Newsbusters has a funny treatment of mini scandal when the "documentary" film producer Laurie David tried to give away 50,000 DVDs to a science teachers' group, and was refused.
Edited for the funnier parts. Read the whole thing
...However, if you are the type that buys into the global warming myth, reason is not your strong suit. As such, David sees mischief afoot. And, whos to blame? Well, if you guessed oil companies, come on down and accept the keys to your brand new Cadillac:
... Horrors. ExxonMobil has given $42 million to schools by filling shortfalls in public education funding. The nerve of these people! But thats not all. Read what other awful things ExxonMobil is doing:
#1
Remember when ExxonMobil used to broadcast "Masterpiece Theatre" on PBS with those subliminal suggestions to leave your car idling in the driveway for the duration of the program?
#2
No, but I remember their late late late night TV ads suggesting that the oceans were actually made out of pure crude oil and polluted with huge saltwater slicks, seal shit, and seagull piss so what the hell was everybody getting upset about up in Valdez.
But this was awhile back...
#3
History notes that an Ethiopian army was turned back from the gates of Mecca a few weeks before Mohammed's birth. It is interesting to speculate what might have happened had a Christian power been in control of the city years later.
Alternate history genius Harry Turtledove has in fact speculated about it. His fix-up novel Agent of Byzantium is set in the 13th century Byzantine Empire of a world where the Ethiopians had conquered Mecca and Islam never appeared. Instead, young "Mohamet" became a Christian and eventually an Orthodox saint. Agent of Byzantiumis a rollicking good read, btw, as the hero becomes an imperial special agent and travels about re-writing the history of technology: discovering brandy and smallpox vaccination, stealing the telescope from a Mongol shaman who had stumbled onto it, and making off with the gunpowder formula from a backward Frankish monastery where it was manufactured for use against Byzantine forces.
...Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal. Arab pressure prevents mass deportation of Arab Muslims. Currently, 15% of new borns in France are of Muslim parents. This demographic fact is happening all over Europe. Muslim majority projections are realistic.
I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims. After all, we were the only ones to do anything about the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans. And even though we botched it, our effort in Iraq was meant to give the Middle East's Muslims a last chance to escape their self-inflicted misery. Early in the GWOT, Peters provided interesting data. Unfortunately, he is acting out the annointed visionary, buffoon role. His conclusions follow his arrogance, and not facts.
AND we're lucky. The United States attracts the quality. American Muslims have a higher income level than our national average. We hear about the handful of rabble-rousers, but more of our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslims are doctors, professors and entrepreneurs... I don't believe the "higher" income statement, however, most American Muslims are urban, which would raise average income levels.
#1
Among our higher-quality American Muslims is this one:
A physician who admitted that he sent $4 million to his native Iran over four years was sentenced to 60 days in a community jail and ordered to pay $1.15 million in fines and forfeitures, officials said
I dunno. From what I've read/heard from various french pundits, the army itself is well on its way to being islamized, a reflection of the general re-islamization of turkish society (outside of the westernized elites), starting from grunts and NCOs, and more and more COs; only the very top brass stay true to the kemalist creed.
Turkey is a haunted land. too often in its history, the past has been prologue. It may be so again. Almost 10 years ago, the Turkish military ousted a popularly elected Islamist prime minister. The circumstances that produced that coup are re-emerging today. Once again, an Islamist is in power. Once again, the generals are muttering angrily about how his government is undermining the secular state--the foundation of modern Turkey. As I rate it, the chances of a military coup in Turkey occurring in 2007 are roughly 50-50.
I saw the last one coming, thanks to a conversation with a senior military officer not long before the events of February 1997. "I asked the Iranian generals after the 1979 revolution why they had done nothing to stop it. By the time they realized how far the Islamists had come, they replied, it was too late," he told me. "We will never let that happen in Turkey." Indeed, this very principle is enshrined in the bylaws of the Turkish General Staff, which declare that the military is "the sole protector" of Turkish secular democracy and of the "principles of Ataturk."
We are in a war to the death craven concessions won't win it Last I heard, a single US nuclear submarine has sufficient firepower to destroy 150 cities. So why do we act like Muslim junk states are in a position of strength? Our restraint is or weakness. Because we'd prefer not to fry a substantial portion of the world. We need to live in the world afterwards. That seems obvious to at least some of us.
Who would have thought it? Half of Europe the half that was so smug about having buried God several generations ago is waiting in real trepidation for the outcome of a theological argument. When Pope Benedict XVI flies to Turkey tomorrow, he will embody the most potentially incendiary confrontation between Islam and the West since the defeat of the Turks at Vienna in 1683 brought an end to Islamic conquest in Europe.
The Pope will take with him an understanding that at the root of our problems in dealing with the Islamist death cult, there is a fundamental debate to be had about the role of human reason in political affairs.
The remarks he made in a lecture in Regensburg, Germany, which implied that Islam rejected rationality while Christianity saw it as essential to faith were contentious (and almost certainly designed to be so), but they raised a question that almost no Western government has the courage to ask, let alone answer. How is a liberal democracy to deal with an illiberal religious minority in its midst?
By declaring that there are limits to our tolerance. We won't tolerate intolerance, and we'll apply that to Islam (instead of just conservatives and evangelical Christians). Muslims who wish to live in a liberal, western society have to abide by the founding tenets of that society: freedom of expression and religion, freedom to offend, equal rights for all including those one's religious faith might despise, pluralism, personal liberty, and the rule of a single, secular law. If you can't do that, don't come here.
To understand the life-or-death significance of what the Pope does and says when he arrives in Istanbul, it is necessary to see this confrontation for what it is. This will involve some traumatic re-adjustment for most of the opinion-forming class in Britain. The first assumption that will have to go is the premise that Islamist terrorism can be understood in pragmatic, politically rational terms: in other words, that it can be addressed with the usual mechanisms of negotiation, concession and amended policy.
Light dawns. Indeed one can't negotiate with those who have a fixed stance; one can't concede partially, but only completely, to those who refuse to concede anything; and one can't amend those policies that are at the root core of a liberal, secular society.
The most readily accepted version of this is that a change to our policy in the Middle East will remove the grievances that "fuel" Muslim terrorism. The Cabinet has apparently been advised that all foreign policy decisions over the next decade should have the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain and that this should involve "a significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity". So Britain is contemplating constructing a foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East, that is designed to give in to terrorist blackmail...
One could 'solve' the Middle East 'crisis' by acquiescing to the destruction of Israel and the removal of Western influence from the region. That would not solve a thing: it would not abate anger, it would not assuage inferiority, and it would not stop war. There is the world of Islam and the world of war. It's a binary condition.
#2
I'm reposting last night's comments (slightly modified) here because they still apply, in spades.
I gave this exact issue some extensive thought the other night. The risk Pope Benedict is taking has everything to do with the titanic gulf that separates Catholicism and Islam. As the Vicar of Christ, Benedict is not just obliged but beholden to emulating his Good Shepherd in every possible way.
At first blush, both Christianity and Islam would seem to share a common fixation upon martyrdom. In reality, there is a monstrous difference, in every sense of that terrible word. More often than not, Christian martyrs were sent to their death only after, if not entirely because, they refused to renounce their belief in God. It was precisely this unwillingness to forsake their savior that so often brought down such wrath upon their heads.
Compare this to a so-called religion that permits its adherents to deny loyalty, feign conversion, simulate apostasy and commit a host of other cardinal sins against their own beliefs in the name of propagating said putative faith. What then is the significance of a Muslims destructive martyrdom when it all too often results in the slaughter of innocent life and the destruction of hard won property?
This is the yawning breach that divides Christianity from Islam. One refuses to disown its cherished Supreme Being at any cost, even that of mortal life itself. The other cheerfully dissimulates with even the most egregious of trespasses if that will permit even a slight advantage in besting those who would otherwise show great good humanity towards them.
Benedict in no way approaches this situation lightly or with any sense of frivolity. His life is at stake, he knows it and he carries forward with courage and fortitude that can only be termed as exemplary. I can only admire him for this.
There is no real personal purpose to a Muslim's life. Their fanaticism compares to instinct. They are like Monarch butterflies that migrate from anywhere within southern Canada and the lower 48, to a single site in Mexico. One researcher says it takes 5 generations to make the longest stretch of the journey. Natural logic says the Monarch has to do this, in order to preserve species continuity. As for Muslims, when their unholy Koran says "Jihad is prescribed to you," Muslims can do none other than comply. Terror is like breathing to Muslims.
#5
--- The "martyrdom" of a Muslim in the course of jihad is the only way they are sure of getting to their heaven, it is the very core of Islam. A Christian martyr is usually understood as going straight to heaven, but this is not the core of Christianity.
--- The difference between the Islamic ideal of a human life and the Christian ideal may look like a debate to us, but it is crucial to a Muslim true-believer. If Muslims compromise on this issue as a religion, Islam is done for, and they know it. Islam is done for anyway unless the mujahideen somehow manage to destroy the modern world and all its kufar innovations.
--- The Pope has no hope of inspiring any change in the Muslim world whatsoever. I think he is aware of this. His point is to inspire, lead, and instruct the dar-al-Harb as to what Christianity has to offer, especially with respect to resisting and overcoming the jihad. His trip to Turkey is to teach the rest of us. If he doesn't make it back alive, he will have lived up to his position fully. For the rest of us, it would be another part of our "education by murder" which has been going on since 9/11.
#6
The whole point of the dhimmitude experience is to induce despair in those subject to it, the knowledge that no matter how one tries, no non-Muslim can ever win in a situation where the dice are loaded. The pope's visit brings a new factor into play in the Muslim world -- the outside world's awareness and involvement in reweighting the dice for all, even them. And that rewrites the entire Muslim Conquista, for if the underclass fights back, how can the Muslims feel secure enough to go abroad a-jihading?
/a thought triggered by Anguper Hupomosing9418 and this entire thread. Thanks, guys!
The latest straw man that Republicans seem ready to attack with unmerciful force is whether the Democrats have a plan that will successfully get the U.S. out of Iraq. As reasonable as this may sound on the surface, it is about as practical as hitting a solo home run in the ninth inning, down five runs with two outs. Actually, I see it as the left is starting from scrimmage 1st and 10 ball on their own 20 14:55 in the first quarter of a new game. Speaker Nancy Pelosi goes under center, the snap, she holds the ball in horror as she realizes the republican pass rush is coming, screaming "What the hell am I s'posed to do now?"
Iraq has been the war where the over-whelming majority of Americans were required only to serve as the game-show audience, cheering on cue when the light came on. There has been no real sacrifice outside of the families of the men and women who serve in the armed forces. I know several folks who have offered to go but who are too old, others who have gone. I have two nephews there now.
In fact, we were treated to a series of tax cuts, unprecedented in U.S. war history. But looking back, those tax cuts feel a lot like hush money, buying our silence so we didn't ask critical questions in the run-up to the war. Just how many critical questions do you need? We had a vigorous debate over Iraq and the war was approved by Congress. Even if you believe the war is based on lies you are still morally obligated to see it to its only acceptable conclusion: victory.
As Democrats prepare to take control of Congress, they are met with a very stark reality: Iraq is not winnable. Even Mr. "Peace with Honor" himself, Henry Kissinger, does not believe we can win. Iraq is unwinnable if we leave. Retreating is a self fulfilling prophesy
A country that fails to rely on the lessons of history to inform itself about the present and future, that also places a high premium on winning -- at least the appearance thereof -- will have a difficult time remembering who made the case for war and who has been responsible for the debacle that ensued. It matters little to me who made the case for war. We are all morally obligated to support the mission until we win the war.
Such illogic casts a very large, ominous shadow on a party where a large percentage voted for this exercise in megalomania to make it bipartisan -- not to mention the successful public relations campaign that has effectively branded the Democrats as weak on national security matters. This article underscores that branding: Now on Sale: Old Appeasement 86 proof likker
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., in a speech to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs calling for U.S. troops to start leaving Iraq in 2007, argued that the threat of an American pullout is the best leverage Washington has left in the conflict. Leverage against whom? Against ourselves? The only people withdrawal helps are terrorists and their sympathizers.
"The time for waiting in Iraq is over. It is time to change our policy," said Obama. "It is time to give Iraqis their country back, and it is time to refocus America's efforts on the wider struggle yet to be won." Except for the retreat part which will definately undermine our efforts elsewhere, you can't argue with that.
Unfortunately, Obama's statement, though lucid and thoughtful, cannot measure up in terms of perception to the latest Pentagon argot of "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home."
Sounding more like a last-ditch sandlot football play than a viable policy solution, the latest Defense Department proposal recommends a combination of a short-term increase of 20,000 U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to increase training and advising of Iraqi forces, according to Pentagon officials.
What end does this serve? How will this scheme bring about anything other than more violence? Moreover, this proposal comes on the heels of a November that has already laid claim to over 1,300 Iraqi casualties, following 3,709 in October. You can't end violence if you leave Iraq. You can't win a war if you retreat from it. You can't claim strength in National Securirty if the only element you are willing to focus on is the cost
As Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said last week, "It is simply unrealistic to believe that somehow a temporary increase in troop levels will turn things around. We are long past any type of military solution." If temporary troop increases were the only thing going on I would agree, but it isn't and I s'pect Hagel knows it.
The problem, however, is the collective absence of a plan from anyone -- Democrat or otherwise. In what is a strange twist of irony, any hope of U.S. troops getting out may rest with Syria and Iran. While I doubt that both countries are losing sleep over watching us being bogged down in Iraq, their motivation to help may lie with not wanting our mess to spill over into their countries. So, a solution to war is to negotiate with with the two strongest supporters of terroism in the region and worldwide in exchange for our retreat? What kind of warfighitng foreign policy is that? Oh wait. It's leftist warfighting... nevermind.
Because politics is always part of the equation, it is quite possible that should the Democrats come up with a plan to get our troops out Iraq, this country's historical amnesia may cement the belief that they are weak on national security issues, potentially costing them future elections. Actually the obverse will be true. If the left cobbles together and manages to push through a plan to retreat, it will be a whole generation before the left can undo the damage, both to the US and to their own political aspirations.
But that sometimes is the unfair price of courage, and I would gladly exchange a few elected officials if it meant finding an end to one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in our history. The American left is an ongoing, constant foreign policy disaster whether they oppose it or not.
#2
Iraq has been the war where the over-whelming majority of Americans were required only to serve as the game-show audience, cheering on cue when the light came on. There has been no real sacrifice outside of the families of the men and women who serve in the armed forces.
As much of the history of the United States has been outside of 1861-65, 1917-18, 1941-45, 1950-53, 1964-73. More like burps rather than a long experience. Sorta misses the long campaign to build a nation 1790-1880s, the Mexican adventure, the little thing with Spain and the Philippines, numerous adventures around the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf War I, etc. Those were largely the work of the few who made up the standing military and volunteers. But, don't let facts get in the way of your point. Remember the Ratherism, Fake but True.
#3
In fact, we were treated to a series of tax cuts, unprecedented in U.S. war history. But looking back, those tax cuts feel a lot like hush money, buying our silence so we didn't ask critical questions in the run-up to the war.
If you want to raise revenue this is the way to do it. The fact that previous administrations (and many in the media) didn't know about/understand the Laffer curve doesn't mean anything. Either Brian Williams is dishonest or a fool for including this sentence.
#4
HHHHHMMMMM, the future REGIONAL-GLOBAL TAX which no one save Americans = Amerikans are to pay for; or perhaps "The USSA, NOT the USSR", ergo America has to surrender to Fascist-for-Communism Russia, and Communist Commie China??? Theres always RANGEL > FREEREPUBLIC.com > "People don't join the Army iff they have a "decent career", i.e. BIG GOVT-paid/subsidized. ITS FOR OUR OWN GOOD/BENEFIT ERGO WE THE PEOPLE = VOTERS DON'T HAVE TO BE TOLD ABOUT ANYTHING.
Does Gates's History Mean Continuity or Change in Iraq?
I've just finished reading Robert Gates's memoir, From the Shadows: The Ultimate Insider's Story of Five Presidents and How They Won the Cold War. It's a well-written, thoughtful book, leavened by occasional injections of nerdy humor. Gates was a career CIA employee on the analysis rather than the operations side of the agency, and the only CIA analyst ever to become director of Central Intelligence. He specialized in the Soviet Union, though he never set foot in the U.S.S.R. until May 1989. His rapid ascent was amazing. Recruited while a graduate student at Indiana University, (not Ivy League, for a change)
he served in the Air Force from 1967 to 1969, at the CIA from 1969 to 1974, at the National Security Council from 1974 to 1979, back to the CIA again from 1979 to 1989, where he became deputy director for intelligence in 1982. He was nominated to be director of central intelligence in 1987, but withdrew his nomination after it became clear that a Senate obsessed with Iran-contra would not confirm him. He was deputy national security adviser from 1989 to 1991 and then director of central intelligence from 1991 to 1993. Jack Ryan?
#1
A positive note. Hopefully Mr. Gates will see the wisdom of Secretary Rumsfeld's innovations, while loosening the Rules of Engagement to enable our military to do what it does best.
Realism, then, means nothing other than trading off our enemies interests in one place for our own assumed advantage elsewhere. (e.g., stop the Iranian IED supply in southern Iraq and we will lay off UN sanctions; close the Syrian border with Iraq, and Assad can creep back into Lebanon, etc.). All that is a fair, not an exaggerated, description of realism as we have known it. Syria was once invited into the first Gulf War coalition by our hands-off promises about its role in Lebanon. Kurds and Shiites were once let go in 1991 on promises to the Gulf monarchies to keep the old regional dictatorial order.
All this is hardly new to readers, but what is novel is the sudden liberal embrace of it. Why does the Democratic leadership seem to welcome in the thinking of a James Baker or Brent Scowcroft, especially since it once demonized realism, most notably the circumstances around the first Gulf War or the supposed Bush I failure to stop the genocide in the Balkans? Is it just petty spite at seeing GWBs own turn on him?
Or is it a deeper malaise that modern liberal internationalism is neither liberal nor international. Lacking any real belief that the United States, now or in its past, has been a continual force for good, the contemporary Left hardly wants the rest of the world to suffer the American malaise of racism, sexism, homophobia, environmental degradation, and consumerism. That self-doubt is buttressed by the idea as well that confrontation is always bad, that evil does not really exist, but is a construct we create for misunderstanding, that the worlds ills are remedied by reason and dialogue.
In essence, the progressive Leftist is often affluent, insulated from the savagery about him by his material largess, and empathizes with those who are antithetical to the very forces that made him free, secure, and prosperousas a way to assuage the guilt, at very little cost, of his own blessedness.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/27/2006 12:51 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That self-doubt is buttressed by the idea as well that confrontation is always bad, that evil does not really exist, but is a construct we create for misunderstanding, that the worlds ills are remedied by reason and dialogue.
This is why I pray to Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy every day to end war and bring peace. Soon George Bush will see the error of his ways and submit to a Tribunal of the People.
#2
If you have taught youth for generations that the story of World War II is Hiroshima and the Japanese internment, not Normandy, the Bulge, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa, then how can you expect a nation to fight an enemy without making a mistake? And if dropping the bomb on Japan to stop its daily murdering of thousands in its collapsing empire, and to avoid something that would have made the horrific Battle for Berlin look like a cakewalk is equated with the Holocaust, how can the United States marshal the moral authority to press ahead, secure that its killing of jihadists is a different sort from jihadists killing the innocent or each other?
#3
Yeah, judging from the two comments you've made today, I'd say you're somewhere between Robt KKK Byrd and Teddy LLL Kennedy. Don't fret, no one would put you and neocon together.
BTW, Carter and realistic in the same sentence? Lol.
#4
I'm not on the progressive Left, or the neocon Right, but somewhere in the reasoned middle. Let me tell you, this a one helluva lonely place to be these days.
Oh, fuck off.
The "middle" is for people who are too ignorant or too apathetic to educate themselves. Declaring yourself a "centrist" is a way to declare your moral superiority, above anyone who bothers to take a stance.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
11/27/2006 19:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I like to think of myself as being a member of the Reasoned Middle, too, Mr. Tyler. It sounds so veddy, veddy refined to my discerning ear. Unfortunately, the Left has moved so far to the left these days that the Reasoned Right is now smack dab where the middle used to be. Quite a queer sensation, to be sure, but part of that whole Reasoning thingy is seeing where reality ends up... which does require admitting that former President James Earl Carter played a large part in moving the Left so far from reality.
#6
Lol. It's amazing the folks that drop by, certain we've never seen anyone so clever, so hip, so tragically droll... Lol. It's not sophisticated, putz, it's just verbose trollery.
#7
I am now burning all other viewpoints and philosophies in my possession, and will soon be getting down off this convenient (albeit uncomfortable) fence of reason, so I may choose my righteous leaders in good and clear conscience.
#10
The United States "a continual force for good?"
I love this country to my bones, but c'mon, "a continual force for good?"
No human being, no culture, no nation, is a continual force for anything. Oh, we try as we might, but we screw up on a regular basis, often over and over again.
"American malaise" is certainly evocative, but then, Carter was just being realistic.
As to our faults; hell, yeah, we have 'em, and you ironically named some of them. Am I ashamed to admit these and other faults are real? Hell, no.
Unless, of course, we decide to ignore them and play that old childhood game of, "But, what about him?"
I'm not on the progressive Left, or the neocon Right, but somewhere in the reasoned middle. Let me tell you, this a one helluva lonely place to be these days.
Posted by: Tim Tyler ||
11/27/2006 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It sure is a pleasure to spend some time with open-minded, reasonable folks.
You have enlightened me.
I am ashamed to have spent so much of my life lost in the vast wasteland of moderate, realistic contemplation.
There is no longer any doubt in my mind that only American Republicans or Democrats have any worthwhile answers in this troubled world.
I am now burning all other viewpoints and philosophies in my possession, and will soon be getting down off this convenient (albeit uncomfortable) fence of reason, so I may choose my righteous leaders in good and clear conscience.
Posted by: Tim Tyler ||
11/27/2006 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
Every single day, hundreds of African tribesmen are killed in Darfur by militias acting with the blessing of Sudan's Arab Islamist government. Each day, Hamas bombs from Gaza deliberately target innocent Israeli civilians in Sderot: although the weapons are crude, they occasionally find their mark -- last week a Qassam killed Fatima Slutsker, a 57-year-old (Muslim) Israeli woman who was waiting for her (Jewish) Israeli husband at a bus stop. Hezbollah, backed by Iran and Syria, has ratcheted up its campaign of violence this week, assassinating a Maronite Christian cabinet minister in Lebanon in a blatant attempt to provoke a constitutional crisis. (As of this writing, under the Byzantine Lebanese constitution, the terrorist group needs to eliminate only one more minister to bring about the collapse of the government.) The life-span of Zimbabweans is 34 years, and 550,000 have died over the past three years due to deliberate policies of the Mugabe dictatorship.
All of these barbaric crimes are human and moral tragedies that call for international action, prioritization, even obsession. But that self-proclaimed source of international legitimacy, the United Nations is not obsessed or even particularly concerned with any of them. None of these abuses of human rights by authoritarian regimes or movements was the object of the General Assembly resolution "condemning the military assaults...which have caused loss of life and extensive destruction...of property...in particular the killing of many... civilians, including children and women." For none of these violations of the right to life did the UN summon righteous indignation to "emphasize the importance of the safety and well-being of all civilians" and demand "the immediate cessation of military incursions and all acts of violence, terror, provocation, incitement and destruction."
Pretty bleak, but right on spot at least on the will issue. And that goes doubly for the rest of the West.' by Irwin M. Stelzer
AMERICA IS FINISHED as a great power. Not because it no longer possesses the resources, but because it has lost the will. That was brought home to me on both ends of a recent trip through London's Heathrow airport en route to Phoenix.
* No great power permits its citizens to be discriminated against. Yet just keep your eyes open as you go through security at Heathrow (or any other international airport). Off goes your jacket. Off comes your wife's jacket, like yours, to be deposited in a heap in a plastic bin headed through a machine designed to detect something or other. Next comes a Middle Eastern woman, clad head to toe in a black garment, loose-fitting enough to conceal a weapon of mass destruction. No one dares impede her progress through the detectors.
America makes no move to tell the world's authorities that its citizens are not terrorists, and that any sensible program based on statistical probability--some call it profiling--would reverse security priorities. Jimmy Carter proved that any third-rate power can lay hands on American citizens without consequences. The world got the clue, and now treats us accordingly.
#2
Yep. The notion that if we stop buying it the shit will end is simply stupid - someone else (e.g. China) will take up any slack. There is only one answer, take the funding sources away from the crazies.
Just imagine if any other country had the US Military (Forget the ethics we impose, think: resources, budget, technology, and training) at its disposal, what would they do with it?
Lol. A challenge: country by country, can the RB denizens offer any guesses?
#3
Just imagine if any other country had the US Military (Forget the ethics we impose, think: resources, budget, technology, and training) at its disposal, what would they do with it?
Solve the Jewish problem once and for all!
Posted by: Proud EUropean ||
11/27/2006 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The pre-1941 US fit most of the "no great power" items in this list yet I think few would say a decade later that the US wasn't a Great Power.
#6
Reminds me of a concept someone close to Rantburg once advocated, about a 50 km wide strip of sand on the west side of the Persian Gulf ....
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/27/2006 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ancient history, lol. I'll bet 60% (or greater) have never heard of The Republic of Eastern Arabia. Hmmm, I wonder who came up with that name... wasn't me... ;-)
#11
I'd annex the Sudetenland and sign a nonagression pact with Russia...
Lol!
Posted by: Mark E. ||
11/27/2006 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Question for you all: How much of our oil in percentage do we get from the Arabs? A relative of mine said it is about 25% of our total oil. I thought the number was higher. I know some of you on the 'Burg are much more a tuned or have worked in the oil sector. What's the real deal?
#15
Oil is a fungible commodity, so it doesn't really matter where specifically our oil comes from; the fact that we use any at all keeps it "scarce" and affects prices....
Posted by: Mark E. ||
11/27/2006 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Yah, we are catering to Muslims. That is, we are subordinating Western life to accomodate savages who aspire to work as taxi drivers. The West needs Muslims like we need the AIDS virus.
#17
#12 - As long as anyone in the world buys oil, the sellers of oil can make money from them, don't matter where it's produced or where it's consumed, as long as the oil gets to where it's wanted, and the money gets back to where it's produced.
Those among us who thought that the victory of allied democracies in 1945 would mark the end of hate and state-sponsored racism were naive. What remains in human memory as the most cruel of conflicts changed neither human nature nor peoples' ambition. Religious wars, political dictatorships, ethnic clashes, sectarian, cultural and economic crises: Their impact affects us all pretty much everywhere on the planet. Our world is still the target of more than one threat. Such is life, that everything comes full circle to start over again.
Yet even in the domain of evil, differences and degrees exist. Certain dictators are worse than others, and their hateful actions have consequences more dangerous.
For the reader who has not yet guessed, I am speaking of the current president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: More than so many others who abuse their position if not their power, this one represents the darkest of political action.
Ridiculing historical truths, offending the memory of survivors still alive, he glorifies the act of lying: As the No. 1 Holocaust denier in the world, an anti-Semite with a disturbed mind, he claims that Hitler's "Final Solution" never happened. He even had a large international exhibition of anti-Holocaust cartoons mounted in Tehran. Several hundred cartoonists participated. When asked about the future, the exhibition organizer states that the project will continue as long as the Jewish state has not been destroyed.
And who will destroy it? On this point, President Ahmadinejad is not afraid to clarify his view: Iran will take the lead. As soon as this Muslim country has acquired a nuclear weapon, the first bombs will be launched on Israel. And he has not ceased to repeat this threat.
Consider it this way: According to him, there was no Holocaust in the past, but there is sure to be one and it is on the way. Scandalous rumblings of a fanatic? Yes, but this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them. Just empty words? No. This orator does not speak for nothing. He seems rather committed to keeping his "promises." It would be wrong to question his determination. A person does not just preach hate for nothing. Isn't his goal to break the heart and snuff the life of anyone who does not think like him? As for me, I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously.
And lest we forget, who is behind the Hezbollah terrorist organization? Iran. Iran sends them the most modern weapons and officers to train their soldiers. But what does Hezbollah want? Territorial concessions? No. The creation of a Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace with the Jewish state? No. The sole objective of this movement - and of the Iranian president - is the destruction of Israel.
This is why I maintain that such a figure does not have a place within the community of international leaders. Persona non grata, an undesirable individual, this is what he should become, because of what he is doing to his country, to his people, to all of humanity. This is why he deserves to be turned away everywhere. I'll go even further: The country he leads and embodies should be excluded from the United Nations as long as he is its ruler and symbol. On what grounds? It is quite simple: One member state of the United Nations that threatens to destroy another member state of these same United Nations violates its very charter and conventions.
Is something like this possible? I am not naive enough to believe that this could really happen. What state would introduce such a UN resolution? And how many delegates would vote to adopt it? I know all too well: very few. But at least they won't feel so comfortable in their fear. At least they'll learn from lessons of the not-so-distant past: We know with whom a dictator will begin; but he will not stop there. If Iran were to have a nuclear weapon, do we really think that Israel would remain its only target?
Some will say: What about North Korea? Why aren't we doing something about them? Don't they have the same atomic ambitions? Yes, they do. But there is still quite a difference. North Korea has never threatened to wipe away another state.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/27/2006 00:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Consider it this way: According to him, there was no Holocaust in the past, but there is sure to be one and it is on the way. Scandalous rumblings of a fanatic? Yes, but this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them. Just empty words? No. This orator does not speak for nothing. He seems rather committed to keeping his "promises." It would be wrong to question his determination. A person does not just preach hate for nothing. Isn't his goal to break the heart and snuff the life of anyone who does not think like him? As for me, I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously.
Few people on earth have the moral authority of Elie Wiesel.
Believe him when he tells you that, "this fanatic addresses crowds that like his ideas and applaud them".
Trust him when he says, "It would be wrong to question his determination".
Know that like him, "I belong to a generation that learned to take the enemy's words of hate seriously".
For some time now, I have been urging members of this community to please take Ahmadinejad at his word. Dismiss forever from your mind that his declarations are solely for public copnsumption. Even if they were, there remain those who are swayed, if not convinced, by their meaning and content.
As to whether the, "UN must expel Ahmadinejad's murderous regime", those of us who have the least remnant of moral scruples know that such a thing is not just impossible, it is anathema to everything that the UN currently stands for.
This in no way disallows Wiesel from demanding that the UN act upon its own charter and take arms against one who would avow the destruction of a fellow member. Far be it from Kofi Annan or his successor to even consider such a notion. Even if it represents all that our world's combined might should rightfully address.
I give you Wiesel's own words:
Never shall I forget that night, the first night in camp, which has turned my life into one long night, seven times cursed and seven times sealed.
Never shall I forget that smoke.
Never shall I forget the little faces of the children, whose bodies I saw turned into wreaths of smoke beneath a silent blue sky.
Never shall I forget those flames which consumed my faith forever.
Never shall I forget that nocturnal silence which deprived me, for all eternity, of the desire to live.
Never shall I forget those moments which murdered my God and my soul and turned my dreams to dust.
Never shall I forget these things, even if I am condemned to live as long as God Himself.
Never.
Lest we forget:
Let us remember, let us remember the heroes of Warsaw, the martyrs of Treblinka, the children of Auschwitz. They fought alone, they suffered alone, they lived alone, but they did not die alone, for something in all of us died with them.
What died with those Holocaust victims was the least spark of humanity that we could ever accord those who seek to re-enact this abortion of reality. Islam's insistence upon continuation of the Sho'ah is what will doom all Muslims to a holocaust of their own. Should they continue to support or even just neglect to vociferously object to such a travesty, then their's is damnation and the certain hell that awaits them.
#2
The UN is a trade association for tyrranies. Ahmadinejad won't be expelled; he's a member in good standing.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/27/2006 6:17 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is the same UN that kept the USSR in for its life, was fine with Saddam Hussein but not so sure about the current government, and admitted the PRC after its murderous spree. Imanutjob is in fine company.
George Weigel is the renowned author of Pope John Paul II's biograpy Witness To Hope . This article describes in great detail the tribulations facing the Christian Churches in Turkey. A very interesting read from a conservative Catholic's perspective.
Excerpt:
In the days when the world knew him as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Benedict XVI expressed reservations about Turkey's accession to the European Union, which he believed would mark the end of the EU as the political expression of a common culture. Instead, Ratzinger suggested, Turkey should be associated with the European Union in such a way that it would enjoy the economic benefits of EU membership without becoming a member, with full voice and vote, of the EU's political deliberations. Perhaps Ratzinger has reconsidered his position as pope; but in any case, his questions about Turkey's EU ambitions, plus his September lecture in Regensburg, Germany, in which he raised hard questions about the ways in which certain Islamic conceptions of God led to lethal worldly consequences, have conspired, in the global media's mind, to cast Pope Benedict's impending visit to Turkey in a light that both he and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew dislike: as far as most of the world is concerned, the pope is going to Islamic Turkey, not to the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, and the real issue being engaged in Istanbul from Nov. 28 through Dec. 1 involves Catholicism and Islam, not Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Given the ecumenical priorities that both pope and patriarch assign to this historic encounter, however, it is very unlikely that the papal pilgrimage will see Regensburg II, a major statement from Benedict XVI on Christianity and Islam. That is not because the pope is retreating from what he said at Regensburg; it is because this pilgrimage has a different purpose.
There is, however, a link between what Benedict XVI thinks he's doing during his Turkish pilgrimage and the world's expectations of another episode in the confrontation between the West and Islam. That link involves the dramatic restrictions under which Patriarch Bartholomew and the Ecumenical Patriarchate must operate, thanks to the obstacles put in the patriarchate's path by the Turkish governmentrestrictions that raise serious questions about Turkey's ability to meet EU human-rights standards. Should the papal visit to the Phanar (sometimes referred to as the "Orthodox Vatican," much to the aggravation of the Orthodox) focus world attention on the gaps in Turkey's practice of religious freedom, the situation of the Ecumenical Patriarchate might be improvedand so, in consequence, would Turkey's chances of a closer relationship to the EU.
[snip]
Although the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople does not exercise the jurisdictional and doctrinal authority in world Orthodoxy that the papacy exercises in world Catholicism, it does enjoy a historic status as "first among equals" in Orthodoxy, plays an important role in coordinating Orthodox affairs globally and is regarded as the spiritual center of global Orthodoxy by Orthodox believers. Yet it is Turkish law, not the canons of the Orthodox Church, that determines who is eligible to be elected ecumenical patriarch, and Turkish law limits the pool of possible candidates to Turkish citizens living in Turkey. As a recent memorandum from the Ecumenical Patriarchate put it, "the result of these restrictions is that in the not so distant future the Ecumenical Patriarchate may not be able to elect a Patriarch."
The Turkish government closed the patriarchate's seminary, the Theological School of Halki, in 1971, and has refused, despite numerous requests, to reopen it.
Turkey will not grant the Ecumenical Patriarchate legal "personality," in defiance of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923, which defined the legal position of minorities in Turkey; this refusal to deal with the patriarchate as a legal "person" (as churches are regarded throughout the West) is, according to the patriarchate memo, "a major source of many other problems." For to deny that the patriarchate is a legal entity with certain rights, an entity that can work with the Turkish government within the framework of the law, means that all issues between the patriarchate and the state become political issues, subject to political pressures and counterpressuresespecially problematic, since less than one tenth of 1 percent of the Turkish population is Orthodox.
#1
It is hard to imagine that Pope Benedict will not use this opportunity to continue his pointed observations regarding lack of religious freedom in Muslim majority countries. Turkey is a perfect example in that they are putatively secular, yet obviously restrictive about the practice of other non-Islamic religions within their boundaries. Why else would they have closed the Theological School of Halki?
This situation should provide the world with yet another glimpse beneath the hem of Islam's supposedly peaceful trappings. One can only assume there will be violent riots over the Pope's presence. While I wish the Pope no harm, I can only hope that Turkey's Muslims show themselves for the intolerant and hostile hate-mongers that they are. Benedict's prior opposition to Turkey's EU admission will certainly cause its own share of seething.
#1
This article is spot on....exactly right in every sense....maybe we should all send this to the Editor of our local paper for printing....oh wait...cant do that...would either be racist or not politically correct. And in time, that will be the death of America and us. We have been warned and the powers that be refuse to accept the facts. Everyone out there better be on guard, the attack has begun and the enemy is very patient. Its up to us to save ourselves. Our "government" is worthless and useless when it comes to protecting its citizens from this threat. And you better believe that this is a serious threat. Do NOT let your guard down.
Posted by: Live to Ride ||
11/27/2006 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
A viewer email to Fox CAVUTO/SMITH? said it best > Why is everything America's responsibility? Where are Muslims' responsibility for the freedoms or abuses of their own religion.
#3
A viewer email to Fox CAVUTO/SMITH? said it best > Why is everything America's responsibility? Where are the Muslims' responsibility for the freedoms or abuses of their own religion. When are Muslims in Lebanon and Iraq and Afghanistan, etal. going to fight to protect their country, their freedoms, their sense of justice, and their own personal-national self-dignity under Islam???
AS POWERFUL AS AMERICA IS, SHE CAN'T DO IT ALL BY HERSELF.
Who would have thought it? Half of Europe the half that was so smug about having buried God several generations ago is waiting in real trepidation for the outcome of a theological argument. When Pope Benedict XVI flies to Turkey tomorrow, he will embody the most potentially incendiary confrontation between Islam and the West since the defeat of the Turks at Vienna in 1683 brought an end to Islamic conquest in Europe.
The Pope will take with him an understanding that at the root of our problems in dealing with the Islamist death cult, there is a fundamental debate to be had about the role of human reason in political affairs.
The remarks he made in a lecture in Regensburg, Germany, which implied that Islam rejected rationality while Christianity saw it as essential to faith were contentious (and almost certainly designed to be so), but they raised a question that almost no Western government has the courage to ask, let alone answer. How is a liberal democracy to deal with an illiberal religious minority in its midst?
To understand the life-or-death significance of what the Pope does and says when he arrives in Istanbul, it is necessary to see this confrontation for what it is. This will involve some traumatic re-adjustment for most of the opinion-forming class in Britain. The first assumption that will have to go is the premise that Islamist terrorism can be understood in pragmatic, politically rational terms: in other words, that it can be addressed with the usual mechanisms of negotiation, concession and amended policy.
The most readily accepted version of this is that a change to our policy in the Middle East will remove the grievances that "fuel" Muslim terrorism. The Cabinet has apparently been advised that all foreign policy decisions over the next decade should have the goal of thwarting terrorism in Britain and that this should involve "a significant reduction in the number and intensity of the regional conflicts that fuel terror activity". So Britain is contemplating constructing a foreign policy, specifically in the Middle East, that is designed to give in to terrorist blackmail.
Never mind that the hereditary grievance of almost all British-born Muslim terrorists is the Kashmir question, to which the almost entirely irrelevant Palestine issue has been tacked on by political manipulators with larger ambitions. (The easiest way to make a connection between the Palestine-Israel conflict and the problem of Kashmir is to construct a global theory of persecution in which British-born Muslims may see themselves as born into a victimhood perpetrated by all non-Muslim nations upon Islam.
That, as it happens, chimes perfectly with the true goal of Islamism, which is global supremacy.) So this ignominious posture what you might call the "save our own skin; who cares what happens in the rest of the world?" view is based on a false premise. It is not adjustments to our stance on Israel-Palestine that the international Islamist terror movement wants.
That demand was just a bin Laden afterthought that went down a treat with the old reliable anti-Semitic interest in Europe. What Islamic fundamentalism plans to achieve (and it has made no secret of it) is a righting of the great wrong of 1492, when the Muslims were expelled from Spain: a return of the Caliphate, the destruction of corrupt Western values, and the establishment of Sharia law in all countries where Muslims reside. That is what we are up against.
The Pope characterised it as a battle between reason and unreason. Scholars may debate the theological and historical soundness of his analysis. But what is indisputable is that this is not an argument that is within the bounds of diplomatic give and take, the traditional stuff of international policy argy-bargy. What we could plausibly offer to the enemy, even at our most craven, would never be sufficient.
What is being demanded is the surrender of everything that Western democracy regards as sacred: even, ironically, the freedom to practise one's own religion, which, at the moment, is so useful to Muslim activists. We are forced to accept the Islamist movement's own estimation of the conflict: this is a war to the death, or until Islamism decides to call a halt.
But we do not have to accept all that Islamism claims for itself: most importantly, the idea that it alone embodies the true principles of its faith. The argument that the Islamic religion is inherently violent, which the Pope was thought to have supported in his Regensburg lecture, is academic, in both the literal and metaphorical senses.
What matters for us now is that a great many Muslims including some enthusiastic converts who cannot even lay claim to a life history of persecution or injustice for their beliefs are prepared to use their religious affiliation as a justification to commit mass murder. How are we to deal with this? There is only one way: we must, with the co-operation of the Muslim majority, separate the faith from its violent exponents.
Liberal democracy reached an understanding with religion a long time ago: your right, as a citizen, to observe your faith without persecution will be explicitly protected by the state. In return, you will agree to make your peace with the civil law and respect the rights of others to pursue their beliefs. That's the deal. We cannot make exceptions either by removing Muslims who accept their side of the bargain from that protection, or by permitting those who refuse to accept it to flout our law (on, say, sexual equality or the overt slavery of forced marriages).
As Caroline Cox and John Marks argue in their book The West, Islam and Islamism, republished in a new edition by Civitas this week, it is imperative that we distinguish between the Islamic faith and Islamist ideology. If we accept or even countenance the view that the two are indistinguishable, we will either be paralysed by our own democratic commitment to religious freedom or forced to engage in all-out religious war.
If a majority of the Muslim community is prepared to separate itself, clearly and explicitly, from the terrorist faction, then we have a chance. If it is not, if it is swept up in the glamour of international victim status and the dark victory of glorious death, then we face generations of bloodshed.
To some extent, this is up to us. Britain must have more to offer than domestic confusion and international cowardice. But it is up to conscientious Muslims as well, of whom much perhaps more than is fair must be demanded by way of intercession and courage.
#1
This is fantastic piece for the Torygraph; directly confronting the anti-Semitic reflexes of the Conservative Establishment. The sooner the old-school Arabists are dealt with the better.
#3
it is necessary to see this confrontation for what it is. This will involve some traumatic re-adjustment for most of the opinion-forming class in Britain.
Not just in Britain, of course. But a nicely turned phrase and a razor sharp point.
#4
"How are we to deal with this? There is only one way: we must, with the co-operation of the Muslim majority, separate the faith from its violent exponents".
No. No. No Janet Riley.
Janet hasn't been paying exact attention. She is close, but still quite not there.
Contrary to her supposition, it will be, if any, a very small minority of muslims that will try to seperate their (so called) "faith" from the vast majority of muslims that either practice or passively support violence in the name of islam.
Janet drank the kool-aid that claims islam to be a ROP. She cannot imagine it otherwise.
Janet gets so many things right in her article, but on this most fundamental issue she gets it completely wrong.
Janet is close, but not quite ready (yet) to peer over the edge into the black abyss to realize what is necessary and what is coming.
She holds out hope in her heart that islam can be reasoned with. It cannot be done. But she refuses to wrap her mind around the realization of what this will actually mean.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/27/2006 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
MZ, it looks like about 52% of Americans are in the same place.
[Bush] requires his people to present him with a consensus for action. This means he does not hear rival proposals, and instead gets served with proposals which are forced to embody the lowest common denominator. This is not the leadership required for the defence of the free world.
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.
