#5
My main problem over this is what to boycott... I mean, I avoid DePalmas' movies and you couldn't pay me enough to be a fan of pro basketball... it will absolutely bomb in flyover country anyway, but DePalma will probably console himself with the congrats of his Hollywierd pals and a lot of money from overseas releases...
Hey, maybe I can boycott anyone who sponsers any of the TV shows that he'll do the rounds of, in publicising this rancid bit of propaganda.
(Except that I don't watch any of those shows anyway...)
All of the major Democratic candidates for president abruptly agreed Saturday to boycott Florida's primary because it is scheduled on Jan. 29, too early according to national party rules.
Top-tier candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama on Saturday joined a boycott that began Friday among the lesser-known candidates, who probably couldn't have afforded to campaign in the Sunshine State anyway. . . .
The candidates will continue to raise money in Florida, and they will attend next week's Univision debate in Miami. But the bottom line is Florida stands to be irrelevant in the presidential primary.
Florida Democrats already were being pressed by the DNC not to count the votes from Jan. 29 and instead award the state's delegates to candidates later, based upon some still-undecided method such as party caucuses around the state. . . .
The pledge bars the candidates from campaigning for votes in Florida, but not trolling for campaign dollars. Florida has a deep pool of Democratic donors, and the campaigns are not sacrificing there.
It's unclear how the fundraising will work now. Some of the candidates, particularly Obama and Edwards, have made a hallmark of hosting fundraisers that charge as little as $15 per person, making them more like campaign rallies than true fundraisers.
It also is an open question just how receptive donors will be given the boycott. One top Democratic fundraiser, trial lawyer Wayne Hogan of Jacksonville, already was so angry about Florida losing its delegates that he called Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean last week to cancel a DNC fundraiser.
"Any candidate that boycotts Florida and thinks that they will raise money here will be sadly disappointed," said state Senate Democratic leader Steve Geller. "And it is my prediction that any candidate who boycotts Florida and thinks Florida will welcome them later will be sorely disappointed." . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
09/04/2007 06:06 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
So we know where the Donks stand on the United STATES of America. A myth employed for the acquisition and implementation of power, at any cost.
Yes, there is inefficiency and complications in a compact composed of a group. It trade off is a better guarantee's one of liberty as a free citizen and not a mere subject of the state.
Just a reminder to the DNC, it is the state's authority to appoint or select the slate of their state's Electoral College members. You know, the group from each state that meets after the general election to cast the constitutional votes for the office of the President. It would have been really interesting if you pulled this power crap in 2000 with Florida in the balance. He who does not learn from history....
I think the election campaigns have gotten waaaaaay to long and drawn-out. In My dreams, I'd like to see primaries start in, say, May, and be over with in July, then the convention in August.
And no campaigning or debates in the previous year, please.
Second, there's no rule that a political party has to choose its candidate taking into account evey state, or that it has to be done through open elections. I think 1956 was the first time in which a candidate tried to get nominated through the primaries.
Posted by: Gary and the Samoyeds ||
09/04/2007 8:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Gary, most of their major candidates have been campaigning for a year (or maybe more) before the date of the first primary. I don't like the stretched out season but the DNC itself and the candidates (and the media) have done a lot more to stretch out the season than Florida has.
Florida's primary is still five months away and the candidates have been flooding the airways for months before today. It's time to blame someone else for that.
#6
May I point out that this is fundamentally something that has been around from the original debates about the Constitution. That is big states versus little states. New Hampshire and Iowa positioned themselves in a manner to have an influence far greater than their population or electoral power would normally justify. The bigger states with far greater number of popular and electoral votes have basically had enough of having 'fringe' elements in each area decide who they're going to get vote on 4 or 6 months later. Notice how many of the players who've called for the Electoral College to move into history and replaced with a popular vote after 2000, are now undermining the fundamental purpose of a popular vote by granting little states big influence. Instead of working that key issue out, both parties by default are allowing the states to exert their own power. The original players are holding tight to their position for no better reason than 'seniority' because it means power and money. Instead of addressing the fundamental issue, watch the pols crap it up even more with positioning and posturing. We'll see if this is chemotherapy or a lethal injection.
#7
Simple party rule BOTH major parties should put in place:
Delegates selected prior to a date exactly 6 months prior to the national convention will neither be seated nor recognized nor allowed to participate at the national nominating convention.
#8
I'm not keen on long campaigns either, but it does allow for accusations to be made and either rebutted or proved true. Had the campaign season been under six months, the honourable Senator John Kerry never could have been Swiftboated, the true tale of his CIA cap never would have come out, and quite possibly he'd be sitting in the White House right now.
And truly, had the campaign season been shorter than the current 3 1/2 years, the honourable first term-Senator Barack Obama's beautiful teeth would not have been revealed as his strongest quality.
#9
I'm with TW: if we're going to elevate relatively obscure people into contention for the presidency, let's have enough time to vet them properly.
As to the Florida primary, I really don't care what the Dhimmis do. It's their convention, their primaries and their party. The parties have a right to set their rules so long as they don't violate the Constitution (e.g., can't exclude minorities from the primaries as the Democrats used to do). Whether they have primaries, caucuses or just pick a name from a hat in a smoke-filled room, it's their choice.
They then have to sell that choice to me on Election Day. Heh.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/04/2007 15:23 Comments ||
Top||
RTWT, if only for the reminder about durban I (where, incidentally china played the third world's & muslims' resentment against the West to the hilt, btw).
Posted by: anonymous5089 ||
09/04/2007 11:12 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
Long, you might want to read the entire article This Bush visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
President Bushs Labor Day visit to Iraq should have surprised no one who was paying attention. At such a critical point in the debate over Iraq policy, it was almost inconceivable that he would fly to and from Australia without stopping in Iraq. What was surprising was the precise location and nature of the visit. Instead of flying into Baghdad and surrounding himself with his generals and the Iraqi government, Bush flew to al Asad airfield, west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar Province.
He brought with him his secretaries of State and Defense, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the commander of U.S. Central Command. He was met at al Asad by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, as well as Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kemal al Maliki, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, and Vice Presidents Adel Abdul Mehdi and Tariq al Hashemi.
In other words, Bush called together all of the leading political and military figures in his administration and the Iraqi government in the heart of Anbar Province. If ever there was a sign that we have turned a corner in the fight against both al Qaeda in Iraq and the Sunni insurgency, this was it.
---------------------------------- He continues to discuss:
Anbars Uniqueness
Anbar and the Surge
Anbar and National Reconciliation
Anbar and Shia Mistrust
Anbar and My Enemys Enemy
Anbar and the Danger of Civil War
and then ends with:
BACK TO WASHINGTON
Much depends on what America does. Progress in Anbar and throughout the Sunni community has depended heavily on a skillful balance between military force and political efforts at the local level. Neither alone would have been successful, as commanders on the ground readily attest.
Stripping the U.S. effort of the forces needed to continue this strategy, as some in Washington and elsewhere are demanding, will most likely destroy the progress already made and lay the groundwork for collapse in Iraq and the destabilization of the region.
President Bush clearly understands this fact, as his choice of venue in Iraq demonstrates. We should all understand the significance of the presidents presence in Anbar. With a little good fortune and the continued pursuit of a successful strategy, this visit could well mark a key turning point in the war in Iraq and the war on terror.
#3
And the Brits tiptoeing out of Basra would be like which civil war battle?
Not sure. But I would let it play for a bit. Chances are that buncha IRGs will get whacked in the process and as well when the resulting mess is ultimately for a broom sweep.
#4
Channel surfing yesterday between the golf and the tennis, four news shows in a row had talking heads saying positive things about Anbar/POTUS visit/ the war in general.
In the 17th century, when some Iranian mullahs were trying to limit freedom of expression, Mulla Sadra, the great mystical philosopher of Isfahan, insisted that all Muslims were perfectly capable of thinking for themselves and that any religiosity based on intellectual repression and inquisitorial coercion was "polluted". Mulla Sadra exerted a profound influence on generations of Iranians, but it is ironic that his most famous disciple was probably Ayatollah Khomeini, author of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.
This type of contradiction is becoming increasingly frequent in our polarised world, as I discovered last month, when I arrived in Kuala Lumpur to find that the Malaysian government had banned three of my books as "incompatible with peace and social harmony". This was surprising because the government had invited me to Malaysia, and sponsored two of my public lectures. Their position was absurd, because it is impossible to exert this type of censorship in the electronic age. In fact, my books seemed so popular in Malaysia that I found myself wondering if the veto was part of a Machiavellian plot to entice the public to read them.
Old habits die hard. In a pre-modern economy, insufficient resources meant freedom of speech was a luxury few governments could afford, since any project that required too much capital outlay was usually shelved. To encourage a critical habit of mind that habitually called existing institutions into question in the hope of reform could lead to a frustration that jeopardised social order. It is only 50 years since Malaysia achieved independence and, although the public and press campaign vigorously against censorship, in other circles the old caution is alive and well.
In the west, however, liberty of expression proved essential to the economy; it has become a sacred value in our secular world, regarded as so precious and crucial to our identity that it is non-negotiable. Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.
It has also, as we have been reminded recently, become a rallying cry in the escalating tension between the Islamic world and the west. Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses, and last week four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech. Gallup conducted a poll in 10 Muslim countries (including Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) and found that the vast majority of respondents admired western "liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other". They were particularly enthusiastic about our unrestricted press, liberty of worship and freedom of assembly. The only western achievement that they respected more than our political liberty was our modern technology.
Then why the book burnings and fatwas? In the past Islamic governments were as prone to intellectual coercion as any pre-modern rulers, but when Muslims were powerful and felt confident they were able to take criticism in their stride. But media and literary assaults have become more problematic at a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world, and to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq.
On both sides, however, there are double standards and the kind of contradiction evident in Khomeini's violation of the essential principles of his mentor, Mulla Sadra. For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.
But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others. Islamophobia should be as unacceptable as any other form of prejudice. When 255,000 members of the so-called "Christian community" signed a petition to prevent the building of a large mosque in Abbey Mills, east London, they sent a grim message to the Muslim world: western freedom of worship did not, apparently, apply to Islam. There were similar protests by some in the Jewish community, who, as Seth Freedman pointed out in his Commentisfree piece, should be the first to protest against discrimination.
Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion. When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs. Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
Karen Armstrong is the author of The Battle For God: A History of Fundamentalism
Posted by: john frum ||
09/04/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#3
An inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values
'Tolerance' is a two-way street, Karen. Only an 'intellectual' such as yourself could twist that into a 'contradiction.'
...the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others.
Only in your universe, Karen. In mine, it implies that if I disagree with this cartload of dung, I can say so loudly & freely, and with utmost disrespect.
#5
Armstrong is a low grade panderer. Her books are listed on Muslim reading lists. She makes money off dhimmi service. Her screed about Muslim tolerance and mutual respect is deceitful to the highest degree.
Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought, which has come to symbolise the inviolable sanctity of the individual. But culture is always contested, and precisely because it is so central to modernity, free speech is embroiled in the bumpy process whereby groups at different stages of modernisation learn to accommodate one another.
There are certain things that Western free people do not accommodate. Among them are counted terrorism, theocracy, unequal civil rights, Abject Gender Apartheid, Female Genital Mutilation, public beheading and amputation plus a host of other barbaric practices common to almost all Muslim majority countries. Any desire by Islam to retain even a single one of these specifically noted practices disqualifies it from participation on the worldly stage. There is no accommodation to be had with such savagery.
None of this makes note of how the author promotes Islam, even though she admits that: "Modern society could not function without independent and innovative thought". This is moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
Muslim protests against Rushdie's knighthood have recalled the painful controversy of The Satanic Verses
Painful only if you have and your collective creed have an eggshell ego.
four British Muslims were sentenced to a total of 22 years in prison for inciting hatred while demonstrating against the Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad.
Not just demonstrating but calling for the murder of anyone who blasphemes Islam. Like this chap:
It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech.
No it would not. It would be the prudent and logical assumption to make from all evidence to date.
"liberty and freedom and being open-minded with each other"
This amounts to a one lane one-way street in Islams favor and no other.
a time of extreme political vulnerability in the Islamic world
Islamscompletely self-inflictedpolitical vulnerability is a strict byproduct of its amoral and corrupt nature.
to an alienated minority they seem inseparable from Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the unfolding tragedy of Iraq
Again, all self-inflicted. If Muslims could just keep their snotty noses out of our life, liberty and pursuit of happiness they might not die so often.
For Muslims to protest against the Danish cartoonists' depiction of the prophet as a terrorist, while carrying placards that threatened another 7/7 atrocity on London, represented a nihilistic failure of integrity.
Noticed that did you? What do you propose to do about it?
only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities. But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion
There we go with the usual veiled threat. Indicating an inclination to increased violence is a direct and open threat to society. It is precisely this inclination to especially senseless violence that drives public opinion to favor the destruction of Islam. Youd better execute those extremists damn quick before they get all of you killed, because they will.
And now for the whopper:
Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam, placing this ahead of economic aid and non-interference in their domestic affairs.
There is no greater respect shown for terrorism, theocracy, unequal civil rights, Abject Gender Apartheid, Female Genital Mutilation or public beheadings and amputations. Strike this from your list now because youll not get it from any free people.
Our inability to tolerate Islam not only contradicts our western values; it could also become a major security risk.
Toleration of Islam in any form is what represents a major security risk. There is absolutely no contradiction of western values in making war upon terrorism, genocide, crimes against humanity and the massive violation of human rights in general known as Islam.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness
#11
...author of three television documentaries and took part in Bill Moyerss television series Genesis...
Basicly, an epeleptic atheist ex-Catholic who compares Mo as the Ghandi of his time.
#12
Where do we begin. Karen is a former nun. Her previous writings are concerned with religious fundamentalism, which this article shows clearly that she doesn't grasp. The is more multiculti horse$hit. Hers will be one of the first throats to be slit when Muslims take over.
Islam contains within itself the seeds of violence and extremism. Even the Turks state there is no moderste Islam. But the West is slowly being convinced that Islam is the violent, intolerant, supremacist cult that we see, not the Religion of Peace that they want us to believe it is. Taqqiya: "Go back to sleep. Everything will be fine."
Posted by: ed ||
09/04/2007 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Can we agree there are some things that cannot be tolerated in a just society?
If not, then you are an idiot. If so, then you've just found one of those intolerable things.
Liberals have deemed being discriminatory and intolerant as the greatest of sins, to the point of discarding good and evil in favor of their ideals of pacifistic inactivity in the face of horrors that Islamists would impose.
I am a conservative: right and wrong do exist. Good and evil do exist. Evil must not be tolerated, it must be opposed, for failing to do so allows it to succeed.
Indeed demanding right and opposing evil is a virtue, even if it offends, even if you discriminate against the evil doers (which you inevitably must if you mean to fight them). It is evil's nature to take offense at anything and everything without cause.
#17
The Koran negates equality. Muhammed concocted it so that he could take power, colored with fake religiosity. Only the supposedly pious may rule a Muslim, but the criterion of piety is always set by the current ruler. Some Muslims are more equal than others.
Posted by: Albert Snurt4028 ||
09/04/2007 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#18
The West's inability to tolerate racists contradicts Western Values.
The West's inability to tolerate facists contradicts Western Values. Nope, doesn't work. The West has no requirement to tolerate the intolerant. Strawman. Strawman.
#19
"But equally the cartoonists and their publishers, who seemed impervious to Muslim sensibilities, failed to live up to their own liberal values, since the principle of free speech implies respect for the opinions of others."
Karen Armstrong is either profoundly confused by the concept of "freedom", or she is profoundly dishonest. She seems to think that having "respect" for the opinions of others means I should let them have their say, then refrain from commenting if I disagree or disapprove.
Two words, Karen: up yours.
"Gallup found there was as yet no blind hatred of the west in Muslim countries; only 8% of respondents condoned the 9/11 atrocities."
Jeez, what a relief: "only" 8%? That means that there are only about 100,000,000 million Muslims in the world who are our sworn enemies unto death. Terrific.
"But this could change if the extremists persuade the young that the west is bent on the destruction of their religion."
Bite me.
"When Gallup asked what the west could do to improve relations, most Muslims replied unhesitatingly that western countries must show greater respect for Islam..."
Bite me on the other side.
One of the sobering revelations I've had as a result of all that has come to pass since 9/11 is that Islam deserves FAR less respect than I had been giving it before; and that didn't amount to much, at least not since November 4th, 1979.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/04/2007 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#20
The unwillingness of Saudi Arabia to allow for churches, synagogues and temples to be built in their country is a far greater contradiction of Western values.
In any case, Islam is the only religion whose adherents are exhorted to murder. We have no responsibility to cooperate in the slitting of our collective throats by tolerating it.
Usual hand-wringing about the need for China to 'get tough' with one of its allies. Uh-huh, sure they will.
As Burma's erstwhile ally, China needs international pressure to end the military's harsh rule.
China and the US are budding partners in Asia aside from their usual rivalry after they forced North Korea to partially relent on its nuclear ambitions. Now they should work jointly on another repressive regime, Burma's junta, and free the world's most famous political prisoner, Aung San Suu Kyi.
This weekend, President Bush plans to press the US case for political freedom in Burma with his Chinese counterpart, Hu Jintao, at the annual summit of Asian-Pacific nations in Australia. He's not alone in this effort. First lady Laura Bush, who rarely speaks out on world issues, called the UN secretary-general last month to ask that he not remain silent about Burma's recent crackdown on dissidents and that he push for Security Council action.
The time is ripe for change in this Southeast Asian country, despite 45 years of military rule. On Aug. 19, the regime was forced by its bumbling policies to raise prices on fuel by up to 500 percent. For a people already racked by poverty and inflation, the higher prices slice deep. The political damage was particularly acute because Burma (also known as Myanmar) exports natural gas to Thailand.
And despite the government's harsh repression, a number of protests against the fuel hikes were held in big cities, with dozens of arrests adding to the more than 1,000 political dissidents already in jail.
History has a lesson here.
In 1988, a similar economic jolt led to protests that forced the military to hold an election. After Ms. Suu Kyi's party won, however, the election was annulled. Since then, this daughter of modern Burma's founder, who was awarded the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize, has spent most of the time under house arrest. The regime has since tried to appease foreign critics by drafting principles for elected government. But the long process is largely seen as a sham to keep military rule.
Meanwhile, conditions in Burma have become so bad that the International Committee of the Red Thingy Cross criticized the regime for "immense suffering for thousands of people," breaking its usual silence about the governments it works with.
Last January, the US was able to force a UN Security Council vote on a resolution that cited Burma's threat to regional security. But Russia and China vetoed it, a sign of big-power rivalry over this nation of 52 million people. Along with India, Russia and China have a rising stake in Burma's resources and ports. China, however, is Burma's erstwhile big ally, and deserves the most international pressure to show leadership by forcing the generals to relinquish power.
China did act and set up talks between the US and Burmese officials in June, but little came of it. By contrast, the China-hosted US talks with North Korea eventually did produce results but only because the US is a major player on the Korean peninsula. China, however, is the dominant foreign force in Burma and is seeking global respectability. With more than a million Chinese entrepreneurs in Burma and with hopes of using Burmese ports for easier shipping, Beijing can't afford instability in its southern neighbor.
The road to Burmese freedom won't be easy. But both China and the US have a stake in at least ending the military's grip on one of the world's poorest countries.
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/04/2007 21:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Good job!
Walid Phares
From The Cedars Revolution News Service
Monday, 03 September 2007. Mideast Newswire
Today, the Lebanese Army completed its victory over the Fatah al Islam forces in the Nahr al Bared stronghold in Northern Lebanon. The "little brave force," backed by the country's civil society and by the Cedars Revolution accomplished in one small area what major armies are hoping to achieve globally: defeat al Qaeda.
On this Sunday September 2, the Lebanese soldiers and officers finally took the last bunker of the al Qaeda linked Jihadi terror group. Immediately after, the civilian populations in Northern Lebanon, from Sunni Tripoli and Dennieh, Maronite Zghortan and Besharre, Orthodox Kura, and multiethnic Akkar, expressed their joy to see the Jihadist removed. The local victory of the Lebanese Army -despite the threat of multiple identical groups in the country preparing for clashes- shows that, what I called a "brave little force," can confront and defeat Terrorists when the Government is focused on such a policy.
The Lebanese Army is ill equipped, is emerging from 15 years of Syrian occupation and is under the pressure of pro-Jihadist Parties and politicians including Hezbollah and its allies. But nevertheless, the multiethnic military force produced a victory on the ground.
It faced off with well trained Jihadists who used suicide bombers, snipers, slaughter of innocents, and all the panoply of weapons they have. But, as the pictures have shown over the past few months, the Lebanese military were fighting on their soil, and had their population supporting them.
Bottom line: they won this one battle, by themselves with their own arms, tanks, helicopters and more than a hundred casualties. This was their Fallujah which they freed alone.
But as important is the support received by the military from the various Lebanese communities. This second test since the Cedars Revolution shows that a cross sectarian solidarity exist against the barbary of the Jihadi terrorists. Among the army's casualties, Sunnis, Christians, Druse and Shia. Tripoli, mostly Sunni with Christian and Alawi communities stood firmly by the Lebanese Army. In the rest of the area, civilians from all religions also supported their soldiers.
This attitude sent chilling messages to Hezbollah and his Syro-Iranian allies: When you are confronting an army backed by its people, you have little chance of intimidating it. Also a message to many in the international media who -sympathetic to Iran and Syria- projected the masses to turn against the Army. Dead wrong: Not only the Lebanese civilians stood by their armed forces and Government, but a majority of Palestinians in the camps sided with Mahmoud Abbas against the Jihadists of Fatah al Islam.
This is an experiment that deserves the attention of the Free World, as Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia and Palestine are witnessing the Terror war against surging democracies. The soldiers close to their societies can win in the War on Terror.
#1
Perhaps a better title would be "A Brave Little Force Defeats A Cowardly Little Force". There aren't may AQ types, it's just that they are more than happy to behave savagely.
#3
The Lebanese Army is ill equipped, is emerging from 15 years of Syrian occupation and is under the pressure of pro-Jihadist Parties and politicians including Hezbollah and its allies.
Walid left out the neighbor to the south. They have a valid reason for the Lebanese army staying weak, but it's ironic that all the players in the region agreed on something.
#1
Might watn to draw attention to the wage disparity - those are aggregate, which include job choices. Men going into engineering vs women going into teaching = salary disparity. WOmen engineers and men engineers get paid pretty much the same given same career paths i.e. women who take a few years out for the "Mommy track" do fall behind, as would men were they to do the same.
Also on your terrorist deathwatch site, the graph at the top says 06 on the horizontal axis - shouldn't that be 07?
#6
Nicely written, Chuck. For the information-deprived, it no doubt went down like a pitcher of ice water in the desert. May this be the first of many remunerative triumphs.
#13
"I hate getting my news from the People's Daily."
Hot damn, Chuck! That's gonna leave a mark. ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/04/2007 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Concise and to the point. Editors love that. Are you interested in Opium eradication in Afghanistan?
You might want to comment on this recent UN report:
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/research/AFG07_ExSum_web.pdf
(cut and paste, because Firefox won't link)
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.
It would, however, be a mistake to imagine that Muslims are irretrievably opposed to free speech.
