Muslim leaders are launching a new drive to teach British schoolchildren about the true meaning of Islam. The initiative, backed by the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, will see books on Islam going into schools nationwide. Organisers hope it will help overcome barriers to how non-Muslims understand the faith. And Mr Clarke said the project would help strengthen a multi-faith, multi-cultural society. The "Books for Schools" resource packs include books, videos and CDs. It aims to inform debate among both teachers and pupils and is designed to fit into Key Stages 1 and 2 of religious education - primary schooling. Most of the pack focuses on group work where pupils use the materials to learn more about the key pillars of Islam and the tenets of Muslim life.
Any word on a new book from the Arch-Druid?
The scheme has the backing of educationalists in many areas, who had approached the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) to help with their teaching on Islam. Islam appears in the national curriculum as part of teaching on world religions. But many Muslims say schools do not provide non-Muslims a sufficiently detailed introduction to how the practicalities of the faith, such as ritual charitable giving and fasting. Many schools also rely on materials which are outdated, they say. They hope the new packs, which cost £250 each, aim to change that and follow a similar scheme introduced in the United States. Charles Clarke said he supported the scheme's aims. "It is only through understanding that this country can move forward as a true multi-faith and multicultural society," said Mr Clarke. "We must ensure children grow up with a better understanding of their friends and neighbours. "The Muslim Council of Britain's initiative, books for schools, brings us much closer towards that goal."
Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the MCB, said education was "the key" to creating a vibrant and understanding society. "These resources, developed by our educationalists, aim to overcome the barriers to the teaching of Islam experienced by so many of our teachers by making available creative, engaging and child-friendly resources on Islam and Muslims. "Effective RE teaching and learning plays a positive role in a child's spiritual, moral, social and cultural development. Books for Schools provides resources on Islam to deliver this part of the curriculum effectively."
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
10/12/2004 10:18:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
You gotta start early to teach proper beheading technique. Lets see, the courses for first grade:
Beheading 101
Infidel Jews 101
Other Infidels 102 (the second semester)
Suicide bomb wiring 101
Introduction to Martyrdom 101
Rights of Women 101 (the short course - covered while waiting in line for lunch on the first day)
#3
True meaning of Islam = perverse shariah, second class status for women, terrorism, beheadings, limb hacking, wife beating, foreign aggression, genocide, etc ad nauseum.
#4
"The initiative, backed by the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, will see books on Islam going into schools nationwide. Organisers hope it will help overcome barriers to how non-Muslims understand the faith."
How do non-Muslims understand the faith? I've only been reading about Islam since 911, and I think I need to go to a school in the UK so someone can explain this religion to me. The most vocal advocates of the religion are, I assume, poor examples. Maybe it is because the news media only likes the sensational, but there is no other image of Islam in the news giving another picture, showing another side. As non-Muslims, we are left with a picture of hatred, murder suicides, kids strapped with bombs, kids shot in the back, curvy knives and subjugated women whose only role is as concubines. Is there another side to the religion? If there another side, it is so weak and so timid that it allows the other to be the image of Islam. What are they going to teach to "stregthen multi-faith, multi-cultural society?"
Posted by: Carlos ||
10/12/2004 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Japanese have Katanas, the Chinese have Daos (and Michelle Yeoh), and the Nepalese have Kukris, and none of them are like that. So it's got to be something besides the curvy knives.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
10/12/2004 17:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Carlos, your questions:
"As non-Muslims, we are left with a picture of hatred, murder suicides, kids strapped with bombs, kids shot in the back, curvy knives and subjugated women whose only role is as concubines. Is there another side to the religion?"
What you see is what you get.
"What are they going to teach to "stregthen multi-faith, multi-cultural society?"
...It found Muslims had the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications. In most respects Muslim women fared worse than Muslim men. Compared with people from other religious groups, Muslims lived in the biggest households and were the least likely to own their own homes. They were five times more likely to marry by the age of 24 than the British average.
The figures were, to some extent, explained by the fact that Muslims - the second biggest religious group - were the least well-established. More than half were born outside the UK and only 65% described their national identity as British, English, Scottish or Welsh.
Muslims had the youngest age profile of all religious groups, with 34% under 16 compared with 25% of Sikhs, 21% of Hindus and 18% of Christians. But the extent of Muslims' deprivation was the key finding from the ONS data, with implications for community relations. In 2003/4 Muslims had the highest unemployment rate. Among men it was 14%, compared with 4% among Christians. For women it was 15%, almost four times the rate among Christians. Muslims aged 16 to 24 had the highest unemployment rates of all at 22%, compared with an average for Christians of 11%. Muslim men and women were more likely than other groups to be economically inactive: not available for work or not seeking it. More than two-thirds (68%) of Muslim women of working age were economically inactive, compared with 25% of Christians and no more than a third of women in other religious groups...
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It found Muslims had the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications. In most respects Muslim women fared worse than Muslim men.
Compared with people from other religious groups, Muslims lived in the biggest households and were the least likely to own their own homes. They were five times more likely to marry by the age of 24 than the British average
explains the seething, don't it? (/sarcasm)
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/12/2004 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Got to keep the people poor and uneducated, so you can grow more bomber's. They want to bring the world back down to thier backward lifestyle, instead of using thier energy to better themselves. The only time they seem to use todays modern resources, is when they try and hurt us. Use that knowledge for themselves, and they'd be much richer.
#6
I would love to see these factors analyzed by Country GNP. My suspicion is that even countries that have no major exports, industry or fund of natural resources do better on these measures than oil-rich arab countries.
Which would force a conclusion that it's not economics, but culture/religion that causes these conditions to prevail.
#7
This has nothing to do with Muslims' "plight" or with them being "deprived", and everything to do with them being unwilling to make a positive contribution to their host country.
They aren't "victims" of poverty; they're perpetrators of poverty.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/12/2004 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Something about a culture that conditions its members to believe that life is a zero sum game, just causes suffering. I wonder what?
#9
Dave and Anonymous6092. My thoughts as well. If they had thier way, we might be advanced to the printing press about now, if anyone who could work the machine had two hands left.
#10
Hell, no wonder they're not getting an education or "actively seeking employment". For what? When they know Robert and Mary down the street work hard to pay taxes for their free lunch. From what they made from their native lands, it must seem like they won the lottery.
We have the same thing in the states, but all races, colors, and religions, etc participate in the Great Government Free Lunch Giveaway(TM).
#11
Michael Moore and the "left hate America crowd" are most likely wringing their hands, fretting, and whining about the Muslim plight being our fault. Freedom, democracy, and dumping despot corrupt monarchies and leaders might improve their lot considerably. Iraq and Afghanistan should change the mid-East dynamic and hopefully set a long-term trend for change.
Posted by: A. Bungfodder ||
10/12/2004 16:20 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Which all goes to show just how vital the rote memorization of lengthy religious tracts proves to be if one seeks a professional career that is supposed to last longer than it takes to actuate a detonator.
A book of condolence opened in tribute to the murdered Iraq hostage Kenneth Bigley has been stolen. Thieves also took a framed photograph of him, candles and some sympathy cards from Birmingham Central Mosque. The book, believed to have gone on Saturday, was due to go to Mr Bigley's family to show the mainstream Muslim community's condemnation of his death. Earlier this year a book of condolence for the victims of the Madrid bombings was stolen from the same mosque. Nice folk, ain't they?
Two condolence books gone missing from the same mosque? That's an odd coinkidink, dontcha think? And nobody knows who dunnit. If it was me, I'd check the jihadi websites. Bet they're paraded around for the camera.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
10/12/2004 10:02:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Whether or not it is, in the technical sense, a "joke", I find myself, with the benefit of hindsight, in agreement with Billy Connolly's now famous observation on Kenneth Bigley — "Aren't you the same as me, don't you wish they would just get on with it?"
Had his killers "just got on with it", they would have decapitated Mr Bigley as swiftly as they did his two American confreres. But, sensing that there was political advantage to be gained in distinguishing the British subject from his fellow hostages, they didn't get on with it, and the intervening weeks reflected poorly on both Britain and Mr Bigley.
None of us can know for certain how we would behave in his circumstances, and very few of us will ever face them. But, if I had to choose in advance the very last words I'd utter in this life, "Tony Blair has not done enough for me" would not be high up on the list. First, because it's the all but official slogan of modern Britain, the dull rote whine of the churlish citizen invited to opine on waiting lists or public transport, and thus unworthy of the uniquely grisly situation in which Mr Bigley found himself. And, secondly, because those words are so at odds with the spirit of a life spent, for the most part, far from these islands. Ken Bigley seems to have found contemporary Britain a dreary, insufficient place and I doubt he cared about who was Prime Minister from one decade to the next. Had things gone differently and had his fate befallen some other expatriate, and had he chanced upon a month-old London newspaper in his favourite karaoke bar up near the Thai-Cambodian border and read of the entire city of Liverpool going into a week of Dianysian emotional masturbation over some deceased prodigal son with no inclination to return whom none of the massed ranks of weeping Scousers from the Lord Mayor down had ever known, Mr Bigley would surely have thanked his lucky stars that he and his Thai bride were about as far from his native sod as it's possible to get.
RTWT
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 3:51:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think the Telegraph was right not to publish it. I think he could have made this point without blaming the victim:
None of the above would have guaranteed Mr Bigleyâs life, but it would have given him, as it did Signor Quattrocchi, a less pitiful death, and it would have spared the world a glimpse of the feeble and unserious Britain of the last few weeks. The jihadists have become rather adept at devising tests customized for each group of infidels: Madrid got bombed, and the Spaniards failed their test three days later; the Australian Embassy in Jakarta got bombed, but the Aussies held firm and re-elected John Howardâs government anyway. With Britain, the Islamists will have drawn many useful lessons from the decadence and defeatism on display.
#3
The Telegraph's decision is a reflection of the decadence and defeatism on display in Britain. Mr. Bigley's status is exactly the point of the column. He was not a victim, he was a combatant.
One of the great ironies of this war is that those who are in the uniformed services are volunteers and the rest of us are involuntary draftees. And there is nothing we can do about it, except get it over with as rapidly as posible. Mr. Bigley's conduct, prior to and after his abduction did not contribute to this goal.
Our enemy wants to destroy us all. It will continue to do so until we have done unto them as they would do unto us. Those who see Bigley as a victim deny this reality and wish to see this as a war fought by European standards or even as a law enforcement problem. Were this the case, Bigley would be a victim. But it is not. We are in a total war, whether we wish to be or not; and we do not yet. It is a war still awaiting a Sherman because we would not yet accept him even if we could find him.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I would have run the column, but I would have delayed it a bit, to a point when emotions weren't so high and emotions so raw.
"If youâre kidnapped, accept youâre unlikely to survive, say âIâll show you how an Englishman diesâ, and wreck the video. If they want you to confess youâre a spy, make a little mischief: there are jihadi from Britain, Italy, France, Canada and other western nations all over Iraq â so say yes, youâre an MI6 agent, and so are those Muslims from Tipton and Luton who recently joined the al-Qaeda cells in Samarra and Ramadi. As Churchill recommended in a less timorous Britain: You can always take one with you."
{He he he ...}
I LIKE it!
If you are captured, before you suffer your Quattrocchi fate, you act like the brave Italian... if any more Americans end up in this situation...
Tell the man with the knife...
"Yeah there is all those boys from Dearborn and Buffalo mosques hangin' out with you in Fallujah who are workin' with me & the CIA... Allah akhbar, baby..."
#6
"That being said, I think he's speaking the truth - it's just that this truth is too painful to be in print."
All the more reason why it NEEDED to be said.
" I would have run the column, but I would have delayed it a bit, to a point when emotions weren't so high and emotions so raw."
No! Clamp the lid on, close the safety valve and crank the fire up! The sooner our society loses its collective patience, the better. Only then will we finally make the decisions necessary to do what has to be done.
Ultimately, it is going to be necessary to exterminate Islam.
Peabody
Posted by: Mr. Peabody ||
10/12/2004 12:04 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I read the previous article about an American in London and then read this. The column needed to be run and the Brit population (not Blair) need to wake up to the threat that is within their midst.
Posted by: remote man ||
10/12/2004 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Re decadence, the Telegraph last week ran a brilliant opinion piece from one Dr Anthony Daniels that was actually much more scathing than Steyn's, and without the rather tasteless retelling of the Billy Connolly remark.
Our reaction to Mr Bigley's death is immature, dishonest and decadent
By Dr Anthony Daniels
(Filed: 10/10/2004)
It goes without saying that Mr Bigley's days of agony and terror were such as no human being ought ever to endure. It goes without saying that sympathy is due to his family, especially to his aged mother.
However, what goes without saying ought to go unsaid. The very fact that we so often seem compelled nowadays to spell out the obvious, by means of public gestures and protestations, by breast-beating and generalised mawkishness, suggests that, far from having deep feelings for one another, we live in a world without any genuine feeling. Mawkishness is the tribute that indifference pays to solidarity.
...Thousands of people, in effect, will work themselves up into a state of grief. But it will only count as true or real grief if they express it in public.
Leaving aside the question as to whether maximum public effect is precisely what the killers of Mr Bigley are aiming for, and that therefore each flower laid (other than by his family and friends), and each teddy bear bought, is a triumph and encouragement for them, what does this outpouring of imitation-emotion tell us about ourselves and the condition that we are in?
...What was done to Mr Bigley was not wrong, nor was it even made worse, because he might have been an exceptionally good man; it was wrong because it was barbaric, because no one should be treated in this fashion, and it would have been wrong to do so even if Mr Bigley had been a very bad man.
To dwell on his good qualities in public is therefore not merely beside the point and grossly sentimental, it is morally very wrong: for it is to imply that, had he been (for example) a drunken embezzler, it might have been morally justified to treat him in such a way. He was an innocent man, we were told ad nauseam: if he had been guilty, then, should he have had his head sawn off with a knife by a group of heartless psychopaths?
... What kind of population ... would fail to understand that the holder of one of the great offices of state such as Jack Straw's cannot, or at least ought not to, devote himself to futile gestures of ersatz emotional support for a single grieving family? What kind of population fails to understand that the policy of the country, whether it be right or wrong, cannot be determined by the fate of one man, however horrible that fate might be? And this is so, irrespective of one's view of the Iraq war.
The politics of the individual case is the politics of gusts of intense but shallow emotion. It is incompatible with the rational pursuit of long-term interests. There are several words to describe such a politics: immature, dishonest and decadent would do.
#9
This is a perfect reply also to those weak, if not morally decadent, and foolish critics of Bush who complained he was not visiting and indulge in sob session with bereaved families of Iraq War casualties.
We are a great nation upholding a proud and strong civilization. We are not victims, and we do not weep when savages take the lives of our citizens. We repay, and in spades.
Those who suggest we should do otherwise are admitting defeat. Shame on such weak and cowardly fools.
#10
Steyn's column was brilliant in that it said what many were afraid to. As for me I aint going quietly or sheepishly. I live in a pretty quiet part of the U.S. (Northern California) but we have a very large Muslim population. To date I have not seen an incident that raises their loyalties to question. However I have seen many normal non-Muslims go over to the other side because they think this is some type of adolescent game. Also given the recruitment of Muslims itâs only a matter of time before we see another Hamdi or John Lindh try to start something within our (U.S.) borders. What Steyn should have added that Islamofacists only prey on the weak or easy. Most are poorly trained and are just a step above common thugs. Have a gun rack in your truck, put NRA stickers on the windows, and if you can carry a personal weapon. If you look like your are a difficult target, they will go look for someone else. If you donât want a gun get a tazer, pepper spray, or a knife. And learn how to use them and teach your kids how to use them! If nothing else we should learn that these Islamofacists care little about the whether you wear a uniform or not. Just look at that school in Russia and that should tell you enough.
#12
I don't necessarily disagree with all of the comments above - but if I were the editor, I still would not have run it. Agree with rj that it would have been best to wait.
Mr. Bigley is a human being and his family are real flesh and blood. He didn't ask to be made a symbol of the war, even if he became one. Regardless of how true Steyn's words are, it's more civilized to respect Bigley's death than it is to use it to further our own cause. Put yourself in the family's shoes. How would you feel if everyone was blaming your brother and using his death to further their own political agendas.
I love Steyn. One of the very best writers around, but it was wrong for him to piss on this mans grave before the grass even had a chance to grow.
#13
I disagree. I think the danger of creeping Bigley-ism is a far greater threat to us than any jihadist ever could be. This teddy bear tendency needs to be stopped cold in its tracks before we start going the way of the Spanish.
#14
Imagine how the jihadists must be interpreting Bigley's dying words: âTony Blair has not done enough for meâ.
Do you think the jihadists and the muslim fellow travelers listening to that whimper are likely to be discouraged and dissuaded from further attacks?
Osama contrasted the "strong horse" and the "weak horse", and said the muslim population of the world would place its bet on the strong horse. Little did he imagine a whinnying, pitifully cowering old nag.
#15
This teddy bear tendency needs to be stopped cold
How about we let the body get cold first?
Look - I understand what you are saying - and I'm not disagreeing with your overall point. But, someday, someone important to you will die - and you will feel embarrased by your mean words.
#16
But, someday, someone important to you will die - and you will feel embarrased by your mean words
One of my best friends was a contractor who disappeared from the area near Tikrit (his broken-down car and laptop were found) a year ago today. He was probably kidnapped, and is almost certainly dead.
Aside from a wire service report, I have not seen any journalist's account of him or his fate. Nonetheless I have no doubt he died a brave man.
I cannot say the same of Bigley or many of his compatriots. So here's my question to you: what lesson would you want your children to take from the Bigley affair?
As for me, I will teach my son that the memory of a free man's honor, no matter how obscure that man was, outweighs the media-induced tears and sympathy of a million strangers.
#17
Where's our Lincoln? I think he's in the White House. Both came to the White House after a deeply divisive election whose legitimacy some question. Unlike Lincoln, Bush came to the White House expecting to deal with problems different than those which have confronted him. But he has played the cards dealt him well. History is changing the world rapidly around him as it did to Lincoln. Because of the divisions in the nation, Bush has had to show a Lincolnian constancy and resolve. I'd imagine this has not been easy; not nearly as easy as being able to flip flop like Kerry. Thus the grimaces at the first debate. Bush has doen a good job of keeping the focus on our enemies, who try to hide from us and disguise themselves. If in 8 years Bush can deal successfully with Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and either Iran or North Korea, and "allies" in France and Germany, I suspect history will be kind to him. But one bad afternoon, and I'll change my mind.
Where is our Sherman? The American people are not ready to accept one. After the next domestic mass civilian atrocity, things may change. I strongly recommend The Soul of Battle for an excellent discussion of liberating military leaders in history, including Sherman, by VD Hanson. If Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rice, and Rumsfeld can manage this conflict properly, perhaps we will not need a Sherman. If we do, woe is the Midle East and Islamofiscism.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Perhaps we have a Sherman now somewhere near Fallujah or Ramalla but GW "Don't take the gloves off" Bush is less of a Lincoln than you suppose?
#19
Hell,is this woman on the level with her article? I've been to England and Ireland several times in the last ten years without encountering this sort of s**t. Bulldog, Howard UK does this sound right to you?
MOSCOW, Oct 12th, 2004 (AFP) - George W. Bush once said he looked into Vladimir Putin's eyes and saw the former spy's soul -- a gaze of lasting impression that many here believe has left the Kremlin gloomily apprehensive about prospects of a Democrat making the White House his home.
"I've got a good relation with Vladimir, and it's important that we do have a good relation because that enables me to better comment to him and to better -- to discuss with him some of the decisions he makes," Bush said during his first debate with John Kerry in September.
His Democratic rival was more blunt: "Mr. Putin now controls all the television stations. His political opposition is being put in jail," said Kerry before adding: "Freedom on the march? Not in Russia right now."
With foreign policy -- albeit mostly concerning Iraq -- a trigger issue in a US presidential election for the first time in decades, Russia is treading water lightly as November 2 nears.
"We are glad to see that all of the candidates agree on the need to develop dialogue between Russia and the United States," a Kremlin official told AFP. "We respect the choice of the American nation."
But conventional wisdom in Moscow is of strong opinion that Bush -- the man who Russia feared in 2000 because of his missile defense and NATO expansion plans -- is the far more pliable option here than a Democrat concerned with how Russia itself is actually run.
Russia's last experience with a Democratic White House in the 1990s saw economic advice -- delivered by US economists shipped to Moscow -- that at one stage fed hyperinflation and later introduced the sell-off of prized state property to insiders for a song.
And Kerry's saber rattling about Putin's recent authoritarian streak -- including his proposals for the president to pick and sack both regional governors and judges -- has seen Russian lawmakers rise to the Kremlin's defense.
"Kerry has long surrounded himself with people who never had a very balanced view about Russia," said nationalist Russian lawmaker Dmitry Rogozin.
The Democrat's criticism has also been largely ignored by Russia's state-controlled media.
"I think that Putin really supports Bush and he would expect few unpleasant surprises from the Republicans," agreed Dmitry Simes of the Nixon Center in Washington.
"Meanwhile Kerry's staff includes many people from the Clinton administration involved in Russia's early democratic reforms -- and who often resorted to direct pressure," Simes wrote in Vremya Novostei daily.
Simes said some of those advisers were closely linked to Russia's so-called oligarchs who made fortunes in the Yeltsin era but who fell into disrepute under Putin's regime.
The Putin years meanwhile went hand in hand with those of Bush -- and of a Russian economic boom that for the large part relied on rising global oil prices rather than on Moscow's own economic strategy.
Putin also became Bush's ally in the war on terror -- using the September 11, 2001 attacks to justify his own war in predominantly Muslim Chechnya that had been roundly condemned at its start in 1999.
Republicans say that Bush has learned over the years to "engage" former KGB spy Putin rather than criticize him as Democrats would likely be tempted to do.
Some Republican advisers said Bush would rather trade a clampdown on media freedoms here in exchange for Putin's passive acceptance of the war in Iraq and potential US investments in Russia's lucrative energy market.
"Bush and Putin have been working together on different issues for four years," said Thomas Harvey, who has worked in various Republican administrations, including that of the elder George Bush.
"The two men and their two teams know each other and that is important," said Harvey.
Democrats meanwhile agree that Bush would probably have been as strong in his criticism of recent Putin policies as some of his European counterparts had he not relied on Putin in strategic spheres like oil and his anti-terror campaign.
"I doubt that Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry will be terribly different in regards to Russia," said Donald Fowler, former co-chairman of the Democratic National Committee.
"My guess is that if Mr. Bush was not dealing with Iraq he would be dealing with some of the issues here" in Russia, he said.
But Fowler added: "I feel that Mr. Kerry would be an activist just like president Clinton was."
Meanwhile the latest polls show that Russia's warm embrace of all things Western that came in the first chaotic post-Soviet years has turned far more tepid.
A recent Romir poll said that 60 percent of Russians feel that Americans have a negative effect on their country and less than one third of respondents have a positive view of the United States.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 5:27:33 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Democrats meanwhile agree that Bush would probably have been as strong in his criticism of recent Putin policies as some of his European counterparts had he not relied on Putin in strategic spheres like oil and his anti-terror campaign.
In other words, "If US security and economic health didn't depend on Russia, Bush would have been less diplomatic."
Which candidate is supposed to be the bumbling fool, and which is supposed to be the sophisticated internationalist? It's getting hard to tell.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/12/2004 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Meanwhile the latest polls show that Russiaâs warm embrace of all things Western that came in the first chaotic post-Soviet years has turned far more tepid. A recent Romir poll said that 60 percent of Russians feel that Americans have a negative effect on their country and less than one third of respondents have a positive view of the United States.
Simply laughable. Russian antipathy has nothing to do with Bush. For Russians, Clinton was almost certainly the most hated president of recent history. Why don't the clownish authors of this article compare today's survey results with Russian sentiments in April 1999, when the Clinton admin bombed the bejeezus out of their brataslavyanskiye in the balkans? At that time, english-speaking foreigners were attacked on the streets of Moscow, shots were fired at the US Embassy, and Russia's elite university students at MGU marched under banners with slogans such as "Monica! Sharpen your teeth!"
Russians' basic distaste for not just America but also western Europe stems from two facts evident long before 9/11:
--the degrading experience of being viewed by western consular officials and all and sundry as a mafioso or a 'ho every time they even so much as wish to travel to the west, and
-- the now-obvious western complicity in their nation's slide into Third World status (as Havel put it, "better a sick Russia than a healthy Soviet Union)."
hahaaaa.. I really believe that Americans and Russians can get along. Ok..so screw Lennin and Marx. They forced themselves on the poor Russian people anyways. Ok..ok...so they are a bit more cruel than we are...but what do you expect with all of those murading raiders constantly passing through. Pukin is supporting Bush, which highlights the obvious. We have common goals - despite our differences. Just like, together, we sent Hitler to his grave, we can send bin Laden and his ilk to theirs...not that some of them are not already there.
In a wierd sort of way, I think it will be Russia and Germany (as well as the Britian, Australia, Poland...and others excluding the genetically inferior French) who, with the US, will send the Islamic fanatics packing...
The islamics are cave men in the 21st Century and as such don't stand a chance. While they can hurt us in much the same way that a car can run us over, they are just dying beasts flailing with dangerous claws before they become extinct.
Last week, Tanik Kuizev buried a niece who was among hundreds who died after a North Ossetian school was seized by raiders that included members of the rival Ingush ethnic group. After Wednesday, he vows, he will bury an Ingush to be killed in retribution, Associated Press reports.
Fears are high that Ossetians will seek bloody revenge for the more than 330 people —- more than half of them children —- who died in the maelstrom of gunfire and explosions at the school on Sept. 3. Russians traditionally observe 40 days of mourning after a death. Wednesday is the 40th day, and Ossetians say the end of the mourning period could herald an outbreak of inter-ethnic violence in days to come.
"There will be violence. It won't be noisy. It will be quiet —- one person at a time,'' Kuizev said as he wandered through the burned-out husk of the school, stepping over flowers and stuffed animals left in memory of the victims.
#4
hell kill more than 1 for every victim then maybe they wil think about it the next time the next generation of thugs starts planning this type of thing
I'm sure Putin is just grateful as all hell for that assistance...
President Vladimir Putin should grant Chechnya special status within Russia to end a decade-long insurgency, although some Western countries would like to see Moscow trapped in the "Chechen quagmire" for years, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev said on Monday.
Gorby knows a thing or two about quagmire, too.
Gorbachev also said there was an important lesson from the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq: Don't act unilaterally. "The crisis in Iraq has been a lesson, and I believe that lesson has been learned by both the United States and all of us," the 73-year-old said at a breakfast attended by journalists. "That lesson is that unilateral action is really not the way to go, is really not the way forward."
Looking at Russia's most immediate crisis, Gorbachev said the solution in separatist Chechnya must be political. Russia has twice invaded largely Muslim Chechnya on Russia's southern rim, fighting a 1994-96 war to end a self-declared independence and a second war starting in 1999 after apartment bombings that Russia blamed on Chechen terrorists. The second war is still raging, and Putin classifies it as part of the global war on terror. But at the same time, Putin is trying to make Chechnya self-governing with a native leadership.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/12/2004 10:32:27 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#8
Lived in Russia, have Russian family there, and can report that Gorbachev is universally despised in Russia as a moronic hick politico whose incompetence brought down the roof on the SU.
Part of the reason I have such (perhaps unrealistic) hope for Russians is their complete contempt for this icon of the western Left.
#9
I'd like to know how e.g. Polish and other Eastern Europeans feel about Gorbachev -- namely the captive nations freed by Gorbachev. Rather than people who blame him for the dissolution of the Soviet Union, something which Yeltsin imposed, and Gorbachev strove against.
Gorbachev (whether competently or incompetently) was simply trying to let freedom through the window, for the Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe both. Which makes him a person who decisively won the Cold War on the side of freedom -- freeing half the European continent from the stranglehold that his predecessors in his own nation had imposed.
Perhaps the "Western Left" has a more unbiased view of Gorbachev than the Russian people themselves, Westerners being after all people who *didn't* lose a big chunk of their empire.
#10
Aris, perhaps I'm wrong, but I always thought Gorbachev was trying to loosen the economic straightjacket of socialism, without letting go of the reins of power. However, unlike Red China, he chose to relax politically first, and lost control of the situation. I don't remember freeing the people being one of his objectives at the time.
However, I do respect the fact that when the satellite countries insisted on going their own way, G. did not send in the troops. I remember being in Wenceslaus Square in Prague one cold evening. It was very crowded, and then suddenly everyone started singing. It was lovely. Only later did I learn that the Czechs expected the tanks to come through that night (my husband often enough doesn't tell me things he thinks might upset me -- like the time he didn't quite die in India. But that's another story).
I would not describe Gorbachev as having won the Cold War, snce he did not achieve his objective of an economically vibrant, Communist Party ruled Soviet Union. But absolutely he did concede the loss gracefully, thus allowing the whole world to win. At the time we were concerned that the Soviet generals would choose to stage a Pyrrhic defeat. Then all would have indeed lost.
#11
Wow Aris. Right out of the left's own talking points about who won the Cold War. I remember reading about how several historians were changing how the Cold War really ended by saying it was Gorbachev's plan all along to end the Soviet Union and Reagan had nothing to do with it, he was just a bully by starting up SDI, massively building up our own armed forces and forcing Russia into an economic competition. Yep righto Aris try another trick this talking point is so lame it doesn't even pass the BS meter.
#12
Valentine and trailing wife, rephrase "who decisively won the Cold War on the side of freedom" to "who decisively caused the Cold War to be won on the side of freedom", if that's better for you.
And Valentine, please reread my point about Gorbachev wanting to preserve the Soviet Union (in a more free form however). Ofcourse it had been bound together by brutality for so long that any substitute-glue would have been insufficient.
I'm too young to remember on my own clearly the sequence of events in an age where playing with a Spectrum and then an Amstrad interested me more than politics, but from what I've been reading now, from his first year at the head of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev introduced freedoms of speech and press with "glasnost".
And the collapse of communism in the whole of eastern Europe was the result of the "Sinatra doctrine" in which Gorbachev said that the Soviet Union was abandoning the Brezhnev doctrine and would let each nation decide its own affairs.
That for me speaks of a WILLING ABANDONMENT OF EMPIRE on Gorbachev's part and therefore something praiseworthy. He wasn't destroying the Soviet Union but he was demolishing the Eastern bloc. Now, was this willing abandonment of empire the result of *necessity*, perhaps because Reagan put him in a position where he could do nothing else? Would Gorbachev have done it were it not for Reagan's pressure on the Soviet Union? Would he have been *able* to do it? I don't know. I'm no economist and don't know how dire the Soviet Union's economic situation was.
And frankly since I wasn't discussing Reagan that's mostly irrelevant. You seem to think, Valentine, that praising Gorbachev means dissing Reagan. It isn't.
The Soviet Union still had troops and Gorbachev said they wouldn't use them. What does that make him to you, Valentine?
China illegally supplied Saddam Hussein's regime with missile technology and other weaponry and was a major beneficiary of the U.N. oil-for-food program, according to a CIA report. The report by the Iraq Survey Group also stated that China, along with France and Russia, was bribed by Saddam with oil sales and weapons deals into working to end U.N. sanctions. One sale took place in 2001 and involved an intelligence officer in Beijing, Abd al-Wahab, who bought 10 to 20 gyroscopes and 20 accelerometers from a Chinese firm that was not identified by name. The equipment was to be used in Iraq's Al-Samud missile program, said a former high-ranking official of Iraq's Military Industrialization Commission, which was in charge of arms procurement.
China was the third-largest recipient of oil vouchers from Saddam's regime, the report said. Russia and France were the two largest. The Iraqi government used the voucher system to siphon off $11 billion through contracting kickbacks and other corruption in the $64 billion humanitarian program, which operated from 1996 to 2003. The program was designed to get food and medicine to the Iraqi people, despite international sanctions. China also supplied rocket guidance software to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission in 2002 that was labeled "children's software" to mask its military nature, the report said.
The report sought to clear the Chinese government of a direct role in the illicit trade by stating the CIA had "no evidence" suggesting Beijing approved the exports. However, the report noted that the companies involved were "state-owned" firms that were newly privatized and were willing to circumvent U.N. monitoring in supplying goods illegally. Chinese Embassy spokesman Sun Weide said China's actions under the oil-for-food program were "totally legal." He also said Beijing complied strictly with U.N. resolutions regarding arms technology transfers to Saddam.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 3:29:01 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A government official said Tuesday that the "Martyr Hammoud Al-Masri Battalion," which claimed to be part of al-Qaeda's network in Southeast Asia, warned if Korea didn't pull its troops out from Iraq in 14 days, it would attack Korean troops in Iraq and facilities in Korea. The warning was posted on the Arabic-language site "Montada" on Sunday. In a post entitled, "Warning to the Korean Government," the group said it would "make Korea suffer" if Korean troops were not pulled out of Iraq in 14 days. It said if the warning weren't heeded, it would attack Korean troops in Iraq "one by one" as well as facilities within Korea. The warning also claimed the group's forces weren't far from targets in Korea and it had a base in Seoul.
A government official explained that the group said it had posted the message on Sept. 30, but in fact, it had been confirmed the message was posted on Oct. 10. Accordingly, the official said it wasn't clear on which standard the government should base the deadline; authorities were still trying to determine the reliability of the threat. He said neither the group in question -- the Martyr Hammoud Al-Masri battalion -- nor the website were well known, and the government was in the process of collecting information on the group, website and the veracity of the terrorism warning. The government, paying attention to claims that the group had a "base in Seoul," has heightened security at major national facilities and highly populated districts and strengthened security checks on those entering and leaving the country. The Ministry of Defense has informed the Zayitun Unit in Iraq of the threat as well and asked it to strengthen security.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
10/12/2004 9:35:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What to do? No Muslims, no terror. That was easy.
Arsonists started a small fire at a Sydney mosque early yesterday, but none of the worshippers in the building was injured, police said. The attackers set fire to wooden planks at the back of the Rooty Hill Mosque in western Sydney, damaging a door and carpet, police said in a statement. There were no immediate arrests. There were worshippers in the mosque at the time of the fire, but nobody was hurt. Police said an investigation was under way.
Muslims in Sydney have said there has been an increase in anti-Muslim attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks in the United States. Stepan Kerkyasharian, chairman of the Community Relations Commission for a Multicultural New South Wales condemned the attack. "Attacks on places of worship are always contemptible because they strike at people's deepest beliefs and can leave them feeling rejected and despised," he said in a statement.
A 10-year-old Asian pupil threatened to behead a seven year-old schoolboy with a Stanley knife after watching gruesome TV images from Iraq.
Asian, was he? Those Chinese — they lose control so damned easily!
I dont know about the UK but the gruesome images dont get broadcast in the US. I think his proud parents deliberately showed him the video from the internet. A boy has to have hero's you know.....
Paul Williams told how the young thug threatened his grandson Nathan outside the gates of Highgate Primary School in Woodside, Dudley where both were pupils. The 10 year-old was subsequently arrested by police and it is understood that he has now been expelled. Sounds like he was also released. Wonder if they allowed him to keep his knife.....
His victim was uninjured but is now receiving counselling after suffering sleepless nights over the chilling incident. Grandad Mr Williams said: "The 10 year-old was pretending to be an Iraqi assassin who was going to cut Nathan's head off like the American hostages.
Now, now! "Assassin" is so harsh. "Role model" would be much nicer...
"Nathan has been in bits since. He's really shaken up and hasn't been able to sleep properly. He has been having counselling because it upset him so much."
First contact with barbarism, was it?
News of the school attack came just two days after it was announced that British hostage Ken Bigley had been executed in Iraq. Mr Williams, from Dudley, claimed the young knife attacker had previously targeted Nathan's 10 year-old brother Martin. "It had always previously been Martin who was subjected to bullying by this boy and two of his friends," he said. "We have been told that the parents of the 10 year-old lad actually condone him carrying the knife and say that it is for his own protection."
And for the protection of Islam, no doubt...
Its parents are probably so proud of him too...
"Three of them approached him, including the ringleader who had a Stanley knife. Nathan said he ran the knife down his arm and then down his front, telling him that he would use it. Typical bully - even with a knife it is afraid without a couple of thugs to back him up.
A Dudley Council education spokesman said: "We are always very concerned when we hear of violent incidents involving pupils. No school condones violence. Except for bullying apparently.
"This is now a police matter and we will work with them during their investigation." A West Midlands Police spokesman said: "The incident was reported to us at 3.40pm on Friday, September 24. We were told that a 10 year-old boy had threatened another boy aged seven. Officers attended and arrested the 10 year-old." Investigations are continuing into the incident.
No source on this, though it reads like The Sun...
#1
âThree of them approached him, including the ringleader who had a Stanley knife. Nathan said he ran the knife down his arm and then down his front, telling him that he would use it.
That would be what's known in the US as a "box-cutter". This little twerp's a regular wanna-be jihadi.
Boil him in oil before he kills someone.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/12/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
No school condones violence.
Unless the kid is bookish, non-athletic, or just plain weird, of course. Traditions must be upheld, you know.
President Ion Iliescu said Tuesday the war against Iraq was "moral and legitimate" after meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who is in the country to attend a meeting of NATO defense ministers. "Being a country that for half a century was under a totalitarian regime (we consider) the intervention in Iraq was moral and legitimate," Iliescu told reporters. The Romanian president also said his government condemned "the barbaric practice of taking hostages. It is a dangerous development that cannot be justified."
Romania has more than 700 troops serving in Iraq and has not suffered any casualties among the troops. Rumsfeld, who said he last visited Romania in 1971, praised the changes, saying Romania had a "vibrant democratic society and robust economy," noting that Romania had joined NATO earlier this year. Romania threw off communism in 1989. Rumsfeld said the U.S. valued the "stalwart support" offered by Romania in fighting terrorism.
Rumsfeld arrived on Monday in the Black Sea port of Constanta, where he visited a base used by as many as 3,500 U.S. troops, who were stationed here in February and March 2003 to prepare for the start of the war in Iraq. U.S. Army paratroopers based in Italy used Constanta as a staging base for their airlift into northern Iraq in the opening days of the war. It also was used as an air transport hub by the U.S. Air Force during the Afghanistan war. No U.S. troops are based here now. Rumsfeld will attend a meeting of NATO defense ministers on Wednesday and Thursday where the role of the alliance in Iraq and Afghanistan will be discussed.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 2:53:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Being a country that for half a century was under a totalitarian regime
Romania would sure as hell know about that.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/12/2004 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
The Spanish government has sparked a fierce row by inviting a soldier who fought with Hitler's Wehrmacht to share the podium at the national day military parade today with a republican veteran of the Spanish Civil War. The defence minister, Jose Bono, who was once caught on microphone calling Tony Blair a "complete dickhead", said the presence of the former member of the Spanish Blue Division, recruited to fight for the Nazis in the Second World War, was part of the reconciliation process between the two opposing sides in the 1936-39 civil war. The two men will stand with King Juan Carlos on the podium during the parade.
Left-wing parties denounced the decision as "offensive". Dolors Camats, of the Catalan Green Party, said reconciliation was already a fact, and the inclusion of someone who fought for Hitler would "cause offence and an historic injustice... The government should not put on the same platform soldiers who fought against democracy and those who defended it." The Socialist government's radical Left-wing nationalist ally in the Catalan regional assembly, the Catalan Republican Left, was also critical and said the regional premier, Pasqual Maragall, would not attend. Mr Bono said the presence of the two veterans was to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the Allies' liberation of Paris, in which Spanish republicans who fled to France after the civil war took part. French soldiers have been invited to join the parade, though the defence minister created a diplomatic spat when American soldiers were left out. They had been included in the parade since the September 11 attacks.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 11:56:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Spain's government sellouts are really demonstrating their true colours.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I wonder how the US military position is with Spain nowadays. Wasn't the Navy going to move from Naples to some place in Spain? With all the skidaddling from Iraq, how can we look at Spain nowadays as a NATO ally? Though I am reasonably certain that we still work closely with Spanish intelligence. I am sure that they are frustrated as hell with their government and political leaders.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/12/2004 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Spain has squandered all the political capital heaped up by Aznar, one of that country's few serious, modern, adult politicians.
Goodbye, rising power that can project global influence and credibility. Hello (again), southern European banana republic.
Next month's international conference on Iraq in Egypt should be open to all who are prepared to give up violence, the French foreign ministry said Monday. "(The conference) should be extended to include all Iraqi players who reject violence or who would make the decision to give it up," spokesman Herve Ladsous said. Two weeks ago Foreign Minister Michel Barnier caused some concern in Washington and within the Iraqi interim government when he said the conference should include members of the insurgency and discuss the departure of American troops. The summit, to be hosted by Egypt on November 25, will be attended by Iraq and its neighbours, the G8 group of industrialised nations, the United Nations, the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.
France gets style points as usual for sneakiness and doublespeak. I assume this means that the US would only be welcome if we renounce "violence" as well.
#2
Because Bush is being multi-lateral. But note that the conference begins November 25.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/12/2004 2:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm not surprised they were invited (member of G8, UN, Arab League), but does that mean they are running it? They seem to think so. We are French, of course we are in charge!
Just ignore them as usual. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
10/12/2004 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
yellow cake - from Niger
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/12/2004 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It is just a gab fest, so who gives the rear end of a rodent? Only thing is who is fotting the bill? That is where Rantburgers and the American public come in if we are paying for this little conference.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/12/2004 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Sorry, can't make it. We need to do real work.
Posted by: Capt America ||
10/12/2004 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
EFL.
Prince, formerly known as "the Artist Formerly Known as 'Prince,'"
now a Jehovah's witness, has toned down his mojo, but the Purple One can still pack a political punch. His new music video, "Cinnamon Girl," is a big-budget production that follows the hardships and confusions of a teenage Arab-American girl in a post 9-11 America.
Y'see, teenage Arab-American girls have it hardest. Teenage Khmer-American chicks have it easy. Teenage Hmong-American girls have it easy. And teenage Mexican-American girls. Indian-American babes? Pfeh! Piece o' cake! And we won't even mention teenage Irish-American, or African-American, or Italian-American girlies, or the garden variety Heinz 57 girls...
It stars hot babeKeisha Castle-Hughes ("Whale Rider") who concludes the video by imagining herself detonating a bomb in a crowded airport terminal. . . .
It'll happen eventually. We don't need to be reminded of the fact. No doubt the video wouldn't have "packed a political punch" if it had shown the girlie throwing off her headscarf and spurning marriage to her cousin Mahmoud to run off with a Knickerbocker Episcopalian named Brad to live in Nantucket. That artist formerly known as the Artist Formerly Known as Prince sure is a deeeeep thinker...
Prince sings, "Cinnamon girl mixed heritage/ Never knew the meaning of color lines/ 9-11 turned that all around/ When she got accused of this crime." Disillusioned and angered, Castle-Hughes' character detonates a bomb in an airport terminal, exploding herself and others. However, a reverse motion immediately following the explosion reveals that it is only a thought of hers. Oh. That makes it OK, I guess.
Discuss:
1. Does a music video depicting suicide bombing make you more or less likely to buy the record?
2. Does the individual formerly known as "the Artist Formerly Known as 'Prince,'" truly think it will sell his records, or is he just making a "daring statement" to get in good with the cool kids and/or get in the newspapers?
3. Who at the record company is going to get fired for green-lighting something this sand-poundingly facile?
Posted by: Mike ||
10/12/2004 12:09:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think the less time I spend inside Prince's head the happier I'm going to be.
Posted by: Matt ||
10/12/2004 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Who at the record company is going to get fired for green-lighting something this sand-poundingly facile?
Except that Prince has his own record company now ... npgmusicclub.com
(Btw ... saw Prince in his most recent home-town concert series in the Twin Cities this past summer. He is extremely entertaining in concert. However, the new CD -- Musicology -- doesn't have much good to it. "Cinnamon Girl" is one of the more coherent/enjoyable *melodies* ... too bad the lyrics went astray.)
By Bill Sammon THE WASHINGTON TIMES
President Bush yesterday seized on Sen. John Kerry's remark that terrorism should be reduced to a "nuisance" like prostitution that doesn't define Americans' lives, saying it showed his ignorance of America's most urgent national-security imperative. "Senator Kerry talked of reducing terrorism to quote nuisance end quote; and compared it to prostitution and illegal gambling," Mr. Bush said. "I couldn't disagree more.
"Arrest them and bring them to justice!" It sounds good, but who's issuing any arrest warrants? Whose cops are rounding them up? I simply haven't seen any yet, except within individual countries. There ain't no UN Command for Law and Enforcement.
"Our goal is not to reduce terror to some acceptable level of nuisance," he added. "Our goal is to defeat terror by staying on the offensive, destroying terrorists and spreading freedom and liberty around the world."
It warms my heart that G.W. has started saying "liberty" and "freedom," rather than "democracy." Democracy's a reflection of liberty, but not necessarily vice versa...
The Kerry campaign defended the "nuisance" quote, which was published in Sunday's New York Times Magazine, and said the administration was taking it out of context. "John Kerry is going to hunt and kill the terrorists before they can come after us, and no amount of selective editing by the Bush campaign can change that basic fact," said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer. "Once again, the Bush campaign is insulting the basic intelligence of the public by resorting to tired and desperate tactics to cling to power," he said.
Bush's comments don't insult my intelligence. His comments illustrate the basic difference between the two positions. JFK's going to "hunt and kill the terrorists"? How's he going to do it? Keep in mind that he said he'd have done everything differently from Bush.
The full, unedited quote, which the New York Times interviewer called "remarkable," revealed an approach to terrorism that contrasts sharply with the president's belief that it will remain a global war for the foreseeable future. "We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance," Mr. Kerry said.
Alas, poor Klinghoffer! Done in by a nuisance! And didn't hunting down and killing Abu Abbas work well?
"As a former law-enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise.
Except that we're not talking about organized crime here. We're talking about SPECTRE, and the Council of Boskone, and the Learned Elders of Islam, and the insidious Dr. Fu Manchu...
It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life," he concluded.
Terror networks seem to be a binary condition: they're either a threat to the fabric of your life (because of the threat to life itself) or they're non-existent. There's no middle ground. That's why they don't call it "nuisancism." Loud drunks on the sidewalk in front of your window at 2 a.m. are a nuisance. Having the airplane you're taking to Disney World explode is terrorism.
The president, stumping in New Mexico before traveling to Denver, called the remark "new evidence that Senator Kerry fundamentally misunderstands the war on terror."
He misses the point entirely, as far as I can see...
He added: "Earlier, he questioned whether it was really a war at all, describing it as primarily a law-enforcement and intelligence-gathering operation, instead of a threat that demands the full use of American power."
Law enforcement is a tool to be used domestically, and for other nations to use domestically. Intelligence is essential, otherwise we're working blind, and it reveals the international nature of the problem. Diplomacy is another tool strange, that Mr. Kerry, with his fixation on diplomacy, didn't mention it. But that might be because the logical extension of diplomacy is military action, which represents the least-preferred tool to the Publicans, the forbidden tool to the Dems.
Vice President Dick Cheney also hammered Mr. Kerry for the "nuisance" remark and said it was part of a pattern of the Massachusetts senator's minimizing the war on terror. "This is naive and dangerous, as was Senator Kerry's reluctance earlier this year to call the war on terror an actual war," he said at a rally in Medford, N.J. "He preferred to think of it, he said, as primarily an intelligence and law-enforcement operation."
No doubt he was just being nuanced, even though the statement is stoopid on its face, unless one slept through 9-11 and is still most interested in who killed Chandra Levy...
Even before the president and vice president went after the "nuisance" remark, their campaign raced to air a TV spot highlighting the quote. "First, Kerry said defeating terrorism was really more about law enforcement and intelligence than a strong military operation," says the ad's narrator. "More about law enforcement than a strong military? Now Kerry says we have to get back to the place where terrorists are a nuisance like gambling and prostitution. We're never going to end them. Terrorism a nuisance? How can Kerry protect us when he doesn't understand the threat?"
If he's elected president, he can fumble around and pass gas in summit after summit until the terrs manage to fly a plane into the White House while he's there and then we can start the whole process all over again, with new leadership.
Mr. Singer said the ad is "a dishonest and disingenuous way to campaign for president and another pathetic way to play the politics of fear." He also alluded to an interview that Mr. Bush gave to NBC's "Today" show on Aug. 30, in which he said "we can't win" the war on terror in the next four years.
True statement. It'll probably take ten years with the kind of leadership Bush has provided, 40 or 50 assuming we don't lose with Kerry's...
"Considering that George Bush doesn't think we can win the war on terror, let Osama bin Laden escape and rushed into Iraq with no plan to win the peace, it's no surprise that his campaign is distorting every word John Kerry has ever said," Mr. Singer said. The Kerry response ad, titled "Can't Win," accused Mr. Bush of not doing enough to inspect cargo ships that enter the United States, giving $7 billion in "no-bid" contracts to Halliburton for Iraq reconstruction. "And on the war on terror, Mr. Bush said, 'I don't think you can win it,' " the Democrat's ad says. "Not with his failed leadership. It's time for a new direction."
More like, it's time to take the gloves off. But if they come off, that means casualties, and the Dems'll leap on the casualties to make their cheap political points...
Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said the new Kerry ad takes Mr. Bush's words out of context. After he made his remarks, the president told radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh that he meant to say that terrorists will never formally surrender to America, as Japan did at the close of World War II. "They throw out these baseless charges whenever the senator's words are highlighted," said Mr. Stanzel, who accused Mr. Kerry of having a "September 10th mind-set." "They seem to have the most negative reaction when we simply repeat things John Kerry has said."
He utters gross stupidities often enough to make that a common occurence...
Mr. Cheney also accused the Democrat of not having learned from the September 11 attacks. "This is all part of a pre-9/11 mind-set, and it is a view we cannot go back to," he said in New Jersey. "This is a global conflict. If we fail to aggressively prosecute the war on terror, destroying terrorists where we find them and confronting governments that sponsor terror, the danger will only increase." so true
The campaign will enter the final stage after tomorrow night's final presidential debate in Tempe, Ariz. Both campaigns expect the race to be close, just like in 2000, but the small lead that Mr. Bush enjoyed after his early September convention seems to be holding. An ABC News-Washington Post poll conducted Friday through Sunday put Mr. Bush at 51 percent and Mr. Kerry at 46 percent among likely voters nationwide. A Rasmussen daily tracking poll gave Mr. Bush 49 percent and Mr. Kerry 45 percent. Two other polls, however, give the Democratic challenger a slight lead. A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of likely voters gave Mr. Kerry the support of 49 percent to Mr. Bush's 48 percent. And a Zogby International/Reuters poll gave Mr. Kerry a 47 percent to 44 percent lead, just outside the margin of error of 2.9 percent.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 2:30:45 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I thought it was Bush who said that this war on terror can not be won. Approx. a month ago.. He did flip-flop the next day, yet, i think he was genuine in his evaluation of the problem : Terrorism will never be totally rooted out, and if it would become a 'nuisance', I think it would already be a great succes.
#2
(lyot) Why don't you locate some scared-for-life victims of 9-11, caused by Islamic terrorists, and try feeding them the Kerry 'nuisance' rubbish as you stare at their various skin graphs.
While your at it you may also want to seek out the multi-thousands of international terrorist related injury victims caused by the followers of the 'nuisance'.
Here is a short list to assist you in finding the world's victims of the 'nuisance': Indonesia, The Philippines, Spain, Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Russia, Nigeria, Yugoslavia, India, The Sudan, Thailand, along with the scores of other nations in which the barbaric Islamic 'Terrorist Inc' enemy has chosen to slaughter the innocent, to further their monstrous goal of total world-wide domination through targeted extermination of millions of 'infidels.
Remember now, be sure to cast your vote for the same 'nuisance' candidate the jihad boys & the French are cheering for!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 4:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
M.E, you must have understood me wrong.. I don't think it's possible to speak of contemporary terrorism as a 'nuisance'. Yet, through policy it should become no more then a 'nuisance'.. Eradicting terrorism 100% is not possible imho, yet managing it so that it becomes no more then a nuisance should. That I think is what George Bush meant a couple of weeks ago, and I truly think that's also Kerry's conviction.
If Bush had stated, lets say some 8-10 months ago 'we have the hardcore tangible proof that Saddam did indeed transfer his chemical & gem warfare weaponry (WMD) to Assad's Syria, then soon after portions were distributed in various mountainous regions of northern Lebanon, under joint Hizballah-Syrian control, with deep Iranian involvement.
Bush then declares to the American public; 'Based on the known threats (including nuclear) and recent published documentation, American and her allies have agreed are going to engage both terrorist promoting Syria and Lebanon, plus Iran, if or when they become aggressive against the allies!
Would you have supported these global anti-terrorist measures, even though it would mean broadening the the geographic area concerning the overall objective of hitting the heart of the 'terrorist empire' and defeating the greatest threat to international economic stability.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 6:15 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Mmark, if the threat is credible and there's good intelligence to back it up, sure I would not have anything against such anti-terrorist measures in Syria/Lebanon. The spread of WMD to these groups is unacceptable and must be crushed as much as possible. I'm not sure about attacking Iran, as crushing the Hizballah already equals waging war with Iran, be it by proxy.. One would guess they get the messsage by then. Only if every other option fails, Iran should be attacked. One hotbed (Irak) is enough for the moment..Iran needs a soft revolution and I hope it will happen.
#7
Lyot, I know what you are saying and you have a point re: that terrorism will never be eliminated.
Go read Belmont club for a great and fair analysis of Kerry's comments. Then when you're done - go read what Giuliani (instapundit or LGF) had to say about it.
#9
No terrorism will never be defeated - but we can defeat the nations that use terrorists as a tool of national policy.
The lone (or small group) loonies with no national support will always be around - but our country will not be hit like 9-11.
Posted by: Dan ||
10/12/2004 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#10
#5 Why should we not attack iran? A country which as has been attacking us for 25 years?
You stated that crushing the Hizballah already equals waging war with Iran, be it by proxy
Is this not what iran is doing against us? Iran has been waging war agaisnt us. The only difference is that no us president (dem or rep) has had the moral fortitude to fight back.
One hotbed (Irak) is enough for the moment..Iran needs a soft revolution
so since iraq is a hotbed (due to in large part to iran) we should back off? This is exactly what the mullaha's intended.
Posted by: Dan ||
10/12/2004 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#11
It seems to me our quarrel is not with Iran as such, but with the Mullahs and their tools. A couple of missiles aimed at Revolutionary Guard barracks and the home addresses of individual Mullahs before dawn, followed by destroying the Parliament building and dropping a few bunker busters on their nuclear development facilities might well do the trick.
I realize we don't know where all the secret facilities are, but even reducing their nuclear development capability will impact the urgency of dealing with the issue.
#12
Yes I agree are battle is with the Mullahs but taking the clinton approach and sending over some missiles will not do the job. It will just entrench the mullahas.
Our fight in WWII was agasint nazism/fascism but it took destroying/occupying the german people to finally defeat nazism.
Just as the the german people of the 30's supported hitler the people of iran supported these asshats (at least in the begginning).
This is a defining moment in history-
either we tackle this regime or we leave the region to them.
They are actively working towards this while we debate humanities.
Posted by: Dan ||
10/12/2004 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Lyot, did you say typos? You are aware of the anti-Typo regulations governing comments in here? Look at all of mine, the typo-king... lol
Although these days we do not hear the term 'oil embargo', something associated with the 1973-4 & 1979 Arab/Iranian oil embargos directed at America bring about the severe recession of the 1970's. Do people have such short memories of Khomeini holding 'America hostage'? His fanatical followers are still in the divers seat.
There are a number of options the President shall have in his 2nd term to deal with defeating those national 'terror' states. One of them, in relation to 'invading' Iran, would be to enforce a total Iranian oil blockade from exiting the Persian Gulf. A sustainable reduction in Iran's Opec oil revenue will further incite the Iranian public against the ruling mullahs. Hard economic times would begin domestically for Iran, greatly reducing the mullahs ability to continue supporting Syria, Hizballah & Hamas Iran is surrounded this second on almost all fronts. Somebody in the White House had a workable plan for the eventual downfall of the world #1 state purveyors of Shi'ite jihadism.
As 'trailing wife' as stated "A couple of missiles aimed at Revolutionary Guard barracks and the home addresses of individual Mullahs before dawn" has worked before in removing this form Jihad cancer.
Israel has the most to lose from a nuclear Iran, and in the past took swift action to knock out potential Middle Eastern nuclear threats like Saddam's back in 1981. I would not be a bit surprised if Israel takes the initiative very soon. Our troops & others in the Coalition are suffering now from Iran's exporting of Muslim terrorists.
We have the power to deny Iran the ability to earn millions for global terrorism and remove this Islamic terrorist nuclear threat by toppling the mullah dictatorship. The only question is, do we have the will as 2004 enters into 2005?
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Dan, you are of course right as far as the tactics required to defeat Germany. However, we have been reading here for some time about mass marches of students against the regime, and in the past few days about specific attacks on the businesses and property of the Mullahs. Given the youthful skew of the population, I was thinking that if we remove the ability of the ruling class to physically intimidate the populace, the kids may be able to handle the rest themselves.
The US Democrat presidential hopeful John Kerry has warned that if he wins the Nov. 2 election there will be no reprieve for sidelined Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. The United States, like Israel, has refused to deal with Arafat, and Kerry entered the debate late Saturday by warning that if he won next month's election there would be no reprieve for the veteran Palestinian leader. "We have been at this for a long time. Mr. Arafat has proven his unwillingness and incapacity to be able to act as a legitimate partner in the peace process," Kerry said in a Florida campaign rally. Kerry also said his job as president, if elected, would be to "hold those Arab countries accountable that still support terrorists — Hamas, Hezbollah, Al-Aqsa Brigades and others." The Democrat hopeful also praised Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon for his "courageous" plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip next year. (Sure you will John, just like on Iraq...)
Speaking two days after bombings at two Egyptian Red Sea resorts that killed at least 34 people, most of them Israelis, Kerry warned that the Jewish state was under attack. "People are trying to continue to create havoc... Israel remains under assault, kids blown up on buses, people sitting at restaurants, trying to live their lives," Kerry said. "I will not give one inch in our efforts to do that," he said.
President George W. Bush has riled US allies in Europe and the Middle East by refusing to deal with Arafat, saying he had links to terrorism and could not be trusted to make peace. On Friday, in the second presidential debate in St. Louis, Missouri, Bush repeated his stern line on the Palestinian leader. "I wouldn't deal with Arafat because I felt like he had let the former president down and I don't think he's the kind of person that can lead toward a Palestinian state," Bush said.
Another flip-flop for Kerry.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 1:17:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kerry hopes to fool some US Jews. He already has said US support for Israel is on the table.
#4
Kerry must be assuming the Muslim vote is in the bag. Certainly they dislike Bush's actions enough that they already declared against him. However, if Kerry keeps this up, they're going to sit out the election. And, with the Jewish vote split, he needs those Muslim votes. I wonder what he'll promise the Muslims to bring them back into the fold?
#5
"I wonder what he'll promise the Muslims to bring them back into the fold?"
Two hundred eighty million hostages.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/12/2004 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"I wonder what he'll promise the Muslims to bring them back into the fold?"
That he'll convert to Islam as soon as he becomes president. The promise will be delivered in Arabic through an interpreter.
#9
Don't mis-judge Kerry. You'll see the man don't waiver if you look for all the nuances in his carefully chosen words. See if he's properly nuanced, the enemy can't figgure out what his position really is an he will always have the element of surprise. He is not ever bound down to a position or belief and this gives him flexibility.
#10
Hank, you may be tongue in cheek, but you make it sound like Kerry being nuanced is part of a strategy for dealing with foreign policy. Isn't he nuanced because he does not want voters to know what he really believes, lest they not vote for him?
#11
Hank could be right, a nuanced lab/lib might be just the hombre to deal with the curvy knife guys, throw 'em off guard, steal their women, mess with their souls.
#12
It all boils down to the same thing. Kerry is nuanced cause he don't want voters to know what he is, "lest they not vote for him", and he don't want the curvy knifeds to know cause he's yeller. Just like I said about the feller from Spain, the new prime minister, he is yeller too. He and Kerry are both yeller fellers. (But don't tell no one, cause they don't want no one to know.)
Hat tip: James at Hell in a Handbasket. These are my own words:
Four years ago today the USS Cole (DDG 67) was attacked while refueling in Aden Harbor, Yemen, taking the lives of 17 sailors and wounding another 37 and leaving a 40' x 60' gash in the hull. As we honor the memory and sacrifice of our sailors, let us also not forget that this was just another pre-9/11 "nuisance" that John Kerry would like us to return to. Additionally, take a moment to read the biography of Sergeant Darrell S. Cole, USMC, the bugler--yes, bugler--posthumously awarded the MOH for his actions at Iwo Jima, and for whom the Cole is named.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/12/2004 11:03:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can you imagine what today's MSM would have reported about Iwo Jima? If they thought Abu Ghraib was big stuff, their knickers would have twisted right off reading the Marines' after action reports.
Posted by: Matt ||
10/12/2004 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
funny you should mention Iwo Jima ... ol' Zell Miller writing on that subject today: Zell Miller_Wash Times
#3
"25 days before the last Presidential election when Bush said: âI hope that we can gather enough intelligence to figure out who did the act [to kill 17 Americanâs on the USS Cole] and take the necessary action. There must be a consequence.â (Page 201..911 Report)." Yet, when we found out who was responsible for the USS Cole this President had a failure of leadership. One prior Clinton administration holdover urged âThe fact that the USS Cole was attacked during the last Administration does not absolve us of responding from the attack.â Report 212. But "Exchanges with the President, between the President and Tenet [CIA Director] and between herself {Condilezza Rice] and Powell and Rumsfield âhad produced a consensus that âtit-for-tatâ responses were likely to be counterproductive.â And so my friendsâ¦al Qaeda was permitted to attack our Country on 9-11. without interference from the Bush Administration
Security is tight in this tourist centre on the island of Bali as ceremonies begin to mark the second anniversary of bomb blasts that killed 202 people, mostly foreigners. More than 100 police, many carrying rifles, were deployed around the site of a memorial where nightclubs were blown to bits late on a busy Saturday night on October 12, 2002. The ambassador of Australia and relatives of 88 Australians who died in the attack, blamed on Islamic militants, were among those expected to attend the day's ceremonies. "We have to prepare for the worst," Bali police chief I Made Mangku Pastika told reporters. "Terrorism is a borderless crime, a crime against humanity, so we consider the enemy as the enemy for all people." Terrorists could do the same thing again if given the chance, Pastika added. "They think in Bali there are many foreigners. In their mind all white men are Americans."
But such threats should not keep tourists away, he said. "Not being terrorised is a way to fight terrorism." Pastika headed the investigation that brought the arrests of scores linked to the bombings, which authorities say were planned and carried out by Southeast Asia's al Qaeda-linked militant group, Jemaah Islamiah. The Bali attack was followed by a car bomb at the JW Marriott hotel in Jakarta the next August, which killed 12, and a blast outside the Australian embassy in that city last month which killed nine. Both were blamed on Jemaah Islamiah. Since Bali, there has been a sea change in Indonesian attitudes toward terrorism, U.S. ambassador Ralph Boyce said in Jakarta on Monday. He said "the country has now very much faced up to the challenges of this age we're all living in".
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 1:27:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"In their mind all white men are Americans."
Hey France/Spain/Germany: this is your reward for choosing dhimmitude!
#2
Yes, look what's happened, you cowardly fools! They don't CARE that you were nice to them. They've already FORGOTTEN that you were nice to them. Better hurry up. Get a deep suntan, get a Koran, grow a beard or put on the veil, study Arabic like crazy and CONVERT TO ISLAM!
But just make sure you convert to a major radical offshoot of Islam. That will reduce your chances of becoming a target!
A definite untruth. The jihadis understand the difference between Americans, Australians, Spanish, etc. That's why they kidnap certain folks in Iraq, trying to drive wedges between us and our allies, some of whom have more wobble in their legs than others.
Iran and Russia are close to finalising the agreement on return of spent nuclear fuel, paving the way for Iran's first atomic power plant to become operational, reports Xinhua. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi and his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov made an announcement to this effect at a joint news conference in this Iraqi capital Sunday. "The agreement on returning spent nuclear fuel is in the final stage. I think it will be signed soon," Lavrov said. The Bushehr nuclear reactor is being built with Russia's help in a Persian Gulf island in the southern province of Bushehr. Russia has, however, specified that the spent nuclear fuel be returned in order to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons with the spent fuel. Western countries such as Germany and Spain were formerly aiding in the construction of the plant.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 1:52:46 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sorry about that..the heading is:
'Iran, Russia deal on spent nuclear fuel in final stage:'
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 1:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Iran and Russia are close to finalising the agreement on return of spent nuclear fuel,..
Pinch a little here, pinch a little there, and soon there'll be enough to create a few explosive devices...
An Indian paint company says that marker pens with indelible ink supplied for Afghanistan's elections cannot be blamed for cases of election fraud. Some candidates maintain that many people cast their vote more than once after removing supposedly indelible ink marks from their fingers. But the company says that the problem arose because of confusion among election staff in some voting centres. ...
Mysore Paints and Varnish Limited, a public sector company based in the southern Indian state of Karnataka, told the BBC that the problem had arisen because of confusion among election staff in some voting centres. "They used marker pens meant for paper and not the pen with indelible ink on voters' fingers," said C Harakumar, the company's marketing manager. "How can we be held responsible for mistakes of the election staff?" he asked. ....
The United Nations Representative Sam Vidana Gamachi visited the company factory in Mysore before placing orders for 50,000 marker pens instead of ink bottles. While 50,000 pens were sent to Afghanistan, voters in booths set up in Pakistan used indelible ink from bottles for the presidential election. Company officials say 22,000 bottles of 80ml indelible ink were sent for use in booths set up in Pakistan for Afghan refugees. ....
Company officials say that UN officials insisted on the marker pens even though they were recommended to use ink from bottles. It was the first time that Mysore Paints manufactured indelible ink pens. For this week's election in the western Indian state of Maharashtra, officials decided to use ink bottles in preference to ink pens, a decision which under the circumstances seems to have been entirely justified.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/12/2004 11:22:05 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
From Pakistan Today, an article by B. Raman
As expected, President General Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan announced a major reshuffle of the senior officers of the Pakistan Army of the rank of Generals and Lt.Generals on October 2 and 3,2004. The reshuffle was necessitated by the impending retirement of Gen.Mohammad Aziz Khan, as the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and Gen.Muhammad Yusuf Khan as the Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, both on October 7,2004.
The details of the promotions and postings announced by Musharraf are given in the annexure available from the RHS bar.. With the retirement of Gen.Mohammad Aziz Khan, a Kashmiri belonging to the Sudan tribe, from the Army, the Pakistan Army does not have any identified fundamentalist officers in the rank of Lt.Gen./Gen. When Musharraf seized power on October 12, 1999, the Army had two identified "fundos" in the rank of Lt.Gen.-- Lt.Gen. Mohammad Aziz Khan, who was then the Chief of the General Staff (CGS), and Lt.Gen.Muzaffar Usmani, the then Corps Commander, Karachi.
Subsequently, Musharraf appointed Mohammad Aziz Khan as the Commander of one of the two Corps in Lahore and Lt.Gen.Usmani as the Deputy Chief of the Army Staff. It was the triumvirate of Lt.Gen. Usmani as Corps Commander, Karachi,, Lt.Gen.Mohammad Aziz Khan as the CGS and Lt.Gen.Mahmood Ahmed, as the then Corps Commander of Rawalpindi, which had staged the coup against Nawaz Sharif, the then Prime Minister, in the absence of Musharraf from the country and paved the way for his installation as the military dictator with the designation of Chief Executive. They refused to accept Nawaz's order dismissing Musharraf as the Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) and appointing Lt.Gen.Ziauddin, the then Director-General of the Inter-Services Intelligence ISI), in his place. They had both Nawaz and Ziauddin arrested.
After taking over, Musharraf appointed Lt.Gen.Mahmood Ahmed as the DG of the ISI. After the 9/11 terrorist strikes, the US reportedly exercised pressure on Musharraf to ease out all the three from the sensitive posts held by them before the US military operations against Al Qaeda and the Taliban started on October 7,2001. The US did not trust Usmani and Mohammad Aziz Khan because of their close proximity to the Islamic fundamentalist parties and it was annoyed with Mahmood Ahmed because of his failure to pressure Mulla Mohammad Omer, the Amir of the Taliban, to hand over Osama bin Laden to the US. Many more details about the reorganization, ending with this conclusion:
The new promotions and postings mark the climbing up the professional ladder of a new generation of officers, who distinguished themselves not in battles against India over Kashmir or in the covert jihad against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan ostensibly to protect Islam, but in the so-called war against Al Qaeda to protect American lives and promote US interests. The fact that they did well in this war might be a good performance in the eyes of the US political leadership and policy-makers, but not in the eyes of large sections of Pakistani public opinion.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/12/2004 10:57:39 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
impending retirement of Gen.Mohammad Aziz Khan, as the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, and Gen.Muhammad Yusuf Khan as the Vice-Chief of the Army Staff, both on October 7,2004
Ya see! YA SEE!!!! How can rantburg readers, unpaid and untrained, be expected to keep track of these guys????
To many freaking Mohammad Khans in this world. I say choose one and kill the rest. How else can we be expected to get a handle on this stuff...grumble grumble....
From Jihad Unspun, an article by Yamin Zakaria
.... Anyone with rudimentary knowledge of Islamic history would know that the borders of the Islamic state expanded from Medina to Spain, Syria, Southern Russia, China and India. This expansion is explained as the result of a series of 'defensive' wars, which is not only the apex of intellectual dishonesty but also demonstrates stupidity.
Even on the notion of defensive Jihad there is much duplicity. The moderates profess their support for the resistance but not their methods! However, they do not provide a practical alternative given the huge disparity of forces. .... Unashamedly, some [moderate Muslims] have even adopted the terms like 'terrorists' or 'extremists'. One can see undeclared alliance between the treacherous moderates and the state terrorists. In contrast, Claire Short, former cabinet member of the Blair government in the UK and a non-Muslim, categorised the Mujahideen as resistance fighters with a genuine cause.
Given the absence of the Islamic state (Khilafah) and most of the Islamic countries are under direct or indirect occupation, it is rather academic to discuss the notion of offensive Jihad. Hence, let us analyse the evidences pertaining to defensive Jihad. ....
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/12/2004 10:44:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
From IntelWire, from the first of a series of articles by J. M. Berger. The first article is titled "Secret Agents of Islam"
.... al Qaeda operatives routinely take on deep cover roles in order to infiltrate an enemy's society. This isn't simply a pragmatic decision to disregard the tenets of Islam in order to accomplish a goal. Rather, it's a specific, traditional practice, justified through an elaborate theological framework. The approach was first employed in the 11th century, by the Assassins, a notorious cult of Islamic extremists. Today, the practice is continued by a similar sect, known as Al Takfir Wal Hijra, which represents a key faction in the top leadership of al Qaeda.
There are numerous similarities between the Assassins and the Takfiri - including operational structure, strategy and theology. But the sects are separated by a centuries-long chasm of deep sectarian conflict. But, then and now, these men shared a common vocation - secret agents for an extreme vision of Islam. They were - and are - the ultimate infiltrators, unbound by moral restraint. These men are not subject to any meaningful cultural repercussions for their acts. Nor are they subject to an inner moral conflict. The are amoral machines by design, licensed to kill.
The modern Sunni Islamic sect known as Al Takfir Wal Hijira is a nearly perfect ideological vehicle for terrorism. The Arabic name translates roughly as "anathema and exile" or "excommunication and emigration." A theologically extreme extension of fundamentalist Islamic doctrines, Takfir is dedicated to restoring the Caliphate, the Islamic political empire that once spanned the Near and Middle East. Takfir differs from establishment fundamentalists (such as Saudi Arabian Wahabbism) in two major respects. First, Takfiri cultists practice an extreme form of assimilation. And second, they openly embrace of violent, evangelistic jihad.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/12/2004 10:09:42 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Here's a look at some of the attacks that were part of a surge in violence in Iraq during the holy month of Ramadan, which ran from Oct. 27 to Nov. 24 last year:
Oct. 26th, 2003: Just one day before the start of Ramadan, insurgent gunners bring down a Chinook transport helicopter west of Baghdad, killing 16 Americans in what was until then the bloodiest single strike against U.S. forces since the war began March 20.
Oct. 27th, 2003: Suicide bombers strike the Red Cross headquarters and three police stations across Baghdad, killing about 40 people and injuring more than 200 in a coordinated terror spree that stuns the Iraqi capital on the first day Ramadan.
Oct. 29th, 2003: A hand grenade blast in the southern city of Karbala wounds Sheik Abdul-Mahdi al-Karbalai, a representative of Shiite Muslim leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.
Oct. 30th, 2003: An explosion rocks a row of shops in Baghdad's Old City, killing two people.
Nov. 2nd, 2003: An Army Black Hawk helicopter crashes apparently shot down by insurgents killing all six U.S. soldiers aboard and capping what was until then the bloodiest seven days in Iraq for Americans since the fall of Baghdad.
Nov. 8th, 2003: Guerrillas attack a convoy with rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire, killing one soldier and wounding six others.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 6:38:57 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
In the late 1980s, when 37-year old Jabril Hough was a Methodist who attended church every Sunday, he began having religious doubts about Christianity's Holy Trinity and the worship of Jesus as the Son of God. "I searched for an authentic Christian Bible that had not been altered or tampered with, but couldn't find one," Hough recalled. Then after the Gulf War broke out in 1991, Hough became aware of Islam and began studying the religion. "Islam's monotheism began making sense to me," Hough said. "The religion says God is one and he has no partners, parents, sons or daughters." Today, Hough, one of approximately 4.5 to five million Muslims in the US, is chairman of the national board of the Islamic Political Party of America (IPPA), the country's first and only Islamic political party. With about 4,000 members and chapters in 12 states, the IPPA seeks to encourage Muslim Americans to become more involved politically.
"We need to organise politically because we are living in the most dangerous period in our history," said Ali Abdur-Rashid, the IPPA's national coordinator and one of the party's three co-founders. "Muslim Americans are scared. We know what happened to the Japanese during World War II, and we don't want that to happen to us." The party was founded in April 2001, five months prior to 9-11, but IPPA officials said that Muslim Americans were facing serious problems like religious profiling and hate crimes long before the event happened. "The U.S. government was putting Muslims in prison on the basis of a secret evidence law," Abdur-Rashid said. "Remember that famous case of al-Najjir? He was put in prison for several years and the government didn't even have to explain why." The US government arrested Mazen al-Najjir, a former University of South Florida professor, in 1977 on charges of overstaying his visa and having ties to terrorist organisations. Al-Najjir was released in December 2000, only to be arrested again in November 2001 and then deported in August 2002. IPPA officials said none of the political parties have taken the Muslim American community seriously. "When it comes to Muslim Americas, there is no balance in American politics," Hough said. "Look at that first presidential debate between Kerry and Hough. They both talked about the War on Terrorism and Iraq being about ensuring Israel's security."
Continued on Page 49
#1
A religious party? Run for the POTUS? You want open revolution? Go right ahead, really...please do.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/12/2004 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#2
We will work with a non-Muslim group so long as they agree with our principles. ..and if we disagree you'll just saw our heads off, right?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
10/12/2004 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"We will work with a non-Muslim group so long as they agree with our principles. ..and if we disagree you'll just saw our heads off, right?"
Our principles INCLUDE sawing your heads off.
"I searched for an authentic Christian Bible that had not been altered or tampered with, but couldnât find one," Hough recalled.
Mr. Hough, do you often worry that common household items have been "tampered with", or "adulterated"? Do you find personal messages in the morning paper? Have "they" been leaving cryptic clues in the evening broadcasts on CNN?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
10/12/2004 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
A top Iranian dissident living in Paris says up to 800 clerics and theology students from Iran are in the process of infiltrating cities in neighboring Iraq in time for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins Friday. Ayatollah Jalal Ganje'i, a prominent critic of the Iranian regime, said in an interview with The Washington Times that the influx is part of continuing efforts by Tehran's power brokers to exploit the crisis in Iraq in order to set up a sister fundamentalist Islamic republic. The religious leaders, dispatched by the Islamic Propaganda Organization, plan to use the holy month to propagate militant Islamic views, he said, with the goal of strengthening Iraqi political groups whose philosophy and aims coincide with those of Iran's theocratic regime.
The cleric said the religious leaders will take their message into Kut, Nasariyah, Amarra, Najaf, Basra and Baghdad, joining a massive network of other Iranian agents already in Iraq, many in armed underground cells. "I expect the violence to increase, and this will also set the stage for further meddling in upcoming Iraqi elections," said Ayatollah Ganje'i, who is affiliated with the National Council of Resistance, a State Department-designated terrorist group. Also known as the People's Mujahideen Organization of Iran, the group was the first to reveal details of Iran's nuclear activities. "Iran is hoping to use the January elections to bring its own Islamic fundamentalists to power," the cleric said. He did not specify which leaders Tehran was working with in Iraq.
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York last week, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld similarly said there has been "a lot of meddling" by Iranians in Iraq. "They clearly want to affect the outcome of the election, and they are aggressively trying to do that," he said. "They're sending money in, they're sending weapons in, and they're notably unhelpful." Mr. Rumsfeld said millions of refugees and pilgrims regularly travel between the porous border separating Iran and Iraq, adding, "There's no way we could stop the flow of these pilgrims." An official at the Iranian Interests Section in Washington referred a request for comment to a telephone number in New York, which was out of service.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/12/2004 3:24:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Anyone with half a brain knows that this sort of shenanigans is right up the Mullahs' alley - taking advantage of our sometimes perilous tendency for being fair and nice (undeservedly, I might add) in order to undermine our efforts. The question is, what is going to be done about this?
#2
Well, they don't generally call me before starting operations, but it occurs to me that the swarms of pilgrims go both directions. Problem=Opportunity?
Posted by: James ||
10/12/2004 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
A new movie supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq makes the case that a weapon of mass destruction was indeed found during the war — and he's sitting in prison awaiting trial on war crimes charges. "WMD — The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein" is intended to remind Americans that Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of 1.3 million of his own people during his brutal 30 years of rule.
The documentary, set for theatrical release this week, is the first for Brad Maaske, a California businessman troubled by works like Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the efforts of some uninformed Hollywood filmmakers. In fact, in "WMD" Michael Moore gets the ambush interview treatment he often reserves for others. The filmmakers staked out his New York residence for days until he came out to meet the camera. But the hard edge of "WMD" are eyewitness accounts and never-before-seen footage of chemical attacks, murders and torture leveled agains the Kurdish population of Iraq dating from Saddam Hussein's rise to power and spanning more than two decades.
Pivotal to Maaske's decision to develop "WMD" was his meeting with Jano Rosebiani, an award-winning Kurdish movie director who had documented the atrocities in his film "Mass Graves." Rosebiani had lost family members during "Anfal," Hussein's carefully orchestrated campaign of genocide targeting Kurds in northern Iraq from 1986 to 1988. "When I saw Jano Rosebiani's film, it broke my heart," Maaske said. "I knew this was a story that had to be told, but until now, no one had stepped up to the plate to tell it."
Continued on Page 49
San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis was speaking to 7,000 Bay Area Muslims last year at the end of Ramadan, Islam's holy month of fasting, when he suddenly realized that they had gone hungry when he had not. And they were celebrating an experience he did not know. ``It just dawned on me,'' he recalled. ``If I am truly going to understand the nuances of this religion, I should join them in this fast.'' So this week, Davis will join the world's nearly 1 billion Muslims in forgoing food and drink from sunrise to sunset in the monthlong observance of Ramadan. Leaders in law enforcement and the Muslim community say they have never heard of a police chief fasting for the entire month. Last year in the United Kingdom, the highest ranking police officer at New Scotland Yard fasted for one day.
Davis' decision carries enormous weight with Muslims, who remain worried about racial profiling, continued backlash from the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and, most recently in San Jose, the fatal police shooting of a Bosnian Muslim outside a coffee shop. ``It is a remarkable gesture,'' said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, an advocacy group in Washington, D.C. ``The fact that a major law enforcement figure in the country is making this gesture will help bridge some of the gaps in this country.'' During Ramadan, Davis plans to break the fast nightly with a different Muslim family, and will extend an invitation to eat at his home. The police chief, who is a Mormon, said his decision to observe Ramadan is not motivated by politics or publicity but by a desire to ``truly understand.'' Davis made the commitment when he was the deputy police chief and now, as the chief, he believes fasting can help him connect with a community that is growing in the South Bay. ``Everyone needs to know that the chief is the chief for everybody -- not just the majority, not just for those in power,'' Davis, 47, said. ``I need to be a chief for everybody, particularly for those who've felt marginalized.''
Continued on Page 49
#5
"It just dawned on me," he recalled. "If I am truly going to understand the nuances of this religion, I should join them in this fast.
Why not join them in a beheading instead? You'll learn more nuances that way.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/12/2004 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#6
San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis :
"It just dawned on me,if I am truly going to understand the nuances of this religion, I should join them in this fast."
EVERYONE : Remind me not to try to call 9-1-1 if I am ever in San Jose and there is an emergency...
#7
This is the kind of thing that "enlightened" people end up doing when they consider religion to be some cute little pageant that these funny little people engage in. It's not even dhimmitude; he just thinks he's being nice to some poor dumb slobs who don't realize they're sheeple.
Posted by: A. Bungfodder ||
10/12/2004 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#10
You know. It's commentary like this that makes me slide a little more towards the "Americans are a decadent, racist, immoral, monstrosity" side of the argument every single day.
And I'm a f**king Canadian. I used to like you folk. Now you're all acting like savage hayseeds, drunk on human blood.
#17
Were there US officials "observing" German National celebrations in outreach to Nazis during WW II?
Still, that gives me an idea: seek to undermine the meaning of Ramadan by turning it over to Disney, street parades, and food festivals. It is time for us to use any weapon available to attack and undermine the Moslem habits and beliefs.
#22
By gawd BH you've inspired me. Not tonight of course, but this weekend a fresh pork shoulder! Into the the black burka BBQ. I figure about 18 hours of fun.
#24
hey Hupereger Ebbigum6422 - i actually never liked canadians! totally dependant on the US and too ignorant to admit your on failings!
Posted by: Dan ||
10/12/2004 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Guys, I kinda thought the chief's view on the isssue showed his superiority. And all here showed that to be so, no Moose-limbs will attempt his offering in kind.
H.E. it's easy to be superior when you're nation exists because of U.S. (you reap the benefits without the expense). Put your ass on the line some...
Nobody's interested in your sex life, asshole. Keep it to yourself.
You're disgusting.
Right back atcha, jerk.
Are you sure you posted to the right thread? Your reaction to this one is WAY over the top.
However, I won't hold your idiocy against all Canadians. Most of them are pretty good people. We have our leftist, liberal, touchy-feely assholes too.
Go play in traffic, loser.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/12/2004 19:48 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Has anybody heard if the San Andres fault has shown sign of becoming active again? I am sorry and I apologize if there are rantburgers from California here but I do not think it is possible to save the state. The best thing it could hapenned to it is to become detached from the mainland and to forever float on the cold waters of the Pacific Ocean.
#30
the dumb fuck--he's going to grow payas,get himself circumsized and drink manichewitz wine for passover--does he try to hump the female deputies to empathize with rapists
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
10/13/2004 0:05 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Did someone tell him that you shouldn't have sex during Ramadan?
Severely EFL. Hat tip: Instapundit
It was a regrettably typical comment from an American reporter in this part of the world. "At least it's news," he said of the Afghan election scuffle over the weekend. "Otherwise, this is just a success story." [Emphasis added.]
God forbid it be a success story. Yeah, the leftist media hate that. Unless it's the "success" of fascists and communists destroying lives.
But that's what it was here, no matter how hard the international media tried to spin it. And brother, did they try. If we could hook a dynamo to the worldwide media's spin, we could get rid of oil.
There were no car bombs raining body parts all over the polling stations. There were no last-minute assassinations. There were no drive-by shootings. And the media and the Left (but I repeat myself) HATED that.
The best they could come up with for "news" was grumbling from hopelessly trailing opposition candidates about washable ink and threats of a boycott. The media's disappointment was palpable. To their eternal shame. If they had any.
Much more at the link; the author lived in Afghanistan in the early 1970's, before the Soviets destroyed it. We've given Afghans the opportunity to make their country bloom again. No thanks to the "I want you to have pain so I can feel it" LEFT.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/12/2004 11:06:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fred - I forgot to change the default category before posting. If it matters, can you move this to the correct category? Or not.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/12/2004 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
So the material that, according to all who opposed the war, Saddam never had is disappearing?
Equipment and materials that could be used to make nuclear weapons are disappearing from Iraq (news - web sites) but neither Baghdad nor Washington appears to have noticed, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency reported on Monday. Satellite imagery shows that entire buildings in Iraq have been dismantled. They once housed high-precision equipment that could help a government or terror group make nuclear bombs, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report to the U.N. Security Council. Equipment and materials helpful in making bombs also have been removed from open storage areas in Iraq and disappeared without a trace, according to the satellite pictures, IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said.
Posted by: Anonymous4724 ||
10/12/2004 12:41:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"So the material that, according to all who opposed the war, Saddam never had is disappearing?"
For el cubo, there is no contradiction. One second, there is this "No WMD--illegal war, Bush Lied, people died" and the next second "Bushitler did not secure WMD material!".
Must be corpus calosum missing. Or some unknown affliction that causes extemely fast MPD switch oscillations.
#4
Listening to BBC, I was highly amused by the following train of "thought" apparent in interviewer and interviewees:
- Iraq was "proven" by the Duelfer report to not have WMD programs
- nevertheless, we need to be alarmed that Iraq is missing materials related to these WMD programs
- and, the US itself is one of the prime suspects in the disappearance of these scary materials from a program that never existed
Posted by: Carl in N.H. ||
10/12/2004 12:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
To be perfectly honest, I believe the US is behind the stuff "disappearing". They are most likely making sure it goes away and most likely told someone in the IAEA and the memo was "misplaced" and now the UN is crying about the Evil Americans and their "lack" of control over the stuff.
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.
Muslim leaders are launching a new drive to teach British schoolchildren about the true meaning of Islam. The initiative, backed by the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, will see books on Islam going into schools nationwide. Organisers hope it will help overcome barriers to how non-Muslims understand the faith. And Mr Clarke said the project would help strengthen a multi-faith, multi-cultural society. The "Books for Schools" resource packs include books, videos and CDs. It aims to inform debate among both teachers and pupils and is designed to fit into Key Stages 1 and 2 of religious education - primary schooling. Most of the pack focuses on group work where pupils use the materials to learn more about the key pillars of Islam and the tenets of Muslim life. 
...It found Muslims had the highest rate of unemployment, the poorest health, the most disability and fewest educational qualifications. In most respects Muslim women fared worse than Muslim men. Compared with people from other religious groups, Muslims lived in the biggest households and were the least likely to own their own homes. They were five times more likely to marry by the age of 24 than the British average. 
