks or months), so much the better: it'll serve as a model for possibly doing the same elsewhere, where appropriate.
But if it fails, we will at least be able to say, "We tried. We really, REALLY tried. And we found that these people and their social system simply can NOT be reformed, and thereby detoxified, through the introduction of consensual government. It just ain't gonna happen."
And in that event, if there are more terrorist attacks on the American homeland of 9/11 magnitude, we will know not to f*ck around with "democratization" again: our response will be swift, it will be massive, and it will solve the Islamic terrorism problem immediately, completely and permanently.
"If Kerry is elected, I offer the simple opinion that we're seriously fucked - for a decade, at least."
I've given this a lot of thought lately, and I think you're right. I don't know that it would be fatal to our constitutional republic, but a Kerry presidency would likely render it gravely ill.
It would also very likely usher in an era of unprecedented challenges attacks from abroad; because far from being "Stronger at home, respected abroad" as Kerry/Edwards are promising, we would be far weaker at home, and held in absolute, sheer, utter contempt abroad by allies and enemies alike.
For the jihadis, a Kerry victory would be an utter vindication of bin Laden's "Mogadishu Principle": cause the Americans enough casualties, and they WILL go home. (Sometimes it just takes a bit longer than others, though.)
For the Chinese communists, a Kerry victory would present an almost irresistable invitation to take Taiwan by force or by threat of force; they would calculate-- probably accurately-- that America no longer posesses the political will to come to Taiwan's aid.
The Black Hats in Iran would once again be laughing at us and thumbing their noses at us, just as they did during Carter's dismal excuse for a presidency. They'll make nukes. And they'll use them.
But before the Black Hats have a chance to do that, they'll likely be wiped off the earth by an Israeli preemptive nuclear attack; for the Israelis will conclude from a Kerry victory that George W. Bush and his doctrine were an anomaly, and the norm for America is not having a set of balls. They'll conclude it's up to them to remove the Iranian menace with no help from us, and they'll do it.
Sorry for the long rant. I wish I could honestly say it made me feel better. It doesn't.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2004 19:30 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Dave, hon, cheer up--although I must admit I've been pretty strung out and can't sleep too well myself.
I hate living in these momentous and awful times!
We are the United States of America.
That's first, last and always.
And I don't know if the rest of the Arab world would " let" Iraq go Shiite, even if we would.
Iraq is surrounded by Sunni neighbors (except for Iran) which, if left to themselves, despise Shiites, particularly the Soddies.
The Sauds would wipe out the "holy" city and mosque of Najaf in a New York minute and not think a thing about it!
And sKerry isn't going to win--he's not.
Suckiest. Candidate. Ever.
And if he does, I'm moving to Costa Rica!
#18
actually, the suckiest candidate ever seems to have been McGreevy
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/13/2004 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Only because Monica hasn't run for office yet.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/13/2004 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#20
.com: Here's the image I wasted 20 minutes looking for before I finally gave up and posted my last response... Shi'a observing something called Ashoura. Need I add: Fuckwits?
Note that Christian festivals used to involve self-flagellation by the participants, hundreds of years ago. I personally don't care what these guys do to themselves, as long as they don't come after us. That, to me, constitutes crossing the line. Whatever they do to themselves, I consider their problem.
#21
ZF - Excellent outlook! A sanity-saver, heh! As for religion, well, I'm actually hardcore - at about 12 I decided they were all a trainload of bullshit - with a few (some more, some less - including zero for Islam) jewels of wisdom buried in the BS - and thus they survived. Most do some level of service for society - and thus I don't push it. It is, however, quite a load when someone says "My shit's stuff - and your stuff is shit" - since none of it can be proven. I stick to what I can prove when my brain is in gear. If one of them turns out to be true, well, everyone who bought that flavor is free to say "I told you so!", heh. We all make our choices.
Dave - Brother, if you ever need anything, just holler. I could not be more synched if my life depended upon it. You said it perfectly - thank you! I let myself believe in Allawi, against my better judgement (and I did question myself - just a little - when I started investing in this operation, damnit), so I am really buzzed out - and depressed. What a total dumbass I am for believing, even for a moment, that he would not revert to form. I surrender - I knew better.
And I believe, in my depressed state, that Kerry will win - simply because none of the outlets with a truly mass audience has anything like an even-handed approach. I would say that only Fox News provides me any glimmer of hope - since they do command the highest audience share and do tell it straighter than any of the others. But is it enough? No. Even if every Fox viewer voted Pub. Are the polls, and they've been damned consistent, correct? Will the Pub convention have any effect?
Hell, even if Bush wins, there will be a significant number of my fellow Americans who are, by almost any measure I wish to apply, either stupid, willfully ignorant, or insane... What's to be happy about?
Okay, enuff. As you said, I don't feel any better either.
#22
"Dave - Brother, if you ever need anything, just holler."
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Right now I need a drink. And the only thing I've got in the house is a bottle of Stolichnaya and some orange-flavored Metamucil to mix it with: an "Orange Stooli." Kinda gritty going down, but it packs a wallop. But not tonight, I'm not quite that desperate...
"I let myself believe in Allawi, against my better judgement (and I did question myself - just a little - when I started investing in this operation, damnit), so I am really buzzed out"
I try not to believe. Period. Or to invest. Or to get my heart set on anything. Whatever will be, will be. I will influence what little I can as an individual human being, and then accept the outcome as best I can. Either this "Arab Democracy" thing will work, or it won't. And the only thing its success or failure will determine is what strategy we pursue in the future.
I don't like belief. Muslims are believers; so are Leftists. What is so for them is what they believe to be so, and facts are irrelevant. Testing hypotheses? A foreign concept. Limits of knowledge? They don't exist. What does experience tell us? For them, it's mute; for belief trumps all. Commitment to truth? Forget it, to them there is only belief.
Is it any accident that Leftists and Muslims are allied against us? I don't think so.
Oh, well, tomorrow's another day.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/13/2004 22:30 Comments ||
Top||
#23
.com: And I believe, in my depressed state, that Kerry will win - simply because none of the outlets with a truly mass audience has anything like an even-handed approach.
Dude, you need to chill. First, let me address the worst case. We survived Carter, during a time when the Soviets had 20,000 warheads pointed in our direction. Muslims don't have anywhere near that kind of firepower. We'll survive Kerry.
Second, the polls don't mean anything at this stage. When GWB's dad was running against Dukakis, he was 17 points behind at this stage in the game. GWB is a good closer. That's pretty important in politics, because early leads mean nothing. Only the final stretch counts. The media has always been biased against Republicans - Reagan was always described as a moron who also happened to have been a fifth-rate actor. He won anyway - in electoral vote landslides. GWB will do the same - and in many ways, his victory will be more impressive than Reagan's, since GWB will have done it after waging two wars that have been relentlessly belittled by the Democrats.
But if I'm wrong, and Kerry gets elected, I can't see how Kerry could be worse than Carter. Muslims are an effete bunch that spends a lot of time talking about sacrifice hoping that other Muslims will belly up to the bar. (Muslims are such a bunch of braggarts. The Soviets lost 20m people in WWII. Even if I add all the Muslim conflicts since WWII together, I don't get anywhere close to 20m people). And they're not exactly in the same league as the Soviets as regards armament. Between lack of motivation* and lack of armaments, I don't rate the Muslim threat all that highly. China is another question, of course.
* That's an euphemism for another word, of course.
#26
tequila, Paco? I recommend Cazadores ("the hunter") - available at Costco for $29.00/bottle, same as in Tijuana...$45 at the liquor store. On ice, with possibly a twist of lime? Sublime....
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/13/2004 23:04 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Lol! I'm sure you're right. Funny how humans only really learn when in pain. When times are good, they just happily wallow in their ignorance, heh. BTW, I don't want to belabor it, but I have to insist that my knowledge of geography is just fine, lol! I'm bent on applying it soon, in fact!
#29
Dot, your not going anywhere mofk. Take a deep breath of the country air.
This war is only just begun. Talk is cheap, wild opinion comes much dearer. You've got a job, bitch. Suck it up and carry the load. Did you think this was all by accident? Hell no! You've been tagged. Now stay alert, watch the wire for movement, shoot to kill!
#30
.com: I let myself believe in Allawi, against my better judgement (and I did question myself - just a little - when I started investing in this operation, damnit), so I am really buzzed out - and depressed. What a total dumbass I am for believing, even for a moment, that he would not revert to form. I surrender - I knew better.
Your belief is a credit to you - only men of honor are capable of trusting and being trusted. Unfortunately, in the workaday world, very few people are worthy of trust. I don't apply the words "belief" or "trust" to Muslim leaders - I think their worldview allows them to betray without compunction because that's just the Muslim way. Why does a rattlesnake bite? Because that's its nature. We are allying ourselves with Allawi the way we allied ourselves with Uncle Joe Stalin in WWII - not because we like him, but because we have some goals in common. Do not expect Allawi to become a Winston Churchill, because that's simply not in the cards - Iraqi and Muslim minds have been poisoned against the US for far too long.
Shades of Mucky, his English she's not so perfect, but the bullshitometer she's functioning most goodly.
Many Groups of Sadr Militia surrendered to the Iraqi Police and Coalition forces after they gave up their arms. Among them are children less than 12 years old given RPG 7 and Kalashnikovs? Bullshit instead of a book and a computer or a game. We will get pictures of their surrender later. snip
The Hiaat Olama Moslimen of the Wahabist Hareth Thari issued a Fatwa preventing Iraqis from fighting Sadr Militia. Why they haven't issued their Fatwa when Saddam killed the Shias! Why they haven't said a single word when Hussein Kamel inscriped on his tanks (there are No Shiites after today)? Where was Thari and his thugs when Saddam attacked the holy shrines in Karbala? Anyway no one bought their Fatwa by a spit! Yeah! Like he said!
Posted by: Another Dan ||
08/13/2004 1:57:57 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
direct, to the point and and smart words from a real Iraqi --- not acknowledged in any Mainstream media pub
#3
"....English sheâs not so perfect, but the bullshitometer sheâs functioning most goodly."
Sounds like Gupta the engine-driver in the old movie "The Northwest Frontier"...
Iraq's interim government said Shi'ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr was negotiating to leave a shrine in Najaf on Friday as thousands of protesters across southern Iraq condemned a US offensive in the holy city. Demonstrators gathered in five cities in Iraq to vent their anger at the assault on Sadr's forces launched by US marines on Thursday, amid conflicting reports over whether the firebrand cleric had been wounded during the fighting. Gunmen also kidnapped a British journalist in the southern city of Basra and threatened to execute him within 24 hours if US forces did not pull out of Najaf. But the gunmen later said they would release Sunday Telegraph reporter James Brandon after Sadr's office intervened. "As a result of mediation by the office of Sayyed Sadr, the British hostage will be released and handed over to Sadr's office in Basra," one of the captors said on a videotape that also showed Brandon.
"See? See how humanitarian we are? An' we sprung 'im, just like that! We're a power to be reckoned with!"
The nine-day uprising in Najaf has killed hundreds and threatened to undermine the rule of interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who is walking a tightrope trying to crush the radical Shi'ite rebellion across southern Iraq that has hit oil exports. Speaking on Thursday after US marines backed by aircraft and tanks launched an assault on Sadr's Mehdi fighters around the Imam Ali Mosque and an ancient cemetery -- both militia strongholds -- Allawi urged the fighters to surrender.
Ummm... That doesn't sound so conflicted to me...
Sadr spokesman Ahmad al-Shinabi said the cleric was wounded at 4.30 a.m. in the cemetery on Friday. "He was in the cemetery at the time. He was wounded in the chest, arm and leg," Shinabi told Reuters in Najaf. Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib denied Sadr was wounded and said a truce had been in force since last night. He said the government was negotiating Sadr's departure from the revered Imam Ali shrine, where he has been holed up with his fighters.
Methinks Tater's indulging in a little John Kerry-style bravery there...
Residents said Najaf was quieter than on Thursday, but there had been sporadic clashes overnight from the city centre. Despite the government denial that Sadr was wounded, the news could trigger outrage from the majority Shi'ite community, where there is growing anger at the US assault near Iraq's holiest Shi'ite sites even from those who scorn Sadr's views.
That's what it's supposed to do. The rubes buy that stuff every time...
Witnesses said US forces had allowed several ambulances to take out at least eight wounded Mehdi fighters. "Sayyed Moqtada will not be touched if he leaves the shrine peacefully," Naqib said.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/13/2004 07:26 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
is it just me or does this seem like a big mistake. Some bad guys are just better off dead.
It's like one of those slash and hash movies where they finally, finally, kill the bad guy, and as everyone breathes a sigh of relief, the "dead" bad guy pops back up and charges at them with a knife.
#5
âWe will go after the criminal elements which have penetrated the Sadr movement, but not Moqtada,â He's wanted for murder and the last time I looked that was a crime. SIGH! The Arab rules of negotiation.
#9
Sometimes one has to wonder WHY people feel a need to make keeping law and order an unnecessarily difficult endeavor.
Thousands of Sadr supporters protested in front of the Green Zone compound housing the Iraqi government and the US embassy in Baghdad. Several Iraqi police took part, holding up posters of the cleric and putting them on their vehicle windows.
Not a good sign. Whoever is hiring these people isn't screening them thoroughly enough. Again, making things needlessly difficult for themselves.
#10
Points.
1. We know that it was intended that Iraqis, not Americans take the shrine, and there was concern about their training. Could this be an attempt at a breather while tactical training takes place?
2. Ceasefire in place - what are the arrangements for movement of food and water into the shrine? wounded out?
3. What is the nature of the talks? Welcoming Sadr as a political player with charges dropped, despite the second uprising and Sadrs military losses? Negotiations for orderly surrender? Something in between (IE political negotiations, but ones in which the Allawi position is stronger, recognizing Sadrs military defeat)
3. Need to reexamine and reshuffle Iraqi forces. Those in Najaf and Kut seem to have performed well. In Amara, OTOH, some ING seem to have threatened to switch sides, and in Baghdad mixed reports.
4. Need to slow down to manage the political reaction across the south. In April the strategy was to concentrate on the periphery, the smaller towns first, and go for the shrine towns last. This time it seems to have been to strike for the heart, for Sadr in Najaf. Meanwhile the smaller towns are, if not going to hell in a hand basket, in worse shape than Allawi and Coalition forces expected. Perhaps time to go back and deal with them?
5. Offer negotiations to show wavering govt members (Gawer, Jaafari) and others (Sistani, Moderessi) how reasonable Allawi is, and how inflexible Sadr is - THEN go in?
6. Perhaps new info has been gained on the tactical situation in the shrine, during yesterdays fighting (including perhaps info relating to the shrine being boobytrapped) Take a breather to modify tactical plans?
Theres ALOT going on here both politically and militarily. I would be slow to judge Allawi OR coalition strategy either way - could be stupid, could be brilliant, could be somewhere in between. We dont know - and may not know for some time.
US forces must withdraw from Najaf
Sacred Shia sites must be administered by religious authorities
The release of captured fighters and amnesty for Sadr supporters
The restoration of basic services in Najaf
Earlier, Interior Minister Falah Naqib told the Reuters news agency the cleric would "not be touched" if he left the shrine peacefully.
"We will go after the criminal elements which have penetrated the Sadr movement, but not Moqtada," he said.
So = we have a fundamental clash - Sadr wants amnesty for ALL his followers. The govt will let Sadr go, and presumably will amnesty the surviving cannon fodder, but insists on arresting "criminal elements" presumably Sadrs key lieutenants. The idea being to defang and humiliate Sadr, without martyring him. Doesnt sound like hes interested in accepting that.
#12
CNN:
In Kufa, a neighboring town north of Najaf, Iraqi security forces led a pre-dawn raid with U.S. Marines on a mosque described by Marine Capt. Carrie Batson as a "militia strong point."
"Iraqi security forces entered the mosque, cleared it of [al-Sadr's] militia men, killing several of them, also taking eight detainees," Batson said.
not sure of the timing, but it seems like the ceasefire MAY be limited to Najaf, allowing Iraqi and coalition forces to clean up elsewhere.
Also CNN reports that Sistani has sent a delegation to the talks.
My guess - Sistani, who DOESNT want a civil war among Shiites, who doesnt want Sadr to look like either a martyr or here, displacing the influencing of Sistani and other "moderate" clerics, insisted on these talks. Allawi is NOT strong enough politically to defy Sistani (and by extension, Jaafari) and so agreed to the talks. With direct representation for Sistani, Sis will be able to see whos being conciliatory and who's not.
Posted by: Mr. Davis TROLL ||
08/13/2004 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Every yahoo, wannabe revolutionary in Iraq is learning right now that the consequences of challenging the central government ain't that bad. And Tater will be back again--with better organization, planning, and arms--whenever he thinks the time is right. Huge mistake not to finish off him and his movement right now.
#15
mr. D yeah, although the Mosque in Kufa is not of national and international importance, and so wiring it to blow wasnt really a threat. we've attacked mosques before - the Shrine in Najaf is really something else, despite some people here who think Islam (sunni and shia) has an infinitude of holy places.
#16
The question is whether al-Sadr bites; was listening to 1010AM WINS or 820AM WCBS, neither was confident that he'd accept ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
08/13/2004 12:59 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Muslims have only three Holy places:
Jerusalam, Mecca, and Madinah.
The rest is just fabrication. There are cults in Islam you know, just like any other religion.
#19
Jerusalem isn't "holy" either--Mohammed just jumped on it to have something to fight about with the Jews!
As a Christian, the word "holy" doesn't really apply to Mooslim stuff.
Nor does the term "martyr."
I've never heard of anyone being called a martyr except Christians until 9/11.
Suggesting that Shia Islam is a "cult", while Sunni Islam is "true Islam" does not make you sound either tolerant or gentle. I am not a muslim, and I am NOT going to judge which group of self proclaimed muslims is authentic. From my point of view Shia is just as authentic as Sunni, and as far as I can tell Shia muslims DO treat the resting place of Ali as a holy place - enough so that Shia from all over the world attempt to be buried near it, in a striking parallel to the Jews from all over the world buried on the Mount of Olives near the Temple Mount, and, AFAIK, for similar reasons.
#21
with respect to Jerusalem-- the Koran doesn't mention Jerusalem but people say that when the Koran says Damascus it means Jerusalem--for the past 14 centuries Muslims have toggled between dissing Jerusalem (in about 9 of those centuries) and embracing it as holy (in the other 5 centuries).
and possibly Gentle considers Shia to be non Muslim (a number of Sunni consider the Shia to be kufr or worse).
#22
GJ - yeah, and as a Jew, holy (kiddushin) doesnt apply to Muslim or Christian stuff, and Jews whove died for kiddush hashem - the sanctification of the name - ie the honor of G-d - are the only "martyrs". So if you are trying to tell Gentle that using her own definition of "holy" rather than that used by the folks in question is silly, i must agree with you entirely. Gentle is being very silly here.
#23
mhw, IIUC the Koran says Muhammed ascended from "the farthest Mosque" in arabic Al aqsa. After the Arab conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Omar(?) it was determined that the Temple Mount was what the Koran was referring to.
#24
actually in centuries in which muslims didn't consider Jerusalem holy, Muslims dissed the Dome of the Rock for having un Islamic architecture (the Dome is in the middle, the building is 8 sided and it doesn't have tall minarets on each side).
#29
LH, interesting then that Allawi authorized ISF and USMC to attack a Mosque. Perhaps he's testing the ice for the big one. Maybe the raid will give Sistani something to think about.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
08/13/2004 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
Site requires registration
The latest string of raids and the resultant arrests of Al Qaeda suspects and their Pakistani backers underlines two realities. The US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is present in Pakistan in full force and forced by this presence and a commitment for cooperation by President Pervez Musharraf, the ISI is conducting the anti-terror campaign with professional commitment. The FBI has put in place a system of electronic intelligence and communication never seen before in Pakistan. As an intelligence official put it, "We are in the electronic clutches of another country." But few people can guess the extent of FBI's all-pervasive presence and the extent to which it can monitor communications in Pakistan. The anti-terror war began with the US acquisition of the Jacobabad airbase in October 2001. The process of "acquisition" continues with the help of sophisticated eavesdropping technology and computerised identification systems installed at various locations in Islamabad, Peshawar, Quetta, Lahore, Faisalabad and, in particular, Karachi.
In late 2002, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) in Islamabad had to cede a chunk of its executive block adjacent to the ISI headquarters to accommodate the rising numbers of anti-terror agents, both local and the US. Besides serving the ISI-FBI personnel, these blocks also house the hi-tech surveillance and eavesdropping systems that are being used to intercept all calls to and from Pakistan. These systems have been instrumental in keeping an eye on almost every telephonic conversation that takes place in these cities, an intelligence official said, adding that the authorities owed some of the stunning victories over militants, beginning with the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in Rawalpindi, to this equipment.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/13/2004 3:41:41 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
j00 h@v3 b33n pwn3d!!111[/1337-speak]
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
08/13/2004 4:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
'survelinance'?
Ugh, can somebody fix that?
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/13/2004 4:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
In late 2002, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) in Islamabad had to cede a chunk of its executive block adjacent to the ISI headquarters to accommodate the rising numbers of anti-terror agents, both local and the US. Besides serving the ISI-FBI personnel, these blocks also house the hi-tech surveillance and eavesdropping systems that are being used to intercept all calls to and from Pakistan.
Well F*kin' Bravo. They just revealed the next truck bomb target.
#5
I wonder what happens if the US agents have a computer problem?
Do you think they call an IT support line that is actually a call center in Pakistan?
Posted by: Mr. Davis TROLL ||
08/13/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Capsu78, ROTFLMAO. Even worse, supose all the lines are busy and they get directed to New Delhi. Imagine the reaction when they give the call back number.
Posted by: Mr. Davis ||
08/13/2004 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
A biography of one of the major Deobandi clerics who recently left this vale of tears. One of Shamzai's peers, although more concerned with Heretics than western infidels.
The late Maulana Manzur Ahmad Chinioti was born in Chiniot in 1931 but got his religious training at Darul Ulum, Tando Alahyar, Sindh. He founded his own seminary Jamia Arabiya in Chiniot in 1954. He was invited by the founder of the Banuri Mosque in Karachi, Maulana Yusuf Banuri, to come and instruct the youth there in his speciality of condemning the Ahmedi community as apostates. Maulana Chinioti was counted among the great leaders of the JUI and was closely associated with Mufti Mahmood and Maulana Darkhwasti. In 1985 he was invited by King Fahd of Saudi Arabia to instruct the youth at Madina University. He thought the Ahmedis were both zindiq (who interpret Islam wrong) and murtad (who abandon Islam) and thought that their rightful punishment was death. On 30 June 1974 the opposition in the National Assembly presented a resolution for the apostatisation of the Ahmedis in Pakistan, which was passed as a constitutional amendment. Bhutto declared them a non-Muslim minority. Later Maulana Chinioti was successful in getting General Zia to place additional disabilities on the Ahmedis. God struck him dead He died of kidney failure in the Sharif Hospital in Lahore where he was admitted on the special recommendation of Mian Nawaz Sharif who held him in high esteem like the rest of the nation.
Scourge of the Qadianis: Maulana Chinioti won the hearts of the Pakistanis after he became the scourge of the Qadiani/Ahmedi sect in Pakistan.
George Washington is known as the father of his country. Vaclev Havel is known for his peaceful resistance to the communists. Churchill is known for never surrendering. Chinioti is known for being a "scourge". Questions?
Today, if a Qadiani is buried in a Muslim graveyard by mistake his corpse is dug up and banished by the neighbourhood community. Annually a booklet is published by the Jama'at Ahmadiyya recounting the stories of persecution by the believing Muslims with the help of the Islamic state. Puritanical Deobandi clerics arose in Jhang to challenge heresy in Islam. Maulana Haq Nawaz Jhangvi, the founder of the (later terrorist) organisation Sipah Sahaba, arose from a being baiter of the Ahmedi and Barelvi communities to become the great apostatiser of the Shiite community. Demanding that the Shiites be declared non-Muslims in the Constitution, Sipah Sahaba became the great mother organisation of jihad which was used by the Pakistani state for its own purposes. Maulana Chinioti was the great Deobandi leader of the district after Maulana Jhangvi. By reason of his electoral success (three times elected to Punjab Assembly) he was perhaps the greater of the two.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/13/2004 1:44:32 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 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.
