#6
I don't share Charles Johnson - littlegreenfootballs - obsession with Kos. In fact, LGF is becoming boring. Now that Johnson has some celebrity status, he is milking "views" in order to cash in on advertising revenue. In consequence, his Comment pages - which once contained excellent posts - now looks like the worst of Yahoo. In fact, Kos and lgf could be one-two on that list. Both are "view" milkers of the worst kind. Let them eat cake, together.
#8
And vice versa. If Iran has a right to preemptively attack Israel, then Israel has the right to preemptively attack Iran. (And the US).
I have figured out the bulk of the Left's argumentation patterns: they think and act like class-action suit lawyers. Neither truth, facts, or logic apply: Just make your case, use whatever rhetorical tactics you are permitted to get away with, and hope the opposition doesn't point out the holes in their arguments. And whatever you do, don't acknowledge the holes: the Jury will notice!
Once you figure out the core tactics, countering them is easy, which is why the Lefties are now so intent on regulating blogs, and soon political advertising: they're trying to suppress the other side. If they can just shut up the other side, they reason, we will win our case.
Remember, the value of an insight is how many questions it answers.
#10
That's right. The 1 post out of 22 this weekend that's about Kos shows Charles' "obsession".
People have been whinging about the lgf comments section for five-plus years. That anyone peddling this tired trope could call Charles' tireless and vacation-less work keeping his gaze on our enemy "boring" is a laugh.
#11
I guess by their thinking, conservatives have a right to mass and attack the wussy liberals in the streets and suburbs. Burn their ethically corrupt institutions and drive them into the sea (or Belgium, whichever is worse).
Kos takes potshots at Charles, and Charles replies in kind. Charles is not a christian, much less a Christian-who-should-roll-over-at-the-slightest-opposition-in-order-to-be-a-good-witness type of person. Those are easy pickings for a moonbat like Kos. Receiving mortars when you fire potshots is something that Kos, or his psychological brothers, the Lions of Islam, dislike and believe to be haram.
Charles has a following, like Fred, that trades banter in the same way that we do here. However, Fred's format is more like a highly specialized Bulletin Board.
However, I will grant that they don't seem to have a .com or a Zenster. Of course, they don't have Muck4doo ("yeah he's a lib, but he's OUR lib!") or Josepth Mendiola ("Yeah, he comes across as a bit crazy, but he's OUR crazy!").
Rantburg's got LGF beat in format, brains, and color...
#13
I have a lot of respect for LGF, but I prefer hanging out here as a commenter just because LGF is so damned big. The 'Burg feels more human scaled.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/09/2007 10:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I have a lot of respect for LGF, but I prefer hanging out here as a commenter just because LGF is so damned big. The 'Burg feels more human scaled.
Agreed. I still check out LGF for the interesting stories, but I've given up on reading the comments - too many comments and interpersonal sub-threads to keep up with.
I agree. LGF irrelevance became obvious when the President threw out feelers on new strategies for Iraq. In stark contrast to Rantburg posts - some of which caused me to change my views - LGF was not even in the game.
#18
"I still check out LGF for the interesting stories, but I've given up on reading the comments..."
Too right. The most wasted couple of hours I ever spent, was on a comments thread at LGF where I tried to explain that the reason why Auschwitz wasn't bombed during WWII had more to do with technical, geographical, and mission-planning limitations than outright anti-Jewish prejudice.
I would still like those hours back, thankyouverymuch.
Great stories there... but as far as comments threads, the static-to-information ratio is just too high.
#19
Iran Has A Right To Attack Israel (and the US)
Of course they do, they're a sovereign nation. We, in turn, have the right to kick the ever lovin' cr@p out of them if we think they are even contemplating doing so.
The nation is on the verge of an honest debate on Iraq. On one side are those who believe that the Iraq War is unwinnable and we should begin pulling out our troops soon; on the other are those who believe it is still winnable and we should send more troops in a last-ditch push to secure Baghdad.
The only obstacle to the full flowering of this debate is the reluctance of the Democrats to say out loud what many of them obviously believe: The war is lost.
If the war is lost, it makes sense indeed is imperative to begin pulling out American troops now. That is the policy the Democratic leadership supports, but without stating its predicate, which is their belief that America has been defeated.
Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid write euphemistically in a letter to President Bush, It is time to bring the war to a close. If that isnt just rhetorical fluff who doesnt want the war to be brought to a close? it is a closeted way of saying that the war is lost. It is not within our power now to bring the war to a close. We can bring only our combat role in Iraq to a close, which will stoke the war further.
Because Pelosi and Reid fear saying what they believe, they end their letter with the dishonest assertion that we want to do everything we can to help Iraq succeed in the future. It just so happens that everything we can do, in their minds, means doing less, and pretending that it will improve conditions in Iraq. The two leaders thus continue what has been the besetting Democratic political sin throughout this war: bad faith.
Every Senate Democrat with presidential aspirations voted to authorize the war, mostly because they feared getting on the wrong side politically of what looked like would be a popular, successful war to topple Saddam Hussein. The same bad faith has sent Democrats and liberal commentators searching for muscular military measures to favor in theory.
It once was a staple of Democratic criticism of the Bush administrations management of the Iraq war that it hadnt dedicated enough troops to stabilize the country. John Kerry: We dont have enough troops (there). Joe Biden: Theres not enough force on the ground now to mount a real counterinsurgency. That was before Bush seemed on the verge of actually proposing more troops. Now Democrats support more troops but only for Afghanistan.
President Bush finally has taken to heart the old slogan that war is too important to be left to the generals. He has fired his generals responsible for the failing strategy in Iraq, and hired one David Petraeus who believes in the new strategy of adding more troops to clear and hold neighborhoods in Baghdad. He thus has stripped away any of the political insulation between him and the management of war that he had maintained by deferring to his generals. He is taking full ownership of the war just as it seems barely salvageable, an act of political courage commensurate with the geopolitical stakes in Iraq.
The Democrats arent being as straightforward, which is why its possible to feel a twinge of sympathy for antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan. It must be infuriating to her to know that most Democrats believe the same thing she does about the futility of the war, but wont follow through on it. Nancy Pelosi is rumbling about denying funding for a surge of 20,000 additional troops, but supports continuing funding for the 140,000 troops already there. If the war is lost, however, it is no better to have 140,000 troops stuck in theater than 160,000.
Eventually, the logic of their unspoken convictions will catch up to the Democrats, and Sheehans cry to bring the troops home now will become their own. And the true debate will be joined.
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/09/2007 15:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the war is lost and not just a single isolated battle, then we are in real trouble.
#4
Dead on #2 - the USA couldn't do anything until we obeyed a UNO that won't even stand up for its own credibility; we couldn't again until we first publicly revealed, debated, and attained Congressional = UNO approval of our pre-invasion/action public "exit strategy"; and now despite our control of Iraq NOT being threatened + inter-Muslim fighting in FEW, NOT MOST PROVINCES causing most of the local casualties, we've seemingly "lost the war". THE RETREATCRAT =DEFEATCRAT DEMS LIKE TO CRITICIZE DUBYA, BUT SO FAR THEIR FIRST "100 HOURS" HAS LEFT DUBYA + CONSERVATIVES IN CHARGE OF FIGHTING THE WAR, wid no likelihood of change even iff "100 Hours" became "100 Days". Dare "1000 Days" ala JFK??? THE BLAMELESS LEFT WANTS TO STAY BLAMELESS > MEANS NO BLAME FOR LOSING THE WAR, NO BLAME FOR LOSING IRAQ TO RADICAL TERROR = TYRANNY vv DEMOCRACY/SOCIALISM, NO BLAME FOR US CASUALTIES, + NO BLAME FOR ANY AMER HIROSHIMAS OR AGZ DUBYA-NPE, .............ETAL, NO BLAME FOR WAR = NO BLAME FOR PEACE. SMART/GOOD POLITIX is NOT always SMART/GOOD LEADERSHIP, becuz in LT even PC will attain such "critical mass" Pols WILL BECOME TOO FRIGHTENED/POLITICIZED TO USE THE RESTROOM WITHOUT KNOWING THE POLLING SURVEY OF THE MOMENT. You need a lawyer to see a lawyer to see a lawyer.
Unlike the Clinton 1990's, when the MSM gave Clinton and Dems credit for a Reagan-Repub economy that even BILL CLINTON himself admits was already well-expanding before he became POTUS, THE LEFTIES KNOW THE DEATH OF FREE AMERICA + MAY MEAN THEIR DEATH AS WELL, AND AT THE HANDS OF THEIR LEFT COMRADES. MACKINDER'S WORLD ISLAND = ASIAN/ORIENTAL LEFTS + LEFTISM, NOT THE US-WESTERN LEFTS. Hitler's persecutions + pogroms agz elements within his own Nazi Party is miniscule compared to Stalin's and Mao's.
The government of Pakistan has banned my book The Truth About Muhammad, confiscating all copies and translations. Why? Because it contains objectionable material about Muhammad. Said Shahid Ahmed, counselor of community affairs at the Pakistani Embassy in Washington: The book is very, very damaginglet me tell you.
Hes right. Heres a small sampling:
1. My book details the choice that Muhammad directed his followers to offer to non-Muslims: conversion to Islam, subjugation without equality of rights with Muslims under the rule of Islamic law, or war. This can be found in, among many other places, Sahih Muslim, a collection of hadithtraditions of Muhammad and the early Muslimsthat Muslims consider reliable. In it, Muhammad says:
When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action .Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them .If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya [a special tax levied on non-Muslims]. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allahs help and fight them. (Sahih Muslim 4294)
Is Sahih Muslim banned in Pakistan? Of course not.
2. In the book, I discuss how Muhammads earlier biographer, Ibn Ishaq, explains the contexts of various verses of the Koran by saying that Muhammad received revelations about warfare in three stages: first, tolerance; then, defensive warfare; and finally, offensive warfare in order to convert the unbelievers to Islam or make them pay the jizya. Koranic commentaries by Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti and others also emphasize that the ninth chapter of the Koran, in which this call to offensive warfare appears, abrogates every peace treaty in the Koran.
Are the works of Ibn Kathir, Ibn Juzayy, As-Suyuti, or modern commentators who echo them banned in Pakistan? Nope.
3. Also in The Truth About Muhammad I discuss Muhammads marriage to little Aisha, which is addressed in the hadith collection Sahih Bukhari (generally considered by Muslims to be the most reliable such collection). According to several traditions recorded by Bukhari, the Prophet wrote the (marriage contract) with Aisha while she was six years old and consummated his marriage with her while she was nine years old and she remained with him for nine years (i.e. till his death) (Bukhari 7.62.88).
It is obvious that many Muslims take very seriously and act upon the material on which I depended to write the book. Imitating the Prophet of Islam, many Muslims even in modern times have taken child brides. The United Nations Childrens Fund (UNICEF) reports that over half of the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. In early 2002, researchers in refugee camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan found half the girls married by age thirteen. In an Afghan refugee camp, more than two out of three second-grade girls were either married or engaged, and virtually all the girls who were beyond second grade were already married.
Is Sahih Bukhari banned in Pakistan? Of course not.
Since I based my book entirely on Islamic sources, the objection that Pakistani authorities have to it cannot reasonably be based on what I report about Muhammad, but only on the fact that I hold him to a moral standard different from the one he delineated for himself, and do not consider him to be an excellent example of conduct. But in a society that is not pathologically insecure, this ought to be not an occasion for banning and confiscation, but for free and open debate.
After all, the reform of Islam that is so needed todayin order to mitigate the elements of it that are giving rise to violence and extremismcannot possibly begin without acknowledgment of the fact that there are aspects of Islam that need reform. But the banning of The Truth About Muhammad in Pakistan is another indication that such reform, despite the hopes placed upon it by so many in the West, is not on the horizon.
Mr. Spencer is director of Jihad Watch and author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" and "The Truth About Muhammad" (both from Regnery -- a HUMAN EVENTS sister company).
Ever since Hamas came to power in democratic elections last January, the specter of internecine violence has haunted the Palestinian territories. Attempts over the past year to negotiate an agreement that would allow Hamas and Fatah to share power were interrupted by armed clashes, but many still held out hope that the two factions would eventually recognize the futility of their ways and arrive at some form of compromise.
However, this past week has seen a rapid degeneration from bad to worse: a series of gun battles, abductions and raids - occurrences which have become alarmingly common in the territories - culminated with officials from Hamas and Fatah issuing public threats to kill one another's leaders. The chasm between the two factions has never been wider, and the leaders of both parties are to blame for dragging their population to the brink of civil war.
But instead of acting like elected representatives and serving the interests of their public, Palestinian leaders are behaving like rival gang chiefs and are dragging their entire population into a deadly and pointless street war.
In fairness, the situation in the Occupied Territories can be attributed to a long list of factors over which Palestinian leaders have little or no control. These include the crippling embargo that was imposed after the elections produced results that were unacceptable to Western nations, Arab leaders' systematic neglect and exploitation of the Palestinians' plight, the crushing of civil society and state institutions that occurred during the rule of late President Yasser Arafat, and the chaos, misery and destitution wrought by decades of oppressive Israeli occupation. But acknowledging the role that these and other factors may have played in creating the current crisis does not absolve Palestinian leaders of their share of responsibility. On the contrary, as elected representatives, the leaders of Hamas and Fatah have a greater responsibility than anyone else to act in the interests of the Palestinian people.
But instead of acting like elected representatives and serving the interests of their public, Palestinian leaders are behaving like rival gang chiefs and are dragging their entire population into a deadly and pointless street war. The leaders of both parties have witnessed the death and destruction that have resulted from their unwillingness to share power, yet they remain utterly inflexible and unwilling to compromise. Palestinian leaders, who are now more threatened by each other than they are by the menace of Israeli assassinations, have become their own worst enemies. And they will be to blame if the fruits of their leadership - violence - prevent the Palestinian people from achieving their aspirations.
Posted by: Fred ||
01/09/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Palestinian leaders are behaving like rival gang chiefs
#4
But instead of acting like elected representatives and serving the interests of their public, Palestinian Iraqi and Iranian leaders are behaving like rival gang chiefs and are dragging their entire population into a deadly and pointless street war
But this is the Arab way, you wouldn't undersand!!!!
Posted by: Smokiem el Salem ||
01/09/2007 4:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Paleos have always been their own worst enemies. They simply weren't flaunting it so obviously before.
#6
In fairness, the situation in the Occupied Territories can be attributed to a long list of factors over which Palestinian leaders have little or no control. These include the crippling embargo that was imposed after the elections produced results that were unacceptable to Western nations
In fairness, they elected Nazis. If Palestinian leaders cannot be held accountable for being Nazis there is nothing they can be held responsible for. This, of course, is the few of the Nazi "left" but such is to quibble.
#7
These include the crippling embargo that was imposed after the elections produced results that were unacceptable to Western nations
Palis have the right to elect anyone they like. We have the right to provide support or not. Our support is not an entitlement. True, there were fair elections. Or at least fair enough. But decisions have consequences.
#4
The one wild card that would change the equation would be an aggressive move by Iran. Should Iran launch a cruise missile at a U.S. Navy ship in the Gulf, we will have war right now. Should an Iranian missile sink a U.S. carrier, the U.S. population would experience another 9/11 moment.
#6
If Bush turns out to be a puss on Iran I am going to connect him and Carter and never vote for Presidents who can't speak English again.
That being said, I think Rantburgers are going to be dancing a collective jig after his speech Wednesday. Hell, if it goes well enough, you might just see me on the news doin a little chuck-n-jive in the middle of the street holding a ghetto blaster to my ear.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/09/2007 18:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I have been watching the stars and I used to bet pussweed but I think I am now on doubling down on opossum.
#8
Free six pack to the first person that comes up with a picture of a Bush/marsupial hybrid.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
01/09/2007 21:44 Comments ||
Top||
#9
FORTRESS IRAQ/ME + "No Madhi + Jesus in Spring" > means Radical Iran will have to give up support for Terror + Regional Ambitions for empire; or ATTACK. to "save face". Even iff Moud has one of his public, personal "visions", doubt it will stave off humiliation and discreditment. MOUD WOULD BE BETTER OFF POINTING A FINGER AT DIANE + PHOEBE + SELENE AND USING ANY PARANORMAL ABILITIES TO MAKE FLOAT OFF THE GROUND, OR MAKE OBJECTS MOVE ACROSS A FLOOR. SECULAR ATHEIST "GOD IS FAKE" COMMIE-SOCIALISTS OR GOD-BASED > IFF MAHDI WANTS TO BE GOD, MOUD, GOTTA DO GODLY THINGYS. Yarn 2012? PLanet X, Sun heating up the Earth, Moon explodin circa 2029-30, etc. WANNA SAVE THE WORLD MOUD???
ENVIRONMENTAL contamination could affect the region if Israel goes ahead with reported plans to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facilities or if there is an earthquake, a Bahraini expert warned yesterday.
However, Bahrain University physics professor Dr Waheeb Alnaser said things could be much worse if Israel decides to attack the power plant in Bushehr. He said alleged plans by Israel to attack facilities in Natanz, Arak and near Isfahan would result in limited damage to the environment. This is because neither the weapons that would be used nor the uranium located there is highly active.
But Dr Alnaser fears that Israel may go even further by attacking Iran's power plant in Bushehr, describing this as a major disaster for the whole region. "I'm not saying there would be no environmental damage from attacking these uranium enrichment plants, but the danger is 100 times worse if they attack an active nuclear reactor - especially after three or four years of operation when the uranium will be highly active," he said.
"It'll make a hell of a mess!"
"Israel hasn't named the plant as one of its targets, but you never know with Israel. War is all about lies, they may say one thing and do another."
#10
Dr Alnaser said Iran could have very easily built its nuclear power plant on the Arabian Sea, where there are no countries nearby, but insisted on building it in Bushehr - which is closer to the Gulf countries than it is to Tehran.
#12
So, the good doc is actually giving the Joos the go-ahead to do it now before Bushehr goes hot? Is that what I'ma readin' between the lines?
Naw, I didn't think so either. Go ahead Israel, do it for the environment#&43
Posted by: BA ||
01/09/2007 13:33 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The environment in Iran is pretty bad now. This BBC article from today states 10,000 have died in Tehran in the past year from air pollution.
"It is a very serious and lethal crisis, a collective suicide," the director of Tehran's clean air committee, Mohammad Hadi Heydarzadeh, told an Iranian newspaper.
"A real revolution is needed to resolve this problem."
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.
by Robert Spencer
ENVIRONMENTAL contamination could affect the region if Israel goes ahead with reported plans to attack Iran's uranium enrichment facilities or if there is an earthquake, a Bahraini expert warned yesterday.
