My personal opinion is that when we go to war we should kick ass and then leave, hollering over our shoulders that if they do it again we'll be back.
In Afghanistan once the Taliban were kicked out we should have turned Kabul over to the legitimate government, which was the Northern Alliance. Should the Talibs have arisen again we could thumped them again in the space of a month, which would have been cheaper in the long run.
Iraq was more complicated: we won the war against Sammy but then we found ourselves in another war against Zarqawi. Once Sammy was hung and Zarqawi stuffed and mounted we could leave any time.
#1
I see the situation as anything but easy. To start with, the real problem in the region is Pakistan. Afghanistan was just their back yard. This meant that, from the start, we should have split the two apart, and kept them apart, and dealt with them as different problems.
As far as Afghanistan goes, we should have set up a MacArthur (PBUH) style military government, for five to ten years, just to get Afghanistan functioning as a country again.
We then should have made the Pushtun a deal: you are either Afghans, or Pakistanis, not both. Pick a country, and that is where you will remain. No more border hopping. Then we seal the border. Not an easy task, but it could have been done. All traffic goes via the Khyber Pass, and NATO are the gate guards. Anything else gets shot.
Then take all males from the border regions, and give them labor intensive government infrastructure rebuilding jobs. With all their pay kept in a bank in Kabul until they are released. Free tent, food and medical care.
All the villages would be run by councils of women, who would legally own all property. Any unauthorized male would be arrested on sight. All children would be put in secure, western style boarding schools. Their daily prayers would be just that--no sermons--then back to school. No madrassas.
#3
I saw him on Colbert Report. Awesome. Warfighting not nation building or get out is the take away. We've been there about ten years is it now?
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
We haven't tried the shampoo method and it probably is worth a go.
Lather, scrub, rinse...repeat as necessary.
Posted by: Alan Cramer ||
02/24/2011 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The real problem in the region is Islam. They need to figure out a way to live in a world at peace where the only conversions they make are voluntary. Until then, when they try to increase the Dar-es-Salaam by violence, it will be reduced by violence. Once we've reduced it, we leave. And if we have to come back. we reduce it to something smaller than we did the prior time. Either they will get the message and change or they will disappear. I am indifferent as to which outcome occurs.
[Asharq al-Aswat] In his Green Book, where he discusses his theory of the Third World, Colonel Muammar Qadaffy ... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule... says: "The natural person has freedom to express himself even if, when he is mad, he behaves irrationally to express his madness". However, The infamous However... when the Libyans came out in complete sanity to demonstrate, vent their opinions regarding the regime, and demand change, as their neighboring countries to the east and west had previously done, Colonel Qadaffy did not remember his hypothesis. Nor did he respond by telling the protestors "I have heard you", unlike the former Tunisian President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, who told his people "I understand you".
Qadaffy's regime resorted to weapon of suppression, which it has used many times before with great success, and responded to its people with a warning written in Libyan blood, threatening a sea of casualties. This worn-out regime used unprecedented violence to suppress the popular protests, countering the demonstrators with machine guns, artillery fire and aerial bombardments, leaving hundreds dead and thousands maimed over the past few days. Indeed, Colonel Muammar Qadaffy has threatened even more killings, when he came out yesterday and delivered a tense speech (which was poorly edited as some sections appear truncated), threatening that Libya could become another Fallujah. He called for the protestors to be killed, whom he described as rats and mercenaries. He pointed out that the Americans could not protest such state actions, because they "flattened the ground" in Fallujah when they were in pursuit of al-Zarqawi. Qadaffy also pointed out what China has done in the past to its protestors and the Russian incident when state authorities bombarded the parliament whilst MPs were staging a protest.
The Colonel believed that misguided youths were responsible for what was happening in his country, having been provided with drugs, money and alcohol, thus prompting them to attack the headquarters of the army and the police. In his speech, Qadaffy paved the away for further massacres, particularly in Benghazi, where he launched a scathing attack on the population there, saying "who are you?" Indeed, he seemed to be calling for the division of the country, telling the tribes to mobilize, and calling for each region to take their share of the oil. He said he would not leave Libya or step down, because he has no position to step down from.
Colonel Qadaffy, who often touted the theory of popular revolution and the age of the masses, has fallen on his own sword. All his theories fell with him, when he angrily condemned the Tunisians for rebelling against the regime of Ben Ali, and said that if he were Tunisian, he would have allowed President Ben Ali to stay in power for life. When the revolution moved to Egypt, he was also concerned by this and stood against it. Since that point, it seems Qadaffy has been preparing to quell any popular uprising, as evidenced today by the African mercenaries fighting against the demonstrators, with live bullets. We did not see the Libyan police confront the protestors with water cannons, but rather with a barrage of bullets from the onset, in a clear policy of intimidation. The outcome was what we heard in the testimonies of Libyans who spoke from inside the country via telephone, to satellite channels abroad. Horrific photographs were taken, to accompany appalling stories about the regime's use of extreme violence to confront the demonstrators, and about young people being killed by sniper bullets or artillery shells, at the hands of those loyal to the regime. Even the funeral processions for the victims of such repression were not spared from sniper fire and the mercenaries, who had been recruited by the regime against the people.
The massacres that are occurring in Libya against the populace are appalling by any standards. The regime is stagnant, having suppressed the Libyans for more than 41 years, during which it used all methods to stay in power, from assassinating dissidents abroad, to eliminating rebel forces internally, and executing those who dared show their opposition to Qadaffy's regime, or demand an end to it. The regime seems determined to cling onto power until its last breath or until the last man or woman is standing, in the words of Saif al-Islam Qadaffy. The appeals of the Libyans, who are being massacred by the regime, have been met with a semi-official silence throughout the Arab world, and a number of hesitant or inconsistent Western stances, particularly from Washington. There is a flaw in the Arab system, where our governments are standing by idly, whilst people are being slaughtered in this barbaric fashion. It is worth noting that such scenes will only incense people further, and increase feelings of anger lurking below the surface, just as the recent events have exposed the international community and its double standards. The West has lectured us for years about spreading democracy in the Arab world, and has used this as a justification for its foreign interventions. Yet when a spark ignites genuine revolutions calling for change, with young voices demanding freedom and democracy, Western attitudes seem hesitant and confused. They do not know whether to support these youth revolutions and popular uprisings.
There is another theme that many have observed during these events, namely that each regime which has encountered a popular uprising has opted to repeat the same broken record, as if all those in power read from the same book. The Libyan regime resorted to cutting off the internet and mobile phone services, and attacked satellite channels. It claimed that a foreign network had been trained to strike at Libya's stability. This is what we heard during the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt, as if their own people were mere puppets, who would never rise up against their deplorable living conditions, unless prompted to do so by a movement with a foreign agenda. Ironically, the Libyan regime said these words whilst it sought the assistance of African mercenaries, publishing advertisements for more recruits, in order to suppress its people. This is a tactic used by bullies to intimidate people, and it is happening again in a more aggressive fashion, after what we saw in Tunisia, Egypt and Yemen.
The repression in Libya is beyond anything we've seen so far in the other countries affected by this hurricane. Those who know the situation in Libya, and its composition, are warning of a genuine bloodbath, before the regime finally accedes to the storm, in one way or another, sooner or later. The regime will not last, even though Qadaffy has ruled for 41 years. The repression will not guarantee the survival of the regime, even though it has succeeded for some time in silencing the people.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Book of Ezekiel is an obscure book of the Bible. And interpretations of it are obscure as well. There are the prophecies concerning Egypt describing a great crocodile caught in a net and drawn out of the river and feasted on by the birds. The prophecy describes a desert from Ethiopia and Punt to Lebanon and Tunis. All obscure. There is a tree in Lebanon used as a metaphor and the repetition of water images and calamity...and eagles and birds feasting on carrion. Who knows what it all means.
And, of course, the Field of Dry Bones, a powerful metaphor, very vivid, of what?
And over all the image of "God" like a dark cloud and it aint good for somebody. One gets the impression that maybe the Party is over and its time to look for the door. When things go bad and Batista is headed for the airport its always hard to get a taxi. Not a good time to invest in Casinos.
Apocalypses without a white napkin and the grocery store is empty. Do you own a gun? And just where WILL you get gas to get to the grocery store....and then home again jiggety jig?
Do you have a nice little Garden in the back yard and a basement full of canned stuff laid by diligently for a decade...at least?
I have heard among you Corinthians that there are factions and you dont all agree with one another. And that when you meet together some are drunk and the others have nothing.
Can this be true? If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels what IS that smell? If for this life only we have hoped....
you can read it in Newsweek.
All obscure, so much is obscure. But we all have to vote Present and surely everything that can be done is surely being done, eh? Hope and Trust and Change la di da.
And you can sleep confortably tonite under a thick blanket of warm fuzzy fog.
Break the Second Seal....
#2
canned stuff laid by diligently for a decade. That isn't going to be nearly enough. Few people have the resources to lay by the amount of drinking water, food, fuel for home heating, clothing, community security, medications, health care, and all the remaining necessities of life sufficient to last for the rest of their lives, and not just for a decade.
#3
Chrysler ran a commercial on TV this morning I've not seen before. The weather reports a winter storm while a few flakes of snow begin to fall. The community goes berserk, a grocery store is attacked by a mob, an old lady with a determined look on her face pushes her grocery cart along the shelves and simply plows canned food off the shelf and into the cart, people are stumbling and falling over each other. A voice-over mentions "The end is near." A few Chrysler owners with heroic expressions, the men with beard stubble, stoically walk through the chaos, go out to their cars, and drive at 50 mph down a road with 3 inches of snow on it while (presumably) non-Chrysler vehicles are in the ditch or parked on the shoulders. The snow falls harder. The only thing missing were bodies lying around, bullets bouncing off the windshields and the non-Chrysler vehicles blowing up and burning brightly as darkness descends on a doomed world. Doomed, that is, unless you buy a Chrysler.
#5
Seriously, Dribble2716, Ezekiel? Let me suggest Isaac Asimov's Guide to the Bible, to give you an idea of what the scholars think about Ezekiel. You'll feel much better after reading that chapter, truly. And no, dear one, Ezekiel really is not considered obscure -- it was in 5th or 6th grade when we learnt about it in Hebrew School, as I recall.
I'm afraid I don't know how to deal with your babble on Corinthians -- we didn't study that at all in Hebrew School, although we did have a lovely comparative religions course. And gas for the car? Surely you've heard of bicycles, dog carts... and the original equipment shank's mare? Humanity got on just fine before petroleum-powered automobiles were a common possession.
#6
The massacres that are occurring in Libya against the populace are appalling by any standards.
Oh, really? When people in power really really want to stay in power, the carnage knows no limit. Someone has forgotten that human experience, formerly known as history.
#7
As P2K mentions, and somebody the other day, this really is the norm by a longshot. I too believe this. It is the controlled transition of power seen in recent civ history which is the outlier.
#9
It is the controlled transition of power seen in recent civ history which is the outlier.
What is new is the speed with which most of the world hears about it.
Posted by: Alan Cramer ||
02/24/2011 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Aye, video footage from anywhere in the world 15 seconds post production, by anyone.
Biased article from 4th Media, but it shows what a lot of Chinese really think.
The Chinese people did not only reaffirm their trust, love and commitment to their country by ignoring tweeted messages from the United States calling on them to copy-cat the uprisings that have gripped North Africa and the Middle East, particularly Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen, but by refusing to stage any protests against their government is enough proof that the people of China know exactly where their country is heading, and that China has gone past the stage where western governments can dictate how the internal affairs of the country should be run.
Wangfujing, a very busy street - call it a shopping center in Beijing - was the place where tweeted messages from the U.S. had called on Chinese citizens to stage protests against the government. Wangfujing was thought to be special as it is just less than one kilometer from Tiananmen Square and thousands of people could be found there at any working hour.
In the midst of those who were there for their daily activities including shoppers even though CNN gave the impression that those present at the venue were a handful of protesters was the U.S. ambassador to China. There is no doubt that he had gone there to see how the planned protest was going on, and apparently tweet in more words of encouragement and reassurance to the protesters that the U.S. was with them in the advent of any reaction from the government of China.
But to his greatest disappointment, nothing was happening. The Chinese people are too busy to give a damn to western manipulations aimed at destabilizing their own nation which today is a source of pride to every Chinese citizen in any part of the world. China is no longer that powerless developing nation that it was before 1949. China is a giant in the international scene and the destiny of the world relies on how China sneezes. If China sneezes too hard, the world will catch a cold.
It was not a coincidence that the U.S. ambassador was spotted at the venue during the same hour that the protests were supposedly planned to hold. He was there to applaud the protesters, take down notes of how the riot police will react, then return to his office and make a report on human rights violations in China, and then fax an urgent message to the White House on the need to covertly encourage the protesters to march on, chant slogans and call for regime change and other social benefits like was the case in Tunisia, Egypt, and now, Libya and Bahrain.
If any one doubts the hand of the U.S. in this manipulation call it hidden agenda, then that person should explain why the tweeted messages originated from the U.S., and not any other country in the world. Are there no Chinese citizens in Africa, Latin America, and in other Asian countries? Do Chinese citizens in the U.S. love China more than those in other parts of the world? Definitely, the tweeted messages did not originate from Chinese citizens based in the U.S. as western media claimed. The plan was carefully tailored within U.S. secret services give them whatever name you may like but the real intension was to show to the world that the people of China are not comfortable with the government, while further plans would be put on the ground to destabilize the Chinese government. But the tactic failed.
CNN could only report how a man was arguing with a policeman and how uniform and plain clothes policemen paraded the venue as if it is not necessary for the police to be present at a shopping center where not only hundreds, but thousands of people walk by during every business hour. The picture of the U.S. ambassador at the scene received a total black-out. Quite telling. The Western media, particularly CNN, lie their asses off all the time about China.
China is too strong for any country in the world to think of messing around with its internal affairs. The Chinese people know what they need. They know their direction, and they know where they are heading to. What they do not need is for any nation, not even the U.S. to give them lessons on how to run their affairs. The failed Jasmine protests in China should be a lesson to the U.S. and its allies in the west - that if they are thinking of more attempts to destabilize China then they should think again.
It is a pity that the people of Egypt and Libya in particular are blind-folded in protesting against their government. Take Egypt for example, the protesters were full of ecstasy in shouting Mubarak go, but they were ignorant of the behind-the-scene games that were going on in the U.S.
Mubarak became a victim to his masters in the U.S. simply because he was no longer useful and knowing that the people of Egypt were tired of Mubaraks 30 years rule, and that they will welcome any possible attempts to demand for change if they were assured that their demands must be met, the biggest donor to Egypt the U.S., saw the Egyptian protesters as the best channel to kick-start the process to dispose Hosni Mubarak. While the protests were going on, the Army was working out plans to take over the country, with the support of the U.S. which gives $1.5 billion aid annually to the Egyptian military. And it happened. Things will be the same in Egypt. During transition, the U.S. will make sure that another puppet is elected president of Egypt, and the circle will go round again.
But the Chinese situation is different. There is no way the U.S. can covertly penetrate and cause confusion. The government of China is people centered and works for the interest of the people. China does not rely on any aid from any country in the world to survive instead, China is a generous donor to both developed and developing countries. If the world was to become an island, a world where interdependency was to be replaced with self-sufficiency, China will be the most prosperous nation in the world. The Chinese are proud of their country and will defend their motherland under any circumstances.
He is currently Assistant Editor at The 4th Media (April Media) in Beijing. A final year Master's student at the School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University in Beijing, Manzie holds 7 years of work experience as a journalist. He has worked for China Radio International; wrote for China Daily, and China/Africa Magazine in Beijing. He is also a Volunteer Editor for Tsinghua University News Center. Manzie had worked for the State-owned Cameroon Radio and Television Corporation (CRTV). He held the position of Editor-in-Chief at two independent FM Radio Stations, and at a Cameroonian newspaper. He also holds a Bachelor's degree in Journalism and Mass Communication. He has won a series of scholarships including a full scholarship from the Government of China.
[Asharq al-Aswat] There is no doubt this is a chaotic phase, where dozens of turbulent protests and demonstrations have spread, demanding the overthrow of regimes in a number of countries in the Middle East. Some of these demonstrations have been justified, campaigning against leaders who have spent several dark decades in power. As for the other demonstrations, they have been motivated by different -- and mixed -- motives, some of them ideological, others based on sect or class. The result is that "revolution fever" has swept everywhere, so it is difficult to distinguish between the various protests. All are championing the same slogan, that of "regime change", through their demonstrations and civil unrest.
There is no need to provide evidence of the negative aspects of Arab regimes, and the social and economic crises suffered by these countries, most notably the tendency of leaders to hold on to power for life. However, The infamous However... what we are witnessing today is a state of irresponsible and uncontrolled chaos. Some argue that what is happening is a "democratic revolution", conducted through peaceful protests, with concern for values and principles such as "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights". ... which are not the same thing as individual rights, mind you... However, The infamous However... such a claim presents several genuine problems; most notably that democracy, freedom and human rights are all Western liberalist concepts. We are all aware that considerable debate has arisen over the interpretation or definition of such concepts, and the means of applying them to the Arab region. Have all these differences been overcome as a result of the youth revolution? Or will they be simply overcome in the future? These questions may take years to answer.
What is most striking here is the confused stance of the US administration, having been faced with an earthquake of revolutions in the region. Whilst he adopted a hesitant attitude before President Ben Ali decamped Tunisia, President B.O.'s tone was far stricter when he claimed that former geriatric President Hosni Mubarak should step down immediately. The White House front man said "Now means now...not in September". Yet the US administration returned to its cautious stance with regards to Libya, Yemen and Bahrain, trying to maintain a balance [with its interests]. The US issued hard-line statements against these regimes, but at the same time it conducted telephone conversations with them, expressing that the US was keen to preserve mutual interests.
There is a complete contradiction in the actions of the US administration: While it demands that President Mubarak step down immediately, it puts pressure on President the ineffectual Mahmoud Abbas to withdraw the draft Arab resolution, condemning Israel for continuing with settlement construction, a resolution which nearly 130 countries have endorsed. Abbas' response was frank, when he told the US Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that he was not willing to take a decision that may "provoke the Paleostinian masses", no matter how much this would anger the US administration, because the Paleostinian masses were more dangerous. This is what the US administration has failed to understand so far!
When the protests began, the US administration had three options: firstly, to remain neutral and accept the results - as [Henry] Kissinger had called for. The second option was to side with the existing regime, or thirdly to attempt to strike a balance, by announcing its support for the demonstrations, whilst maintaining a channel of communication with the threatened regime. It has been said that Obama refuses to stand on the losing side of history, but what the US administration does not realize is that it does not have any part in this history.
The reality which the US administration must realize is that America is effectively powerless from now on. Its weakness has been blatantly exposed, when one of its major allies was toppled and the US could not move a muscle, but rather participated in Mubarak's downfall. Some officials in the US administration argue that what is happening here is a historical process of "creative destruction", and that the administration must accept the outcome of what happens. This particular attitude is similar to the policies of the "neo-conservatives", who once argued that the only way for change to occur in the region would be through a comprehensive regime change. This comparison was expressed by Condoleezza Rice in her latest article, criticizing the B.O. regime by saying that it is doing exactly what the George W. Bush administration was previously attempting. She said: "The United States knows democracy to be a long process - untidy, disruptive and even chaotic at times." (Washington Post, 16 Feb 2011).
Rice's attempt to portray the US administration as an entity standing on the side of "freedom" oversimplifies an already basic way of thinking. Rice and other commentators, including the US administration, seem enthusiastic whenever they see a "revolutionary" phase, which raises the slogan of "freedom". However, The infamous However... they fail to realize that the bulk of "revolutions" in history have used "freedom" as their slogan, in an effort to overthrow the ruling regimes. Yet the vital question to be asked is: Freedom in what sense? And at what price?
The problem for President B.O. is that he presented himself to the people as a "realist" president. During his inaugural speech, he said that the US would not seek to impose any kind of rule upon another country, and that each nation must follow its own path. However, The infamous However... his policies today have exceeded the efforts of the "neo-conservatives", in fulfilling the principle of "creative destruction." It is ironic that this principle first appeared in the writings of Marks and Engels, describing the ill effects of capitalist liberalism in the "Communist Manifesto", 1848.
When the anti-Shah demonstrations and riots escalated [in Iran], the Carter administration tried to entice the Iranian army to stage a coup - when General Huyser visited the country. However, The infamous However... the US failed to do so, and later on welcomed the "freedom" revolution. The US ignored its ambassador's warnings, suggesting that the influence of al-Khomeini and his movement was extending to all sectors of the state, and several months later the US embassy was occupied for 444 days, in an act that greatly humiliated the US President. Today, the same scenario is being repeated in the Middle East. Dozens of American, Western and Arab intellectuals and journalists -- exactly as happened in 1979 -- will celebrate the Middle East revolutions, liberating the people from dictatorship. However, The infamous However... the region's ills will not necessarily be eliminated by the overthrow of some regimes.
"For after every Caesar that dies
Is born another Caesar" (The Last Words of Spartacus, Amal Donkol).
The US administration has abandoned its policy of realism, and is now championing unrealistic ideals. Thus it is not inconceivable that America would support a man like Colonel Muammar Qadaffy. ... dictator of Libya since 1969. From 1972, when he relinquished the title of prime minister, he has been accorded the honorifics Guide of the First of September Great Revolution of the Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or Brotherly Leader and Guide of the Revolution. With the death of Omar Bongo of Gabon on 8 June 2009, he became the longest serving of all current non-royal national leaders. He is also the longest-serving ruler of Libya since Tripoli became an Ottoman province in 1551. When Chairman Mao was all the rage and millions of people were flashing his Little Red Book, Qadaffy came out with his own Little Green Book, which didn't do as well. Qadaffy's instability has been an inspiration to the Arab world and to Africa, which he would like to rule... Yet the US administration should now be prepared to confront the complex sectarian, religious, social and economic reality -- which has been further complicated by the recent unrest - and the possibility of the emergence of populist regimes, threatened by sectarian and civil wars. Obama believes that "creative destruction" can be implemented without paying the price, but sooner or later we will see the result. The administration is now faced with the Samson Option - when it stands by revolutions, it should realize that its interests are also prone to collapse.
Carter was an avid supporter of the freedom revolutions, but then oil prices dropped. Obama will soon realize that security, stability and development in this part of the world are no less important than the freedom of expression. The people of the region are not necessarily obliged to consider American interests, in return for the US supporting "freedom" for two weeks.
Renowned American politician Kenneth Waltz says "A lot of people don't like realists...Realists face the world as it is. Most people want the world to be nicer and for people to be better."
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You want to know what an Arab is? Take a look at Khadaffy's face. Look at it.
THAT is the real Middle East. That is the Arab soul.
Let's all trust our liberal ideas about "freedom" and "democracy", shall we?
Those crowds and mobs of Arabs all calling for new regimes and for "freedom".....each person in those crowds and mobs (yes even the ones who are being shot in the streets) all eat camel meat and falafel..
And they all know about stinky old boots and Big moustaches because Dad actually was one and his son is growing a moustache and trying on the boots too.
In Iraq freedom is "Arab" freedom. And in Afghanistab what are our goals? "Freedom"? Yeah?
They all want to Kill the nasty Jews and they dont love you and they spit on your infidel mother.
And The Egyptians got rid of a corrupt dictator and now they have a Military Junta. And the US is a vote present Pussy.
And the EUroweenies are ( wait for it) EUroweenies. Am I lyin' to 'ya?
And just what are YOU gonna get out of all this? $4.00 for gasoline for starters. And leadership for Hope and Change.
You stupid sucker.
Let's fire Rumsfeld, its all his fault. Go look in the mirror, what do you see? And you really want a thrill? Take time to smell the Jasmine, that should really make your day.
#2
This article and comment #1 are both incoherent, but then, so is US policy and the present US administration.
That realization is gradually starting to seep into the MSM. ABC news on GMA a few minutes ago said "It's almost as if Obama is a law enforcement negotiator" in the Libyan crisis, dealing with a hostage-taking. Maybe in a few months the MSM will start ridiculing Zero as just a 'community organizer.'
They all want to Kill the nasty Jews and they dont love you and they spit on your infidel mother.
Believe me Jews don't REALLY respect your mother if she isn't Jewish as well. Its an Old Testament thing, you know. I've seen it among the Jew/Gentile people in my home town growing up. Islam and Judaism are still very cozy with their middle eastern roots.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Restrain your racist comments Fire and Ice. Your maternal, hometown tribal clan "roots" experiences mean nothing to us I tell you. Nothing! It's his fault...no, HIS fault.... no, his fault. Ahhhhg... my ears, my eyes!!!
According to traditional Judaism, G-d gave Noah and his family seven commandments to observe when he saved them from the flood. These commandments, referred to as the Noahic or Noahide commandments, are inferred from Genesis Ch. 9, and are as follows: 1) to establish courts of justice; 2) not to commit blasphemy; 3) not to commit idolatry; 4) not to commit incest and adultery; 5) not to commit bloodshed; 6) not to commit robbery; and 7) not to eat flesh cut from a living animal. These commandments are fairly simple and straightforward, and most of them are recognized by most of the world as sound moral principles. Any non-Jew who follows these laws has a place in the world to come.
However, being that I have one Jewish Parent and one who is a gentile why am I racist when I have been the butt of racial epithets made by "full" Jews against me when I have followed everything laid out above, for the simple fact that I am Half Jewish?
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 10:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
because you are new to the burg and half the stuff you dribble is incomprehensible.
#9
Excuse me, I asked a valid question. Vitriolic blather and insults aren't a valid answer.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#10
for the simple fact that I am Half Jewish?
F&I.
(a) You're Jewish only if (i) your mother is (the ancient Hebrews were stock breeders), or (ii) you have converted.
(b) WTF Noah has to do with Judaism?
#11
When a religion fails to answer the basic questions of its adherants, or those "born" into it, simply and fairly, they leave the religion. Why is religion in decline? Because of a failure on the part of religions, numbers are down. If Judaism was a business, it would have been out of business awhile ago. And BTW, all the empty churches that are up for sale and being turned into Artist studios and restaurants illustrate that this phenomenon is not religion specific, but based on widespread dissatisfaction.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#12
You tell me, G(r)goru. WTF does Noah have to do with it, or the fact that your religious pillars fail to deal with "halfsies" well. Sort of like Japanese kids with a white Marine father. Phucked coming and going on the playgroud. And the tone of your answer is as exclusionary as the "RELIGION" you uphold.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Believe me Jews don't REALLY respect your mother if she isn't Jewish as well. Its an Old Testament thing, you know. I've seen it among the Jew/Gentile people in my home town growing up. Islam and Judaism are still very cozy with their middle eastern roots.
You have several times generalized from your difficult personal experience on this subject, Fire and Ice. I am sorry you experienced bigotry from those who should have loved and accepted you.
However, your experience is limited. Reform Judaism recognizes descent equally through the father as well as through the mother. A Reform Jewish girlfriend of mine was twice reelected as president of the synagogue sisterhood (which put her on the board and the prayerbook committee) and got her son through his bar mitzvah before deciding that she ought to be Jewish rather than Methodist. Clearly she wasn't being discriminated against within the faith community -- and the bar mitzvah was well attended.
Look it up -- the Reform branch is not exactly a minority here in America. You just happen to be related to jerks.
#14
Racism goes both ways, and if you don't admit that there are words for kid who have a jewish father and a different race mother, than youze a LIAR.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Nb: Despite the illusions of the Israeli chief rabbinate, they do not define Judaism for the world-wide community. g(r)omgoru is quoting their definition for the purpose of automatic Israeli citizenship, but elsewhere other definitions hold. This will no doubt take several generations to work out.
#16
Nb 2 (Sorry, thinking this through slowly): If you have been baptized, or your Jewish parent has, then you are not Jewish, but only "of Jewish descent". Judaism is a culture as well as a religion, yes, but if you choose not to be a member of the religion, you also lose the culture. It's not like being Irish on St. Patrick's Day.
#17
Racism goes both ways, and if you don't admit that there are words for kid who have a jewish father and a different race mother, than youze a LIAR.
Huh? I've lived a sheltered life, so perhaps that's why I don't have a clue to what you're on about, Fire and Ice.
#18
Reform Judaism recognizes descent equally through the father as well as through the mother.
Really? I was told that I'd have to go beg to the Rabbi who would put me through verbal abuse in order to join up, ala Charlotte York Goldblatt, Sex and the City style. Who would want to deal with that? And if the person who told me that was pulling my leg, then I guess I was too easily mislead a Schiksa for dating him.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#19
your religious pillars fail to deal with "halfsies" well
My religion doesn't deal with "halfsies", at all. Perhaps you didn't understand what being stock breeders entails. I'll try another way. Ever heard the expression "Maternity is a matter of fact, paternity is a matter of opinion."? Well, the people who formulated Jewish Law, did. So, no half Jews. Either 100% (mother or conversion) Jew, or not a Jew. So sorry.
p.s. Please don't take the above personally. It is not an attempt to cast aspersions on your paternity---just a clarification. For myself, I've no doubts---you certainly have, what we call, a Jewish mouth.
#20
you certainly have, what we call, a Jewish mouth.
You have no idea. Im only quiet when Im asleep.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Back to the Charlotte York Goldenblatt question, why does someone wishing to convert to Judaism have to jump through hoops? And what are the hoops? Please forgive my ignorance, but I've only seen or heard of these things from a few Jewish people I know or on television. All the Jewish relatives of mine on the father's side are non practicing and seem content to stay that way.
Posted by: Fire and Ice ||
02/24/2011 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Some officials in the US administration argue that what is happening here is a historical process of "creative destruction", and that the administration must accept the outcome of what happens.
You remember Cash for Clunkers right? Just think of this as Dictators for Democracy. Yeah...thats the ticket.
#23
Really? I was told that I'd have to go beg to the Rabbi who would put me through verbal abuse in order to join up,
When, how long since the rabbi had gotten his/her diploma, and was he/she Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or other? And again, were either your father or you ever baptized?
Going with the second question first, if the Jewish parent converted at any point to another religion, his Jewishness is lost rather than passed down, and you would have to formally onvert to become Jewish. Again, not like being Irish. Or if your mother's mother took you to church and got you baptized when you were a wee tot, then you would have to formally convert to be Jewish again.
As for the other, only Reform Jews accept descent through the father as well as the mother. For the rest, given how many nice Jewish girls have been raped by marauders through the ghetto over the centuries, recognizing descent through the mother only makes perfect sense, however put out the menfolk might feel about it. And that really is pretty liberated for a solidly patriarchal religion.
Cincinnati has hosted Hebrew Union College rabbinic school since 1875. HUC is the center of Reform Judaism in the United States. The rabbi emeritus of my synagogue used to lecture there. Our synagogue accepts mixed marriages, the offspring of mixed marriages, and even adoptees from China and Hispanic America as Jews (although adoptees must go through an abbreviated formal conversion process to make sure they are choosing the faith that is likely not of their birth parents). You don't have to believe me; write to them yourself and ask.
But if you went to a rabbi about it because you were dating a Jewish man, they would put obstacles in your way as a matter of principle. They don't want people trying to make the marriage easier, they want people drawn by intrinsic faith.
...According to the report, there will be, by mid-2011, 2,306,609,000 Christians of all kinds in the world, representing 33 percent of world population a slight percentage rise from mid-2000 (32.7 percent), but a slight percentage drop since 1900 (34.5 percent). Of those 2.3 billion Christians, some 1.5 billion are regular church attenders, who worship in 5,171,000 congregations or "worship centers," up from 400,000 in 1900 and 3.5 million in 2000.
These 2.3 billion Christians can be divided into six "ecclesiastical megablocks": 1,160,880,000 Catholics; 426,450,000 Protestants; 271,316,000 Orthodox; 87,520,000 Anglicans; 378,281,000 "Independents" (i.e., those separated from or unaffiliated with historic denominational Christianity); and 35,539,000 "marginal Christians" (i.e., those professing off-brand Trinitarian theology, dubious Christology, or a supplementary written revelation beyond the Bible).
Compared to the world's 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours....
As for the notion that "Western liberalist concepts" have no place in other cultures....
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security....
Now, you either agree with that statement or you don't. If you agree with it, then the only legitimate government is one which is subordinate to God and the servant of its citizens, not the god and master of its subjects--and that's just as true in Cairo, Egypt as it is in Cairo, Illinois. If all of that is true, then it cannot also be true that any group of men lacks those inalienable rights and can therefore be condemned to live under tyranny (or its little brother, kleptocracy) in perpetuity.
(Before any of you jump on me about the Muslim Brotherhood, allow me to raise two subsidiary points: (1) a sharia government is just another flavor of tyranny, and is no more legitimate than one based in the divine right of kings or the dialectic of class struggle; and (2) freedom includes by implication the freedom to screw up, and if the people in any one of these countries just swap out one set of goons for another, it does not invalidate their unalienable rights or preclude them from later correction of the error; see also, e.g., United States, 2008 Presidential election in.)
If you don't agree with the Declaration, then the law of the jungle applies, and the only necessary condition for any government is sufficient coercive force to keep it in power, and you have no principled argument against tyranny.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/24/2011 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Sorry to all for going off-topic for so long. Fire and Ice, send me an email for the rest -- it's too long and too personal to take advantage of Rantburg's server space. My email should be attached to my name below.
As the world at large focused on events in the Arab world and Paks remained preoccupied with CIA contractor Raymond Davis, a jirga composed ostensibly of tribal elders from Kurram Agency, home of an intricately interconnected web of poverty, ignorance, and religious fanaticism announced on February 3, 2011 a 'peace' accord between Shias and Sunnis in Parachinar, the headquarters of the Kurram Agency.
However, The infamous However... a closer look at the players involved in brokering the deal shows that what appears, prima facie, as a welcome solution to years of deadly impasse, is nothing but the Pak establishment's attempt to roll out its own version of the end game in Afghanistan. Never mind the jihadist history of reneging on deals, but without actually addressing the grievances of the Sunnis displaced from Parachinar or the Shias dislodged from Sadda, Jalamai and Chardewal -- let alone restitution for the thousands killed and maimed on both sides -- the deal is bound to end in failure. A senior Pashtun leader, Abdul Lateef Afridi, speaking to this writer, stated: "While the opening of roads is a welcome sign, unless the establishment changes its policy towards Afghanistan, the Kurram deal spells more trouble for the region...an agreement under the auspices of the Pak Pashtun elders may be the only route forward but, unfortunately, none of them were consulted."
The Kurram Agency's geo-strategic importance, with its proximity to the Paktia, Paktika and Khost provinces of Afghanistan on one hand and North Wazoo (NW) and Orakzai Agencies on the other, is well established. A neutral Kurram is imperative for the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) to stymie the influx of jihadists from this region into Afghanistan. Conversely, any sustained Taliban intervention into Afghanistan from the Pak side requires open access through upper Kurram. The contiguity of lower and central Kurram to NW and Orakzai can allow jihadists easy transit into Afghanistan. The northeast reaches of upper Kurram, adjoining the Tirah valley and the Tora Bora complex in the Spin Ghar mountain make for a retreat and retraction route for the jihadists -- a conduit used to the fullest benefit by al Qaeda in 2001.
Pakistain has resisted US pressure to take action against the jihadists, especially of the Haqqani network, holed up in NW. However, The infamous However... with the July 2011 date for the start of the US drawdown from Afghanistan looming, the US demand has become urgent. The establishment remains convinced, however, that the US will leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later and therefore hedges its bets for the Kabul throne through its jihadist assets like the Haqqani network. The de facto leader of the network, Sirajuddin, has even been tipped as Pakistain's choice for Mullah Omar's eventual replacement. These assets, therefore, had to be moved to safe havens that could also double as bridgeheads, and Kurram fits that bill.
However, The infamous However... the Turi and Bangash tribes of Kurram refused to play ball with the agencies and their jihadist proxies, with whom they have significant religious doctrinal differences. An armed resistance by the Kurram tribes effectively denied the al Qaeda-Taliban a thoroughfare into Afghanistan, something that directly drew the wrath of Rawalpindi. The deep state then worked overtime to manufacture a sectarian crisis in Kurram in April 2007.
When attempts to gain a foothold in Parachinar failed, the establishment allowed a siege of upper Kurram by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistain (TTP) and their al Qaeda overlords, blockading the Tal-Parachinar road. A humanitarian crisis in upper Kurram was averted only through the efforts of several Pashtun elders, who helped secure the long and arduous Parachinar-Khost-Gardez-Kabul-Beautiful Downtown Peshawar route as an alternative. Cessna flights to Parachinar operated by the Peshawar Flying Club, though very expensive, were an added relief line. The reprieve thus gained by the Turis and Bangash of upper Kurram reinforced their resolve to fight on and continue denying sanctuary and conduit to the jihadists.
Watching the keystone of its plan for post-US Afghanistan unravelled by the ragtag Kurramis, the establishment decided, in the words of one Colonel Sajjad, to "teach the Turis a lesson". In September 2010, Colonel Tausif Akhtar of the Pak security forces announced closure of five border entry points to "clamp down on sectarian violence". The Kurramis were thus squished between the hammer and anvil of a state-sponsored double embargo. The state also interrupted the small aircraft sorties from Peshawar. The isolation of upper Kurram was now complete. Having pushed them against the wall, the establishment felt that the Kurramis might be amenable to a settlement.
While the Pak media went hoarse over Raymond Davis, it conveniently ignored several other foreign thugs of the tallest order, operating with impunity inside Pakistain. The media has portrayed a TTP commander, Fazl-e-Saeed of Uchat village (lower Kurram), as the guarantor of the Kurram deal. The fact, however, is that the Pak establishment imposed Khalil Haqqani (an uncle of Sirajuddin Haqqani) as an arbiter, as early as October 2010 (as noted then in this column). Khalil Haqqani was the most influential jihadist involved in getting the February 3 deal off the ground.
The irony is that while Pak intelligence services and that drama queen of a foreign minister were wailing about a CIA man running amok in Lahore, Khalil Haqqani was conducting a jirga a stone's throw away from Islamabad in Bhara Kahu, where he reportedly maintains a business concern. These meetings were attended by some six Shia Kurramis, including Haji Aun Ali, Laiq Hussain, Captain Yousaf, Councillor Iqbal Hussain and MNA Sajid Turi. MNA Munir Orakzai and Senator Rashid Ahmed were among the eight Sunnis representing lower and central Kurram. Federal Interior Minister Rehman Malik, reportedly, also attended the meetings with Khalil Haqqani -- a man declared a 'Specially Designated Global Terrorist' by the US earlier this month.
The Haqqani network has freely used the Pir Qayyum, Sateen and Shasho camp (an old hub of Rasul Sayyaf in the 1980s) areas of lower Kurram but really needed open access to its bases in Tari Mangal, Mata Sangar, Makhrani, Wacha Darra and Spina Shaga in upper Kurram to launch attacks into Afghanistan in the upcoming summer fighting. By coercing the Kurramis into accepting the writ of the Haqqani network, the Pak establishment has cast its lot with the jihadists.
It remains to be seen if this strategy to use upper Kurram against the US will work. But for now the deep state has sacrificed Kurram at the altar of global jihad.
#1
The establishment remains convinced, however, that the US will leave Afghanistan sooner rather than later and therefore hedges its bets for the Kabul throne through its jihadist assets like the Haqqani network.
I think the 'establishment' referred to is the government of Pakistan. Even the Taliban are hedging their bets & biding their time.
#2
In the Daily Times of Pakistan, not less! D'you suppose this will make its way into the next lot of diplomatic cables WikiLeaks or its ilk will publish for all the world to see?
On Wednesday, February 16th, the Advocates For Civil Liberties, a new organization dedicated to spotlighting anti-Israel propaganda on university campuses across North America, held a meeting in Toronto. The day-long symposium drew more than 400 people and was entitled When Middle East Politics Invade Campus.
#1
The article quotes a college senior: I knew nothing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during my first year at college. It was only when I visited Israel and witnessed the truth firsthand, did I begin to understand that the insidious rhetoric of the organizers of Israeli Apartheid Week simply did not hold true.
It's pitiful that someone with that much education had to cross the world to change her viewpoint when intelligent self-education by reading might have accomplished the same goal. "Insidious rhetoric" has been a mental health epidemic.
A boilerplate note on the website of the Service Employees International Union informs us that "SEIU welcomes civil discussion about Richard Negri's article Dropkick Murphys release new song in support of Wisconsin workers!"
That article quotes a statement from the Massachusetts hardcore punk band: (Actually, they are better described as a "punk-influenced Celtic band dedicated to the free flow of whiskey" in the tradition of The Pogues or Flogging Molly. End digression.)
"[We] would like to take a moment to acknowledge the struggles of the working people of Wisconsin and to pledge our support and solidarity by releasing the song 'Take Em Down' from our upcoming album. We think it's appropriate at the moment and hope you like it. . . . The Dropkick Murphys Stand With Wisconsin!!!!!"
They don't really stand with Wisconsin but with Wisconsin's antagonists in the current dispute, namely the unions representing Wisconsin's employees. Here are some of the new song's lyrics:
When the boss comes callin' we gotta organize
Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down
Let them know
We gotta smash them to the ground
Let em know
We gotta take the bastards down
Is this what the SEIU means by "civil discussion"? Given their track record, I'd say "yes."
The song does not identify the bastards we gotta take down, but there are only two possibilities: the taxpayers of Wisconsin or their elected officials. As Andy McCarthy notes at National Review Online, "public-sector employees work for us--they are not beaten down by 'the man,' 'the system,' or whatever bogeyman the lefties are using today."
I find this profoundly distressing. Up until today, I was a fan of the Dropkick Murphys. Another one of my favorite bands reveals itself as an agent of the dark side.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/24/2011 16:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I like the Dropkick Murphys, but ya gotta remember their roots. They are democrats and union men to the core.
#2
Cute little ditty but it ignores:
1. Public unions increase the taxpayer's burden at little benefit to them,
2. Public union members often have wages and benefits far greater than the taxpayers who support them,
3. Union members don't have any say about what their unions dues are used for although it might be at odds with their personal beliefs,
4. Unions in non-right-to-work states have to join the union in shops as a condition of employment (there is a coercive aspect to this),
5. Public unions tend to subvert and undermine our political process as they don't have to answer to the taxpayers and voters,
6. Unions have a history of violence, criminality, thuggery, coercion, and links to the communists and socialists,
7. Signs at protests claim and accuse their enemies of all sorts of things such as lying, nazism, racism, etc.
8. Unions tend to ignore the will of the people in elections.
9. Unions tend to support the Democrats exclusively.
10. Public unions have the capacity to shut down, slow down, and impede the critical functions and services of government. This should not be possible.
#3
Now listen to me, all of you. You are all condemned men. We keep you alive to serve this ship. So row well, and live. - Quintus Arrius Your Friendly Public Service Union
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2011 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Murphey wants to sell music to masses
You know he knows just what the facts is
No regard for their idea of justice
Purples who make their money off peoples' taxes
Oo oohh, brigand the money an'run.
Who who? You.
Let'em gnome its a glorified version of a pelican, so excuse me while I kiss this guy.
#6
Good band. But shut up and sing. State of Massachusetts ought to be the state anthem.
Then we have Mike Capuano telling his union shills that "Every once and awhile you need to get out on the streets and get a little bloody when necessary.
Heh. The only time Mikey will get "bloody in the street" is if he steps out of his limo and gets hit by a cab.
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.
Colonel Muammar Qadaffy
